Parity checking in RNA/DNA

H donor/acceptor bases are violateed all the time. Ever hear of mutations??

Besides, there are actually 5 nucleotides , since RNA has a lock on URACYL

I can undesrtand your mission to add some credit to "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" but, you must know by now, Ultimately, nothing announced as vital links to your worldview (Floods, short eart time, Macro. micro, "implied design") have been debunked so many times that they havent yielded ANY information or predictions that actually WORK in the real world.

Youve a mighty mission in front of you and you appear mostly unarmed in facts and evidence.

Parity is a kind of a coarse sieve meant to catch a vast majority of transmission errors but clearly not all possible errors. Obviously an error which flips two bits will not be caught.

and why pray tell is this conclusive of ID?

In other words, you believe that even-parity bit checking is something which just happens for no reason??

biochitry does not necessarily follow rules of physics in that most biological reactions f=go against an energy gradient. Biosystems are the only ones where, when in the living state, the second law of thermo os nullified.

You arent explaining anything, you are engaging in bumpwer stickers and clips. What do YOU understand to be the "Screeching halt issue" And dont follow up with "parity" .

Are usuefull utations screened FOR an environment that is changing?
This is hardly compelling

Becuase of the isomeric structures of the purines and the pyrimidines, tautomer bonding is a special kind of covalent bonding that requires a moving over of two bonds, one a single and the other a doyuble. SO, in physical and organic chemistry tautomers are quite common bonding types (forms pthe plates in micas and other phyloosilicates; I forms the complex bonds in phosphate minerals and nuclear salts like gummite and uanophane) (It also is widely seen in organic reactions ;like converting Amines to Imines etc).
Since the bonding always pccurs wrt the structure of the purines and pyrimideines these 5 nucleotides always bond from a fixed position in the molecules. It was required to have such bonding to make the central DNA strand be a helix. Heres some thing from the U of MAines Chem E dept about tautomeric bonding

A combination of two things...

One the failure of the fruit fly experiments which had been widely expected to prove the reality of macroevolution and, two, the discovery of the information code of RNA/DNA.

The logical, big-picture conclusion I see as necessary from that is that our entire living world is driven by an information code and information, and the fruit fly experiments failed precisely because the only information there ever was in the picture was that for a fruit fly. In other words you have a coercive proof that macroevolution cannot happen followed by a sound understand of why that is so.

The thing about parity checking is just icing on all of that.

First, I think your understanding of what has happened in genetic evolution laboaratories(re: FRUIT FLIES) is several decades out of date. In the last 6 years, several papers by such researchers as Sean CArroll , independent of work publshed by Diane Dodd et al has shown the importance of such things like
1"genes are pleiotropic", That is , one gene can affect several traits and several genes can influence one

2The concept of "Sweep' has enabled to statistically evaluate how genetic effects are "Fixed" in a population .
30 years ago, there werent the highly sophisticated lab machines and techniques available to decode genes and their effects. The experiments then were almost Lamarkian in scope and kind of laughable in todays world.
(Hint" I think you oughta catch up on some scientific literature before engaging in these broad spectral "hoofenmouth" statements that are your trademark.

Gene filtering has been known for several decasdes and , when viewed with a better undesrtanding of how the entire shebang actually works, it fits quite nicely . You must remember that most all evolution is adaptive to some minor or major change in the environment."Filtering out the big chunks" is entirely a 4 dimensional phenom that modern trend surface analyses can ferret out.

Think of countless HArdy Weinberg distributions going on while the entire genome is hurtling through time. "filtering" settles out on "the German Helmet" of a trend surface complex all the time.
However we must recall that gene complements are given a 100% shakeup for every generation that employs sexual inheritance and BESIDES, mutation gets fixed or filtered by environmental, not spiritual means.

I personally do not see the problem with the fruit fly experiments of the first half of the last century. The theory of evolution posits that new kinds of creatures can arise via mutation and selection, and all of that without any guidance or aid from humans.

The experiments I refer to went on for decades and involved more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of monkeys, apes, hominids, or humans on this planet. Those flies were subjected to every known cause of mutations and mutants were combined every possible way, and all anybody ever saw was fruit flies and sterile freaks, end of story.

Those experiments were widely expected to prove the feasibility of macroevolution and they coercively disproved it. Simple logic says that something which man cannot create via major efforts is not going to happen by sheer chance in nature.

AS I said, those experiments were pretty much done without the knowledge of pleitropy and without benefit of advanced gene sequencing. Today we are vataloguing which genes do what and how many variants take part.

We dont try to create superfly monsters with legs for antennae and stupid **** like that. Even the Russians quit doing that after Glassnost and "the wall".

Where I think many Creationists get it all wrong is that, in their worship of all things as "information", they claim that all evolution is degredation of information and no new information is created.
This is total BS, because every time a mutation is fixed and passed on , or sexual congress results in the reshuffling of genes from the two parents, or even some wpigenetic effect gets transferred to an offspring---THIS IS ALL NEW INFORMATION to the genome of that offspring individual. This individual, when viewed in a population sense, is merely one more crscible in the fire of adaptational modification. The fire is the environment and all this "new information" is posted right up there in the genome of the offspring. SOme will succeed in adapting and some will not.



One uestion that you seem to sidestep all the time. What is your explanation for all the species that have lived on earth ? When did , say, horses appear frust? or elephants? How about plants with seeds?