the following is almost certain proof that the components of at least DNA formed almost at once.
The standard genetic code, which is a mapping of 64 codons to 20 standard amino acids and the
translation stop signal, is shared, with minor modifications only, by all life forms on earth (Woese,
Hinegardner et al. 1964; Woese 1967; Ycas 1969; Osawa 1995). The apparent universality of
the code implies that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all extant life forms should
have already possessed, together with a complex translation machinery, the same genetic code as
contemporary organisms. One of the central principles of Darwinian evolution is that complex
systems evolve from simple ancestors, typically if not always, via a succession of relatively small,
incremental steps each of which increases fitness or at least does not lead to a decrease in fitness
(Darwin 1859). In conformity with this continuity principle (Penny 2005; Wolf and Koonin
2007), it appears almost certain that the genetic code employed by the primordial translation
system was substantially simpler than the modern code, which then evolved incrementally. The
origin and evolution, if any, of the genetic code represent a major puzzle of modern biology;
numerous hypotheses have been formulated but to date no generally accepted consensus has
- Exceptional error minimization in putative primordial genetic codes
you just got to love that last sentence.
what say you, gradualists?
"The apparent universality of the code implies that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA)"
Incidentally, the term (LUCA) just another clever "begging the affirmative" epithet, This time subtly using an Acronym..
I believe that Creationists should ALWAYS use (UCA) and REJECT this Acronym (LUCA) for a very simple reason...
Because the word "Last" IMPLIES that there were OTHER "Universal Common Ancestors" before the "Last" one..
Don't fall for the little tricks fellow Creationists... AbioDarwinists are a TRICKY bunch indeed... Intellectual Fascists
"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict." (Dr. David Berlinsky)
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." (Dr. Ronald R. West)