To assess which observation provides the strongest evidence against the idea that genes are composed of DNA according to the protein hypothesis, we should consider observations that suggest that proteins can carry genetic information or play a pivotal role in inheritance rather than nucleic acids (DNA).
Some potential observations that might be cited as evidence include:
-
Experiments demonstrating that proteins rather than DNA are the hereditary material in certain organisms or viruses. For example, in certain viruses (like some RNA viruses), RNA, not DNA, carries genetic information, which would provide evidence against the notion that all genes are DNA.
-
Evidence from the study of enzymes and protein function, where proteins are shown to have roles in crucial biological processes that could suggest proteins might be underlying carriers of genetic information.
-
Observations from biochemical studies that show proteins can replicate or influence the information transfer in cells under certain conditions.
-
Evidence from the study of alternative genetic materials in some organisms (like retroviruses) where RNA plays a central role.
The strongest evidence would likely be a definitive case where hereditary information is shown to be based solely on proteins rather than DNA, as it would directly contradict the fundamental idea that genes are made of DNA. However, within modern understanding, the overwhelming consensus is that DNA is indeed the primary genetic material, while proteins play fundamental roles in the expression and regulation of that genetic information.
Thus, if you seek the strongest argument supporting the notion that genes are not composed of DNA, you would typically point to something like direct evidence of RNA viruses where RNA is indeed the genetic material or specific experimental results contradicting the central dogma of molecular biology.
6 answers