Further to “‘Junk proteins’ hit the antiques road show” (in 2013 functions were identified for many of these “intrinsically disordered proteins” (IDPs), as they are sometimes called): A new book from Springer features a chapter by molecular geneticist Alberto Riva, “Information Processing at the Cellular Level: Beyond the Dogma”:
Abstract: The classical view of information flow within a cell, encoded by the famous central dogma of molecular biology, states that the instructions for producing amino acid chains are read from specific segments of DNA, just as computer instructions are read from a tape, transcribed to informationally equivalent RNA molecules, and finally executed by the cellular machinery responsible for synthesizing proteins. While this has always been an oversimplified model that did not account for a multitude of other processes occurring inside the cell, its limitations are today more dramatically apparent than ever. Ironically, in the same years in which researchers accomplished the unprecedented feat of decoding the complete genomes of higher-level organisms, it has become clear that the information stored in DNA is only a small portion of the total, and that the overall picture is much more complex than the one outlined by the dogma.
The cell is, at its core, an information processing machine based on molecular technology, but the variety of types of information it handles, the ways in which they are represented, and the mechanisms that operate on them go far beyond the simple model provided by the dogma. In this chapter we provide an overview of the most important aspects of information processing that can be found in a cell, describing their specific characteristics, their role, and their interconnections. Our goal is to outline, in an intuitive and nontechnical way, several different views of the cell using the language of information theory.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Nice find News!
Why is it that within the cell, types of information require ways of representation but outside the cell it’s just “information everywhere”?
By what means does one get from homogenous information (if that term can even be meaningful) to information that requires representation?
Why would such a transition even be necessary?
check
Assuming “the Dembski model of information” (aka it could have been otherwise, therefore it’s information) “Dembski information” must exist within the cell as well.
Given the presence of what must be massive amounts of “Dembski information” within the cell, what precipitated the move to representation of information?
It must be the case that the representation of information must be a case of “Dembski information,” for a representation is itself one of a set of possible alternatives, is it not?
representation, protocol, discontinuity, function.
write that down 😉
In the abstract of Dr. Riva’s chapter we read:
Copied this comment from another thread:
gpuccio, can you write to me at my email address?
I have some questions for you.
Thank you.
Check this out!
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/new.....complexity
Dionisio:
Yes, but how do I get your email address?
Andre:
A very good summary, thank you! 🙂
Now, darwinists will always be there with their just so stories to explain how all that evolved by RV and NS, but at least they will need to generate a lot of very long just so stories, so that will keep them busy, I hope, while real scientists do their work 🙂
gpuccio, sorry, I thought you had access and could see it in my UD profile info. Here it is: dshared@ymail.com
Mile grazie !
gpuccio @ 9
Well stated! thank you.
Dionisio @ 5
Regarding Dr. Riva’s quote and the software development example given as illustration, can one distinguish (point to, identify):
a) types of information,
b) ways in which they are represented,
c) mechanisms that operate on them?
Dionisio @ 5
Regarding Dr. Riva’s quote and the software development example given as illustration, can one distinguish (point to, identify):
a) types of information,
b) ways in which they are represented,
c) mechanisms that operate on them?
Sorry. No idea why comment 12 got posted twice. Most probably I messed up something. Oh, well, not my first time.
Dionisio, since it is behind a paywall, I don’t know exactly what she is talking about in regards to ‘types of information’, but I do know that Dr Shapiro has listed several ways, contrary to the central dogma which undergirds neo-Darwinism, that epigenetic information flows in the cell in this paper on page 22:
Shapiro also has this fairly recent paper out:
Denis Nobel, President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, outlines a short history of the modern synthesis (central dogma) of neo-Darwinism here:
,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
Here is a paper by Dr. Nobel
Also of note:
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov, who is IMHO a par excellence biochemist, states that the concept of the selfish gene ‘inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences for over 30 years’:
Supplemental note:
Verse and Music:
Upright BiPed:
rpdf – I can’t pronounce that
We need an acronym here!
Mung @ 16
ReProDiFun?
Mung @ 16
Here’s another overloaded acronym for CSI:
COSPOFI
Complex Specified Purpose-Oriented Functional Information
😉
bornagain77 @ 15
Thank you for the information. Have a good weekend.