the genetic code as proof of common ancestor

[alexpdys]

Part of the evidence for evolution and a shared common ancestor is the universality of the genetic code. However the genetic code cannot have evolved in one step, it must have evolved in multiple steps over a prolonged time course. Therefore during the course of it's evolution there would have presumably been multiple different "options" in terms of which triplet sequence codes for which amino acid. Therefore, presumably, there would have been multiple branching points in the course of it's evolution in which different genetic codes would have arisen. Of course, this wouldn't have taken place if there was a selective advantage to having one particular genetic code over another. However there is no reason to believe that this should be or would have been the case. Therefore how has life on earth been left with a universal genetic code?

[Cat]

Good point. Like I was arguing in one of other posts, evolution (change over time) and creation (starting point) are separate independent events. Evolution is fact, while origin of anything is a mystery...

[alexpdys]

My post was not meant to imply creationism, if that's what you were implying.

It was as a genuine scientific question (I think at least, I'm new to this subject!)

[JackBean]

Probably, the genetic code "evolved" (or rather set up) before the cellular life started. If it was supposed to change afterwards, all of the affected amino acids would be changed! In some cases it might not matter, in some cases it may be even beneficial, but in most cases it would be probably deleterious.
However, obviously it's not impossible, since there are some exceptions

[Cat]

My post was not meant to imply creationism, if that's what you were implying.

It was as a genuine scientific question (I think at least, I'm new to this subject!)

I am not implying that. I am saying that most of time same evidence can be interpeted two ways. People have tendency to see "progress" over time as opposed to "change" over time as stated in the definition of evolution. I am not at all sure (in a scientific sense) that evolution can explain anything of how we came about. All evidence points toward gene loss over time. There is NO evidence of totally new genes appearing in the course of evolution. Form some bacterial experiments, it's evident that new phenotypes most often evolve due to loss of some repressor gene and not due to appearance of some new gene. So, in my opinion, our ancestors had to start with more complete genome... You can read more in my post Evolution or De-evolution? (about23010.html)

[jinx25]

Neodarwinian theory (misnomer as one can only theorize about how something works AFTER it has been observed)

A priori axiom- all life came about by mistakes from a fish 3.5 billion years ago. -Make a prediction based on a priori axiom AFTER an observation (that all living things have the same genetic code)-Observe same genetic code in all living things-Confirm prediction that all life came about by mistakes from a fish 3.5 billion years ago

See how i can fit ANY MYTH ON THE PLANET into that model?

It just depends on what ones a priori axiom is. One aspect of NDT is based largely on post-hoc myths and assigning one and one only cause to an effect, again AFTER the effect has been observed (and with the cause having NEVER been observed) like the example with the genetic code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-hoc_analysis

[JackBean]

It's proof that there is a common ancestor. It doesn't say what was the common ancestor. There are also other proofs.

[jinx25]

'Common ancestor' needs definition too. NDT depends on vague terminology to fool the lay public. Me and brother share a 'common ancestor'. NDT=fraudscience.

[JackBean]

Of course you share a common ancestor. You have some problem with that?
What's NDT?

[jinx25]

Neodarwinian theory. Again common ancestor is a vague term.