New Repair Mechanism Has Been Discovered by Researchers

In 1869, Swiss physiological chemist Friedrich Miescher first identified what he called “nuclein” inside the nuclei of human white blood cells. This was later changed to, DNA. In 1953, the molecular structure of DNA was discovered by Watson and Francis Crick. Since then, one of the most amazing discoveries in genetic research has been the multitudes of protein machines that repair DNA.

Recently, a “fundamentally new” DNA repair mechanism was discovered by researchers at Vanderbilt University!  Science Daily describes it this way, “Tucked within its double-helix structure, DNA contains the chemical blueprint that guides all the processes that take place within the cell and are essential for life.  Therefore, repairing damage and maintaining the integrity of its DNA is one of the cell’s highest priorities.”

Can you imagine on a good day, your body experiences damage in one million bases in DNA?  Toxins, radiation, and  just normal chemical activity in the cell can lead to all kinds of problems. Untreated could lead to cancer and death but all is not lost!  A well designed scanning system which specializes on detecting problems within the DNA chain.

This newly discovered advanced mechanism found by the Vanderbilt team operates in bacteria. What it does is, it finds the lesion but unlike most known glycosylases, it flips out both the damaged base and the base it is paired with.  Why?  “This appears to work because the enzyme only operates on deformed bases that have picked up an excess positive charge, making these bases very unstable,” the article says.

What is so amazing about this particular repair mechanism, it’s able to attract other repair enzymes to the site which can speed up the repair process by 100 times!  Although, this enzyme is “considerably different from that of other known DNA-binding proteins or enzymes,” with some similarity to a family of “very large molecules that possess a small active site that plays a role in regulating the cells’ response to DNA damage.”

Thankfully, the article doesn’t try to come up with an evolutionary story which wouldn’t reveal any useful information. Learning how things work, is what enhances information. Students and adults alike need biology for the information age based on engineering concepts with highly advanced intelligence behind the design rather than clinging to neo-Darwinian ideas that could not build a computer let alone create new information that DNA stores and programs with such amazing repair mechanisms to keep the cells alive!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “New Repair Mechanism Has Been Discovered by Researchers

  1. Can you imagine on a good day, your body experiences damage in one million bases in DNA? Toxins, radiation, and just normal chemical activity in the cell can lead to all kinds of problems. Untreated could lead to cancer and death but all is not lost! A well designed scanning system which specializes on detecting problems with the DNA chain.

    Perhaps if Michael knew what he was talking about, he could be dangerous. But, after challenging YHOS’s qualifications to refute him, Michael has refused, for eight months now, to set out his own qualifications to discuss any field of science, or to advance any positive scientific basis for creationism.[1] This is typical creationism—to issue a challenge and then to sweep it under the lab mat when someone calls his bluff.

    This does give us an opportunity for a small test, however. Ahem. Michael is shocked and awed by one million DNA base pairs per day. So we must ask him: Michael, estimate the biological significance of damage to one million base pairs per day in your body. Show your work.

    For extra credit, estimate the probability that any of this damage, if unrepaired, would cause a deleterious mutation in your child.

    Go ahead. While the rest of us smirk.

    Don’t think, however, that the time you spend on this exercise will excuse you from writing (or plagiarizing) the promised review of Signature in the Cell. Or from providing readership numbers to Eelco.

    ================

    [1] After all, his blog is yclept “New Discoveries and Comments about Creationism.” Yet all we ever see is new discoveries and comments about evolution, and cosmology, and paleontology, and astronomy. All mainstream science. No positive evidence for special creation. No creation processes observed in the lab. No rabbits in a Precambrian fossil bed. No T. Rex with grass-munching molars from before the Fall. No crocoduck eggs. Nothing. οἶδα Nada Rien. Nichts. Wala. нечего . A’ole. Niets—niemendal niets.

  2. Although, this enzyme is “considerably different from that of other known DNA-binding proteins or enzymes,” with some similarity to a family of “very large molecules that possess a small active site that plays a role in regulating the cells’ response to DNA damage.”

    Thankfully, the article doesn’t try to come up with an evolutionary story which wouldn’t reveal any useful information.

    Mixchael apparently doesn’t even read what he writes himself. What would one suppose “a family” is, except an evolutionary family? Note that all these other enzymes also have the same unusual “small active site,” and they all perform the same broad function—DNA repair.

    To anyone else, this indicates – – – EVOLUTION! Only to Michael is it evidence that these enzymes were all created separately and independently. Does anyone still wonder why scientists laugh at creationists?

  3. Olorin,

    To anyone else, this indicates – – – EVOLUTION! Only to Michael is it evidence that these enzymes were all created separately and independently. Does anyone still wonder why scientists laugh at creationists?

    Funny thing about Creationists: They look at evidence for evolution and common decent and then they call it evidence for creationism. They love to do this with their “biblical kinds” argument… which i am planning a post mentioning this… IT is actually arguably that the “Biblical Kind” not only DOESN’T have a biological basis, but there is also arguably no Biblical basis as well.

    The “Kinds” argument only concedes that Evolution happens, but it is also to say “Some change is okay, but not too much.” At that, I would ask why not? —— To repeat the question that Kevin R. Henk asked, “If All Elephants and Other Proboscideans are “One Kind”,Why Can’t All Primates be “One Kind“?

  4. Kris, I think you’re right that “kinds” (baramin) is not a biblical basis for separate creation. To my untutored eye, it has always seemed that the biblical statement that everything reproduces after its own kind merely means that ducks beget baby ducks (and not crocoducks), E. coli beget only baby E. coli (and not Y. pestis), and so forth. In other words, it is a rhetorical flourish to denote continuity with the past. (In that sense, it could actually be cited as favoring evolution.)

    And, yes, many species embraced within the same biblical “kind” (baram) differ much more from each other than chimps differ from humans, so that, logically, humans and chimps should be the same “kind.” (Of course, we should not expect logic from cretinists.)

  5. Olorin,

    Here is the opinion of a “tutored eye” on the subject.

    Some have insisted that the phrase ‘after its kind’ is a complete refutation of the theory of evolution. It is not, however, all that clear what the Hebrew word ‘kind’ (min means, except as a general observation that God so made creatures that they reproduced in their own families. But if the Hebrew word is not understood, it is also true to say that the biological groupings are not at all finally decided. Let it be agreed that the Bible is asserting that, however life came into being, God lay behind the process, then the chapter neither affirms nor denies the theory of evolution, or any theory for that matter. (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, page 334)

    I.e., You are absolutely correct.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s