November 29, 2004
Ode to the Code
"The genetic code was cracked 40 years ago, and yet we still don't fully understand it. We know enough to read individual messages, translating from the language of nucleotide bases in DNA or RNA into the language of amino acids in a protein molecule. The RNA language is written in an alphabet of four letters (A, C, G, U), grouped into words three letters long, called triplets or codons. Each of the 64 codons specifies one of 20 amino acids or else serves as a punctuation mark signaling the end of a message. That's all there is to the code. But a nagging question has never been put to rest: Why this particular code, rather than some other? Given 64 codons and 20 amino acids plus a punctuation mark, there are 1083 possible genetic codes. What's so special about the one code that—with a few minor variations—rules all life on Planet Earth?
The canonical nonanswer to this question came from Francis Crick, who argued that the code need not be special at all; it could be nothing more than a 'frozen accident.' The assignment of codons to amino acids might have been subject to reshuffling and refinement in the earliest era of evolution, but further change became impossible because the code was embedded so deeply in the core machinery of life. A mutation that altered the codon table would also alter the structure of every protein molecule, and thus would almost surely be lethal. In other words, the genetic code is the qwerty keyboard of biology—not necessarily the best solution, but too deeply ingrained to be replaced or improved.
There has always been resistance to the frozen-accident theory."
More here by Brian Hayes in American Scientist Online.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:58 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d834dfd1d253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ode to the Code:






















Comments
In't it prejudicing the evidence to call this frozen-accident an accident? Oviously DNA/RNA are complicated enough to warrant at least a hint that teleology is at work, but one never hears of a frozen and obscur purpose. If Conway-Morris is willing to consider teleology, shouldn't science in general?
Posted by: bud stark | Feb 1, 2007 10:40:18 PM
Post a comment