h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

First of all, well done on a great article! I've followed developments in this field quite closely, especially since the Dover trial began. I just have one question - what exactly do you mean by this sentence:

"There is a small but growing body of evidence in favour of a genetic 'language'. The consequences for evolution and creationism are unclear at present".

I'm not sure what you mean by genetic language... and I'm a geneticist... Unless you mean the genetic code that determines protein sequence and has been very well understood for a few decades now. Unless I've missed something major in the literature, I think you may need to clarify this statement a little more.

Just a minor quibble though, the rest of the article was great!

Hi VancouverBrit,

This was basically the only piece of actual evidence I could find that even remotely supported creationism. It refers to the findings that the genetic code has more similarities to the structure of human languages - a 'grammar' - than would be expected by chance. It was a small article in a science reportage magazine (New Scientist), the implication - at least from a creationist point of view - being that this is evidence of design.

I flagged up in the blog-type thread this article is based on (A3400787 if I have worked out how to post links correctly) that I couldn't find a full explanation of what this actually means. If there's anything on the web about this, I can't find it. I'll see if I can dig out the original article over Easter, but it appears that the best evidence in favour of creationism isn't particularly good evidence at all.

Gif

Well that sounds about right from that lot! I've spent a lot of time looking at human and primate genome sequences and never saw anything close to grammar. I think the analogy of human language can be used to explain start and stop codons etc. at a basic level, but it starts to break down once you get into the details. Thanks for the explanation.

Hi VB,

This article is based on the thread at A3400787, where I put:

"New Scientist also has an article showing how researchers have used the idea of genes having a 'grammar' to block the effects of a protein. Since this plays into the idea of genes having a literal language (i.e. being intelligently designed), I am going to award a point to Creationism on the science front for this. I admit that I don't fully understand the basis of the research, and I may come to regret this. In the meantime, congrats to the Creationists for finally breaking their duck."

I can't find the article now - looks like I didn't keep it - and I don't think it ever explained in what way this was like a 'grammar'. All I can find on Google is references to FOXP2, i.e. the gene believed to control the use of language, which is not what I was thinking of. I realise that that's not exactly convincing, and if I were writing the entry again I might not use that item.

Gif