Paul Giem on overlapping genetic codes

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 24, 2014

Genetics, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the book “Biological Information: New Perspectives” Chapters 6 and 9 (at least) argue that stretches of DNA can have multiple functions encoded into them. We will partially evaluate the strength of the evidence behind that argument.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

DNA_Jock @119
It’s okay if you don’t want to answer these questions. I’ll understand. LMAO
Alright. That’s fine. Have fun! :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

@119 DNA_Jock
It’s okay if you don’t want to answer these questions. I’ll understand. LMAO
Alright. That’s fine. Have fun! :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

#119 DNA_Jock
It’s okay if you don’t want to answer these questions. I’ll understand. LMAO
Alright. That's fine. Have fun! :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

wd400 @120
I’m certainly confident that onlookers will be able to understand why you won’t respond, Dionisio.
Hmm... really? Cool! :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

@120 wd400
I’m certainly confident that onlookers will be able to understand why you won’t respond, Dionisio.
Hmm... really? Cool! :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

#120 wd400
I’m certainly confident that onlookers will be able to understand why you won’t respond, Dionisio.
Hmm... really? Cool! :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

@159 DNA_Jock Will try and comment on the rest of your post later today, if I find some time. :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

@134 DNA_Jock Will try and comment on the rest of your post later today. :)Dionisio_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

#159 DNA_Jock I have more questions, which will try to post later. :)Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

#134 DNA_Jock I have more questions, which will try to post later. :)Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock @134
Re 133, What you wrote to me @99 was
Have you heard of the spliceosome and all that stuff in post-transcriptional regulation, before the translation in the ribosomes. Have you heard of the post-translational regulation, before the protein folding takes place? At the end of those intermediate processes the final sequence of amino acids may not exactly reflect the original sequence of nucleotide in the protein coding portion of the DNA that was transcribed into the initial pro-mRNA making the mRNA. I don’t know much about this, hence any correction is welcome!
Given that “ I’m not trying to learn biology from DNA_Jock”, the final sentence is obviously untrue, even if you choose to redefine “much” to mean “as much as I would like”. By your own definitions, you are not a “sincere interlocutor”
My statement "I don’t know much about this, hence any correction is welcome!" was open, not personal, i.e. it was not addressed to you only, but to anyone who may read this thread and could notice a mistake in my assertions. In case you haven't noticed this yet, there are other folks who write comments in this blog and could read my post and decide to correct any mistake they see in my comments. I will welcome that. Next time ask me first why I wrote it before rushing into premature conclusions and engaging in disgusting and shameful personal attacks. Asking questions is not bad. Many times it helps.Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

@134 DNA_Jock
Re 133, What you wrote to me @99 was
Have you heard of the spliceosome and all that stuff in post-transcriptional regulation, before the translation in the ribosomes. Have you heard of the post-translational regulation, before the protein folding takes place? At the end of those intermediate processes the final sequence of amino acids may not exactly reflect the original sequence of nucleotide in the protein coding portion of the DNA that was transcribed into the initial pro-mRNA making the mRNA. I don’t know much about this, hence any correction is welcome!
Given that “ I’m not trying to learn biology from DNA_Jock”, the final sentence is obviously untrue, even if you choose to redefine “much” to mean “as much as I would like”. By your own definitions, you are not a “sincere interlocutor”
My statement "I don’t know much about this, hence any correction is welcome!" was open, not personal, i.e. it was not addressed to you only, but to anyone who may read this thread and could notice a mistake in my assertions. In case you haven't noticed this yet, there are other folks who write comments in this blog and could read my post and decide to correct any mistake they see in my comments. I will welcome that. Next time ask me first why I wrote it before rushing into premature conclusions and engaging in disgusting and shameful personal attacks. Asking questions is not bad. Many times it helps.Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

#134 DNA_Jock
Re 133, What you wrote to me @99 was
Have you heard of the spliceosome and all that stuff in post-transcriptional regulation, before the translation in the ribosomes. Have you heard of the post-translational regulation, before the protein folding takes place? At the end of those intermediate processes the final sequence of amino acids may not exactly reflect the original sequence of nucleotide in the protein coding portion of the DNA that was transcribed into the initial pro-mRNA making the mRNA. I don’t know much about this, hence any correction is welcome!
Given that “ I’m not trying to learn biology from DNA_Jock”, the final sentence is obviously untrue, even if you choose to redefine “much” to mean “as much as I would like”. By your own definitions, you are not a “sincere interlocutor”
My statement "I don’t know much about this, hence any correction is welcome!" was open, not personal, i.e. it was not addressed to you only, but to anyone who may read this thread and could notice a mistake in my assertions. In case you haven't noticed this yet, there are other folks who write comments in this blog and could read my post and decide to correct any mistake they see in my comments. I will welcome that. Next time ask me first why I wrote it before rushing into premature conclusions and engaging in disgusting and shameful personal attacks. Asking questions is not bad. Many times it helps.Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

#159 DNA_Jock
...but that would not have moved the conversation forward, I suspect.
Do you really care about the conversation moving forward? :)Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

#159 DNA_Jock BTW, you don't have to answer all the questions. You may leave them unanswered. That's fine too. :)Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

#159 DNA_Jock I have more questions, which will try to post later. :)Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

#159 DNA_Jock
Re 136: [Dionisio asked:] Q1. Could there be other reasons? [DNA_Jock wrote:] A: Enlighten me.
Are you saying that there could not be other reasons for writing what I wrote, beside the reason you assumed? Are you sure about that?Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock Why do you like to write so many personal attacks? BTW, I asked the same question @126, but don't recall seeing your answer. Please, would you mind to show me where you answered that specific question, if you did? Thank you.Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

#159 DNA_Jock
[DNA_Jock wrote:] Yikes, Dionisio, your reading comprehension really is dire. Re 135 : A: the first three sentences of your 132, viz:
[Dionision wrote:] I didn’t know that. Please, accept my apologies for saying something that was rude. Really appreciate that you have brought this up to my attention.

How do you relate what I wrote @132 (which you quoted @159 - see above) with your claim that I was trying to be condescending? BTW, the condescending term was used in your post #129, where you wrote:
[DNA_Jock wrote:] This is revealed when you [Dionisio] make the switch from “curious idiot” mode into “erudite and condescending” mode
Are you retracting your previous statements indicating that I was being condescending? Please, would you mind explaining all this in a way that I can understand it? Thank you.Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

#152 wd400 I have more questions for you too, but will have to post them later. BTW, you don't have to answer them. It's up to you.Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Yikes, Dionisio, your reading comprehension really is dire. Re 135 : A: the first three sentences of your 132, viz:
I didn’t know that. Please, accept my apologies for saying something that was rude. Really appreciate that you have brought this up to my attention.
Re 136: Q1. Could there be other reasons? A: Enlighten me. Q2. Why do you call that information superfluous? A: Read the preceding sentence, viz: “can safely be omitted … without any loss of meaning.” Re 131, 137, 138, 139 (wtf?) and 140 Read the rest of the paragraph:
No, not really. All I can say is that you make these “my mind is slow” statements, but (based on your behavior) it appears to me that the “my mind is slow” statements are insincere, and merely made as part of your “Socratic” questioning. Hence the caveat “as I see it”, which makes it clear that I am only offering up my personal impression, not anything that I know to be true.
Alternatively, I could have answered your (repeated) question by saying “because I am describing my own thought processes” but that would not have moved the conversation forward, I suspect. Re 142, 143 (wtf?) Q1. Please, would you mind to quote the exact text that illustrate what behavior you are referring to? A: Gee, how about:
Ok, let me see if I understand this: is “the Purpose” related to your work or profession? Does that mean you’re a molecular biology scientist and you possess some breakthrough information but can’t reveal it here? Is that right? Sorry if I got it wrong again. Please, refer to post #507 to understand my condition. Obviously, my guessing was wrong, because a molecular biology scientist would be too busy working on serious research, hence no spare time to squander on the blogosphere Would “the Purpose” allow you to answer questions like those, as long as you don’t reveal any confidential breakthrough information? Did you read gpuccio’s post #501 carefully enough to comment on it so fast? Do you understand this? Did you read post #516? Did you understand it? Do you agree? No? Why not? Would a passionate molecular biology scientist ever leave such a fascinating profession? What could be more exciting than that? Can you elaborate on this? Participating in what thread? What are you talking about? Did anyone ask you to participate in any thread? Can you explain what you meant by that statement you wrote? Did you understand what I wrote? Apparently you didn’t. Please, don’t tell me your reading comprehension is as poor as mine.
and the entirety of this thread. It was an ID-proponent who called you “bratty” (I thought that was a little harsh.) Q2. Could that be a misperception? Appearances could be deceiving, couldn’t they? A: Could be. Convince me otherwise. Q3. How do you know they are not sincere? A: I cannot know, obviously, but the impression is a very strong one. Convince me otherwise, perhaps by showing an interest in learning, rather than indulging in an awesomely lame meta-discussion. Q4. Why do you use that term [“Socratic”] in reference to my simple questions? A: See your 110. Re 144, 145, 146 (are you feeling okay?) Q1: The things that I perceive to be true, I perceive to be true. If I thought I was wrong, I would change my mind! Maybe you can convince me of your sincerity. You’re not doing too well right now. Q2. The “attacks” (with the sole exception of that one paragraph that begins “The problem, as I see it,…”) are not based on my personal impression of your state of mind, but rather consist of calling you out on your behavior. Lying, for example. Q3. Absolutely. If my daughter is coming across as a bitch, I will tell her “don’t be the bitch”. It’s called honesty. Re 147, 151 I’m off on vacation soon, so I may not respond. You might consider taking a break too. Re 148, 149, 150 (seriously, please slow down) Yes. Read the entire sentence. Please Dionisio, before you start responding to a post, read it through twice (or more), trying to understand the author’s meaning. This will, hopefully, save you from embarrassments like posts 137 – 143 and from asking infantile questions such as “Why do you call that information superfluous?“ Your multiple posting is making Gary Gaulin appear correct, and absolutely nobody wants that. Please ease up.DNA_Jock_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

#152 wd400
which are all answered in DNA_Jock’s original comments
Are you certain they have been answered? How do you know they have been answered? He has not answered several questions. Are you going to answer them for him? Are you interested in ensuring that what you write is true? Are you interested in ensuring that what you write is understood, at least by the person you are addressing directly?Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

#152 wd400
which are all answered in DNA_Jock’s original comments
Are you certain they have been answered? How do you know they have been answered? He has not answered several questions. Are you going to answer them for him? Are you interested in ensuring that what you write is true?Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

#152 wd400
which are all answered in DNA_Jock’s original comments
Are you certain they have been answered? How do you know they have been answered? He has not answered several questions. Are you going to answer them for him?Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

#152 wd400
which are all answered in DNA_Jock’s original comments
Are you certain they have been answered? How do you know they have been answered? He has not answered several questions.Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

#152 wd400
which are all answered in DNA_Jock’s original comments
Are you certain they have been answered? How do you know they have been answered?Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

#152 wd400
which are all answered in DNA_Jock’s original comments
Are you certain they have been answered?Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Dionisio, Since you are interested in knowing when you appear rude: Asking asinine questions like the above, which are all answered in DNA_Jock's original comments is rude, a waste to time and unlikely to generate the "serious" discussion you claim to want. Spamming a thread by deliberately double and triple posting those questions is rude. (I can assure you I'm not going to answer follow-up questions as inane as the above, so please don't waste anyone's time by asking them)wd400_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

@129 DNA_Jock I have more questions, which will try to post later. :)Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock @129
...the final sentence is obviously untrue,...
Are you certain that your (above quoted) statement is true?Dionisio_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply