Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Oracle of DuBois-phi
Message-ID: <903@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 17:49:45 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.903
Posted: Tue Apr 16 17:49:45 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 04:25:02 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 68


You may be aware that the genetic code has now been found to be
non-universal...exceptions to what some of the codons code for have
been discovered in certain organisms (references at end).  In light of
this, I will venture to make a small prediction...

For several years now we have been told that the uniformity of the
genetic code among all organisms constitutes a verification of the
"grand prediction" (Eldredge's words) of evolutionary theory (though of
course that that is just grandstanding - it's a "prediction" after the
fact).

But now that variants on the coding scheme have been discovered, the
picture changes.  I predict that within a short time, after the initial
surprise wears off, we will witness descriptions of this fact in which
the discovery is hailed as a remarkable and striking confirmation of,
you guessed it...the evolutionary development of life on earth!  One
form which this assertion shall take is that since life began as a
result of non-directed processes, it is to be expected that the
development of life would follow more than one path, as "evidenced" by
the non-uniformity of the code.

We may deduce from this that the issue is not really "evidence" at all,
but simply that all events, whatever they may be, may be described in
terms of the evolution that is "known" to occur.  If the code is
uniform, it confirms the fact of evolution (as an explanation of the
underlying ancestry of all life).  If the code is not uniform, that too
confirms the fact of evolution (as an opportunistic process).

This is no condemnation, of course.  For it is also obvious that
creationists do the same thing most of the time.  All data are
interpreted in terms of the underlying framework supporting one's
assumptions.  But the scientists claim to be "liberated" from the
chains of dogma and certainty.

An irony of the situation is that creationists are asked "Well, if life
is designed, why didn't the creator design organisms in different
ways?  The genetic code shows the underlying unity of all life...which
we would not expect from a designer, who ought to take the needs of
each individual orgamism into account."  Now, of course this is bull,
because no one can tell (scientifically) what the designer will or will
not do.

If we should now find in fact that there if a veritable panoply of
genetic systems (or even small divergences), there will be a shift.
The creationist will be asked why the creator was so capricious,
because after all, one would expect the designer to be consistent!
Just watch.  I'll bet you that this will happen.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to predict what the
creationists will do with this information...

---

Francois Caron, Eric Mayer, "Does Paramecium primaurelia use a
different genetic code in its macronucleus?  Nature, 314(6007), 14
March 1985, 185-188.

J R Preer, Jr, L M Preer, B M Rudman, A J Barnett, "Deviation from the
universal code shown by the gene for surface protein 51A in Paramecium
Nature, 314(6007), 14 March 1985, 188-190.

"Breaking the Genetic Law", Time, 8 April, 1985, 68-69.
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
Science is Dead.                                                    |