Second, separate language found in DNA code

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 13, 2013

Genetics, News}

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

Yikes, even the Dead Tree News Wire (UPI) has now noticed:

SCIENTISTS FIND SECOND, ‘HIDDEN’ LANGUAGE IN HUMAN GENETIC CODE

UPI 12/12/2013 11:12:42 PM

SEATTLE, Dec. 12 (UPI) — U.S. geneticists say a second code hiding within DNA changes how scientists read its instructions and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease.

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed it was used exclusively to write information about proteins, but University of Washington scientists say they’ve discovered genomes use the genetic code to write two separate “languages.”

One, long understood, describes how proteins are made, while the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long, a university release said Thursday.

So we are now expected to believe that not only can a language get started by natural selection acting on purely random mutation, with no intelligence, but that a second language (somewhat like a hidden code) inside the first language can also get started the same way with no intelligence. All purely by chance.

Commenters at one news site:

why oh why do people still think there is no intelligent design behind things is beyond me…

Because, you know, languages just ‘appear’ via evolution.

Then Darwin’s mob arrives and drags the discussion south, demanding that we “define” “language.”

Comments

A few more 'random' notes :) on the almost incomprehensible levels of poly-functional complexity being found in biological life:
"There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005 DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4614519 Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams Excerpt: Not only has the ENCODE project elevated UTRs out of the ‘junk’ category, but it now appears that they are far more active than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. Per Creation dot com Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. per science daily The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ "Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level." (DNA at 60: Still Much to Learn April 28, 2013) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dna-at-60-still-much-to-learn Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8 Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048 What Is The Genome? It's Certainly Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 Comparing genomes to computer operating systems - Van - May 2010 Excerpt: we present a comparison between the transcriptional regulatory network of a well-studied bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the call graph of a canonical OS (Linux) in terms of topology,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439753
Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity The primary problem that poly-functional complexity presents for neo-Darwinism, or even Theistic Evolutionists is this: To put it plainly, the finding of a severely poly-functional/polyconstrained genome by the ENCODE study, and further studies, has put the odds, of what was already astronomically impossible, to what can only be termed fantastically astronomically impossible. To illustrate the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario (no matter what “fitness landscape”) must face when I say genomes are poly-constrained by poly-functionality, I will use a puzzle: If we were to actually get a proper “beneficial mutation’ in a polyfunctional genome of say 500 interdependent genes, then instead of the infamous “Methinks it is like a weasel” single element of functional information that Darwinists pretend they are facing in any evolutionary search, with their falsified genetic reductionism scenario I might add, we would actually be encountering something more akin to this illustration found on page 141 of Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford.
S A T O R A R E P O T E N E T O P E R A R O T A S Sator Square http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square
Which is translated ; THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS. This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center). This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations. The puzzle I listed is only poly-functional to 4 elements/25 letters of interdependent complexity, the minimum genome is poly-constrained to approximately 500 elements (genes) at minimum approximation of polyfunctionality. For Darwinist to continue to believe in random mutations to generate the staggering level of complexity we find in life is absurd in the highest order! As to Theistic Evolutionists, who believe God guides evolution incrementally, all I ask you to consider is do you think that it would be easier for God to incrementally change a polyfunctional genome of any organism, maintaining functionality all the time, in a bottom up manner or do you think it would be easier for Him to design each kind of organism in a top down manner? Verse and Music:
John 1:3 All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. Trans Siberian Orchestra - Christmas Eve/ Sarajevo [Timeless Version] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHioIlbnS_A&ob=av2e
bornagain77_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Then Darwin’s mob arrives and drags the discussion south, demanding that we “define” “language.”
As is the tactic of the weak minded when an argument is lost. When the position can no longer be defended, move to an argument of semantics in order to obscure the topic.TSErik_{December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

Dick:
Is behavior simply the consequence of a particular structure? Could there be a series of overlapping or nested languages coded by DNA, some of which program for structure and others which program for behavior? Has any of this been worked out yet?
In most species, such as insects, behavior is mostly hardwired, that is to say, the wiring of their brain's neural network is specified by the genome and differs very little from one individual to the next. In other species, e.g., humans, birds, mammals, etc., the brain is both pre-wired and designed for learning. Neurons, especially in the sensory and motor cortices, are programmed for plasticity, i.e., they can search and make new connections with other neurons based on experience with the environment. Learning, however, is made possible by a complex and specified architecture that could not have evolved. The sensory cortex is organized hierarchically: there is a hierarchy for patterns and another for sequences: these are the two trees of knowledge. The structure of the cortex is certainly specified by the genome but the wiring is mostly determined by sensory experience. It is obvious to me that all of this complexity cannot reside in just a few thousand protein-coding genes. There must be a vast and extremely complex genetic blueprint that guides the formation and expression of proteins at the right time and at their correct specified locations. Given the above, it would not surprise me that the genomes of certain animals are more complex than that of humans. This is because a huge part of most animals' brains are prewired whereas humans must learn almost everything they know. The whole thing is so complex that no single human being could ever understand it all, in my opinion. It's not much but, basically, that is my understanding of it.Mapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Eric noted:
. . . but it has actually become a hindrance to our understanding of what goes on inside the cell.
Bingo! -QQuerius_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

Dick @3:
The traditional view holds that DNA programs for proteins, but I’ve always wondered what it is that programs for behavior. Perhaps the answer to this has already been elucidated and I’m just behind the curve . . .
Well, I can't speak as to whether you're behind the curve generally. :) But on this particular point, you probably aren't. The answer is that no-one has the faintest idea how it works. What we can say for certain is that it doesn't "just happen." This realization allows us to pose a sharply pointed question to the materialist creation story: on what basis can we claim that a process that is not fully specified has produced a system that is not well understood? The intellectually responsible answer to that question is that no-one has decent evidence to believe that it could. The related idea that once proteins get built then chemistry just takes over is one of the most preposterous -- and unfortunately widespread -- myths that has helped to prop up the materialist creation story. The old dogma: DNA-makes-protein-makes-us, is so incomplete as to be not only unhelpful, but it has actually become a hindrance to our understanding of what goes on inside the cell.Eric Anderson_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

lifepsy, you may appreciate this: Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution - Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o042191.html Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 1 - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-09T17_31_28-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt. 2" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-11T15_59_50-08_00 "Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig on the Law of Recurrent Variation, pt.3" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-13T16_47_09-08_00bornagain77_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

This is funny. Would make a good post. Evolutionists comically trying to deal with the problem that organisms carry multiple potential phenotype states (triggered by environmental stress that a population may not encounter for many generations), in total defiance of the dogma of neo-darwinian natural selection. This is actually the antithesis to neo-darwinian "environmental niche" evolution. Do they realize this?
Rapid Evolution of Novel Forms: Environmental Change Triggers Inborn Capacity for Adaptation ....Eye loss in these fish is considered to be a demonstration of an evolutionary concept known as "standing genetic variation," which argues that pools of genetic mutations -- some potentially helpful -- exist in a given population but are normally kept silent. The manifestations of these mutations, that is, their impact on observable phenotypes, don't emerge until the population encounters stressful conditions. But what exactly keeps those mutations at bay?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212141938.htmlifepsy_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

One, long understood, describes how proteins are made, while the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long, a university release said Thursday.
How do blind and undirected processes produce double-layered code? What are the odds? I cannot begin to imagine how these facts will impact probability calculations ...Box_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Querius, :)bornagain77_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

In fact, not only does ‘form’ presage morphological development, but ‘form’ also dictates how the developing cells/molecules are used even if there is a perturbation to the developing cells of an embryo:
What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]“,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012 Excerpt: The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
To reiterate,
It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
neo-Darwinists simply have no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the ‘bottom up’ materialistic processes of neo-Darwinism can generate radically new body plans:
Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Oh Come, Emmanuel – Lindsey Stirling & Kuha’o Case – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozVmO5LHJ2k
As to the belief that 'Behavior' is completely reducible to Genetic coding (as was assumed in post 3), that is shown to be false by the fact that 'mental states' can have and effect on genes:
Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life - July 12, 2012 Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants. If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes. http://crev.info/2012/07/anxiety-may-shorten-your-cell-life/ Genie In Your Genes - video http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html main website excerpt: There are over 100 genes in your body that are activated by your thoughts, feelings and experiences http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ Upgrade Your Brain Excerpt: The Research; In his book The Genie in Your Genes (Elite Books, 2009), researcher Dawson Church, PhD, explains the relationship between thought and belief patterns and the expression of healing- or disease-related genes. “Your body reads your mind,” Church says. “Science is discovering that while we may have a fixed set of genes in our chromosomes, which of those genes is active has a great deal to do with our subjective experiences, and how we process them.” One recent study conducted at Ohio University demonstrates vividly the effect of mental stress on healing. Researchers gave married couples small suction blisters on their skin, after which they were instructed to discuss either a neutral topic or a topic of dispute for half an hour. Researchers then monitored the production of three wound-repair proteins in the subjects’ bodies for the next several weeks, and found that the blisters healed 40 percent slower in those who’d had especially sarcastic, argumentative conversations than those who’d had neutral ones. http://experiencelife.com/article/upgrade-your-brain/
bornagain77_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, Expect a strong move among Darwinists toward a "maybe it was junk after all" position. lol -QQuerius_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Yes, Dick. Scientists have studied these connections thoroughly, publishing innumerable papers in peer-reviewed journals, and they really do have it all worked out. Except for a few tiny details. Such as the behavior part. But that will be coming out any day now! ;-) -QQuerius_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

A few notes:
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
Moreover this poly-functional information of the DNA is irreducibly complex:
Refereed scientific article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity - October 2, 2013 Excerpt: This paper published online this summer is a true mind-blower showing the irreducible organizational complexity (author’s description) of DNA analog and digital information, that genes are not arbitrarily positioned on the chromosome etc.,, ,,,First, the digital information of individual genes (semantics) is dependent on the the intergenic regions (as we know) which is like analog information (syntax). Both types of information are co-dependent and self-referential but you can’t get syntax from semantics. As the authors state, “thus the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell”. In short, the linear DNA sequence contains both types of information. Second, the paper links local DNA structure, to domains, to the overall chromosome configuration as a dynamic system keying off the metabolic signals of the cell. This implies that the position and organization of genes on the chromosome is not arbitrary,,, http://www.christianscientific.org/refereed-scientific-article-on-dna-argues-for-irreducibly-complexity/
Moreover, contrary to the central dogma of the modern synthesis neo-Darwinism, (DNA makes RNA makes Protein), the information that is necessary for building the 'body plan' any particular organism is not reducible to DNA alone:
Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information - Jonathan Wells - published online May 2013 Conclusion:,, Recent discoveries of multiple overlapping functions in non-protein-coding DNA show that the biological information in the genome far exceeds that in the protein-coding regions alone. Yet biological information is not limited to the genome. Even at the level of gene expression - transcription and translation — the cell must access information that is not encoded in DNA. Many different RNAs can be generated from a single piece of DNA by alternative splicing, and although some splicing codes occur in intronic DNA there is no empirical justification for assuming that all of the information for tissue- and developmental-stage-specific alternative splicing resides in DNA.,, even after RNA has specified the amino acid sequence of a protein, additional information is needed: Protein function depends on three-dimensional shape, and the same sequence of amino acids can be folded differently to produce proteins with different three-dimensional shapes [144–147]. Conversely, proteins with different amino acid sequences can be folded to produce similar shapes and functions [148,149]. Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism - the genotype-phenotype mapping - cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences. Atlan and Koppel wrote in 1990 that advances in artificial intelligence showed that cellular operations are not controlled by a linear sequence of instructions in DNA but by a “distributed multilayer network” [150]. According to Denton and his co-workers, protein folding appears to involve formal causes that transcend material mechanisms [151], and according to Sternberg this is even more evident at higher levels of the genotype-phenotype mapping [152]. So non-protein-coding regions of DNA that some previously regarded as “junk” turn out to encode biological information that greatly increases the known information-carrying capacity of DNA. At the same time, DNA as a whole turns out to encode only part of the biological information needed for life. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0009
The inability of 'body plans' of an organism to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by experiments in Cortical Inheritance.
Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism – Arthur Jones – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4187488
Moreover, there are other lines of evidence clearly indicating that the genetic reductionism model (modern synthesis) of neo-Darwinism is false:
In Embryo Development, Non-DNA Information Is at Least as Important as DNA – Jonathan Wells – May 2012 Excerpt: Evidence shows that non-DNA developmental information can be inherited in several ways. For example, it can be inherited through chromatin modifications, which affect gene expression without altering underlying DNA sequences. Another example is cytoplasmic inheritance, which involves cytoskeletal patterns and localization of intracellular molecules. Still another example is cortical inheritance, which involves membrane patterns. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/in_embryo_devel060031.html “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems – 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888340 “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” - Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences http://musicoflife.co.uk/ also see J. Shapiro
As well there is this intriguing piece of evidence:
Not in the Genes: Embryonic Electric Fields – Jonathan Wells – December 2011 Excerpt: although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels — which determines the form of the endogenous electric field — constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/not_in_the_gene054071.html
This is crushing for neo-Darwinism (genetic reductionism) because these ‘Embryonic Electric Fields’ presage the morphological development of an embryo:
An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications – September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1Qn306IUU ,,,a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, “When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,”,,, I would never have predicted anything like it. It’s a jaw dropper.”,,,
bornagain77_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

The traditional view holds that DNA programs for proteins, but I've always wondered what it is that programs for behavior. Perhaps the answer to this has already been elucidated and I'm just behind the curve, but how does the production of particular proteins tell a cat to fixate on a point of laser light, a spider to construct a web with a specific architecture, or a caterpillar to construct a chrysalis? Is behavior simply the consequence of a particular structure? Could there be a series of overlapping or nested languages coded by DNA, some of which program for structure and others which program for behavior? Has any of this been worked out yet?Dick_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

The fact that UPI now apparently knows it makes it doubly known. I was just surprised to see something like that moving down a conventional news wire along with the news from Mandela's funeral and the Christmas shopping frenzy. O'Leary for NewsNews_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Somehow, I was under the impression that this was already known. At least, some of us knew that most of genome was involved in regulation (not junk DNA as the clueless Darwinists insisted for decades). As an aside, I predict that the entire genome will be found to be organized hierarchically, as in a tree of life, with the protein coding genes being the leaves. I also predict that a dedicated part of the brain will be found to have the ability to rewrite or modify portions of the genome (epigenetics).Mapou_{December 13, 2013
December
12
Dec
13
13
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply