Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: Uncharted genetic territory offers insight into human-specific proteins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When researchers working on the Human Genome Project completely mapped the genetic blueprint of humans in 2001, they were surprised to find only around 20,000 genes that produce proteins. Could it be that humans have only about twice as many genes as a common fly? Scientists had expected considerably more.

Now, researchers from 20 institutions worldwide bring together more than 7,200 unrecognized gene segments that potentially code for new proteins. For the first time, the study makes use of a new technology to find possible proteins in humans—looking in detail at the protein-producing machinery in cells. The new study suggests the gene discovery efforts of the Human Genome Project were just the beginning, and the research consortium aims to encourage the scientific community to integrate the data into the major human genome databases.

Note that so-called orphan genes have been discussed in-depth at Evolution News:

Orphan genes (sometimes called ORFan genes in bacteria) are those open reading frames that lack identifiable sequence similarity to other protein-coding genes. Lack of similarity is hard to prove, given the size of the genomic universe. Methods vary from researcher to researcher, so each study needs to be evaluated carefully. There is also always the possibility that any given ORF has no function. No doubt some orphan genes will prove to be artifacts of incomplete evidence (see below). But orphan genes are a reality, nonetheless, based on numerous and substantial studies.

Thus, the existence and prevalence of orphan genes raises a number of significant questions.

Then there is the elephant in the room that evolutionary biologists don’t want to acknowledge. Perhaps we see so many species- and clade-specific orphan genes because they are uniquely designed for species- and clade-specific functions. Certainly, this runs contrary to the expectation of common descent.

Continuing with the Phys.org article…

New gene sequences remained out of reach

In the past few years, thousands of frequently very small open reading frames (ORFs) have been discovered in the human genome. These are spans of DNA sequence that may contain instructions for building proteins.

Traditionally, protein-coding regions in genes have been identified by comparing DNA sequences from multiple species: the most important coding regions have been preserved during animal evolution. But this method has a drawback: coding regions that are relatively young, i.e., that arose during the evolution of primates, fall through the cracks and are therefore missing from the databases.

So now the task is to integrate the largely ignored ORFs into the largest reference databases, because researchers have so far had to specifically search for them in the literature if they wanted to study them.

ORFs likely play a role in common diseases

Dr. Sebastiaan van Heesch, group leader at the Princess Máxima Center for pediatric oncology, says that their “research marks a huge step forward in understanding the genetic make-up and complete number of proteins in humans. It’s tremendously exciting to enable the research community with our new catalog. It’s too soon to say whether all of the unexplored sections of DNA truly represent proteins, but we can clearly see that something unexplored is happening across the human genome and that the world should be paying attention.”

“It is especially remarkable that most of these 7,200 ORFs are exclusive to primates and might represent evolutionary innovations unique to our species,” reports Jorge Ruiz-Orera, an evolutionary biologist working in Hübner’s lab at the MDC. “This shows how these elements can provide important hints of what makes us humans.”

Read the complete article at Phys.org.

Another “elephant in the room” is the question of how did the significant amount of information needed for novel protein-coding regions arise without intelligent design?

Comments
ET: The non-random aspect of natural selection is ju7st that not all variants have the same chance of being eliminated. You have to be desperate to think that actually means something beyond that. Why don't you set up an experiment or simulation to see if that leads to anything? If you can't create the sophisticated enough computer simulation then take a population of some easily bred creature, raise a bunch of different batches of them under different selection pressures and see what happens? That's pretty scientific isn't it? So why not do it?JVL
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
AF, the pivotal matter already having been settled, we leave you to your debate with those you disagree with. Have you published a cogent refutation or substantial dismissal, if so, where? KFkairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Guys. Focus! Glycan code. Exists biologically? Evidence?Alan Fox
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Alan Fox Oh dear! Darwinian evolution has a non-random element, don’t you know! Natural selection, survival of the fittest (in the relevant niche), proliferation of the most fecund (in the relevant niche), suck-it-and-see is not a random process
:lol: Oh dear! There is no Natural selection without all operating cell codes: genetic code, sugar code, lipids code, repair code ,etc. . There is no survival of the fittest(=survival of survivors : nonsense darwinist expression ) without functional internal systems operated by genetic code, sugar code, lipids code, repair code ,etc. There is no known mechanism that can prove that mutations are random. As of today there is no known mechanism that could prove that chemistry laws can produce meaningful functional systems/information/codes. There is only the religious belief in materialism that can do the trick. Unfortunately for atheists is not scientific to declare that matter creates coded functional information without proving it in the lab so it's just a belief that can be rejected on the spot. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
AF, "rambling"? Loaded language to disguise the central concession, AF: ". . . the genetic code, information storage and retrieval, regulation and protein synthesis. This is all well researched, well understood and well reported." Yes, and so, central to the cell is string data structure, algorithmic, coded information, thus language specifying goal directed process. Those are decisive signs of design and purpose of a designer. So, the root of the world of life, the cell, reflects design. That issue is central, and you know it, belittling language like "pay attention" notwithstanding. Actually, I have paid attention enough to identify what is primary from what is secondary and might well just be a distractive strawman. Whether or not a sugar code is recognised from functional specificity and organisation thus role in the cell, whether we can discover where it came from, whether its storage is implicit in life being passed from going concern complete cells to others, whether it is widely accepted etc are in fact secondary and derivative. Indeed, i/l/o the main point where we already have codes and execution machinery in the cell it is not unlikely that there will be other cases. Including possibly cases where the protocols of information and communication are implicit, embedded in functional cell structures passed down in the chain from one cell to another; consider how protein AA sequences implicitly reflect the coded information in D/RNA. And more. KFkairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Darwinian evolution has a non-random element, don’t you know!
Very trivial. The non-random aspect of natural selection is ju7st that not all variants have the same chance of being eliminated. You have to be desperate to think that actually means something beyond that.ET
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
The only issue I have about the genetic code is a semantic quibble on the use of the word “code”.
The genetic code acts like a code. It has all of the attributes of a code. And it fits the definition of a code. Even Larry Moran and Richard Dawkins say it's a real code.ET
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
If you read Gabius you would have plenty of quotes from him to present here as being wrong.
He's not wrong, he doesn't get that far. Gabius didn't explain how a glycan code works. He suggested a potential for storing information simply on the theoretical possibilities for different combinations of sugar polymers. That's it, though he pads it out with spurious examples. If you've read Gabius, you'd be able to find his proposed mechanism for storage and retrieval of information, surely? I can't.Alan Fox
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
LCD
Code mean purpose /error repair/ communication/feedback loops and chemistry can’t built meaningful complex systems randomnly and succesfully . They tried and they failed to make their case for chemistry as a designer.
Oh dear! Darwinian evolution has a non-random element, don't you know! Natural selection, survival of the fittest (in the relevant niche), proliferation of the most fecund (in the relevant niche), suck-it-and-see is not a random process.Alan Fox
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
@KF I have no idea why you are rambling on about the genetic code, information storage and retrieval, regulation and protein synthesis. This is all well researched, well understood and well reported. It remains an active and well-funded area of research. Do I need to repeat that? Please pay attention. My point of contention is that I keep being referred to a "glycan code" as if it is a thing rather than a conjecture, largely by Hans-Joachim Gabius, who died in 2021. The only issue I have about the genetic code is a semantic quibble on the use of the word "code". The issue I have with the glycan code is that it doesn't appear to exist in biological systems..Alan Fox
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
Alan Fox Case Study: Alan Fox: Can anyone explain the glycan code? Is it a real thing in living organisms? KF:This code is deciphered by carbohydrate-binding proteins that possess distinct carbohydrate binding properties and act as molecular chaperones or sorting receptors. Alan Fox: In other words physical binding, not codes. LCD: Provide links: here here here Alan Fox : I found nothing about how the “sugar code” is supposed to work. KF Posted quotes from paper Alan Fox: Gabius died recently. There doesn’t appear to be anyone developing his ideas. The fact is there is no substance to a glycan code, only wishful thinking. Alan Fox make no case only declare that he deny sugar code :lol: .No logical argumentation, no quote presented, nothing just "Gabius died recently therefore he is wrong and I 'm right because I say so". If you read Gabius you would have plenty of quotes from him to present here as being wrong. You sound like Fred "hydrogen bond" Hickson. Cell is a controlled space (like a lab) where chemistry is constrained to take place at certain places/times for certain purposes . This is happening repeatedly (not randomnly)with the same succesful results that correspond to an abstract goal beyond chemistry . Darwinists know that in the moment they accept the code reality everything it's over for them . Code mean purpose /error repair/ communication/feedback loops and chemistry can't built meaningful complex systems randomnly and succesfully . They tried and they failed to make their case for chemistry as a designer.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
PS: We can expand postulates:
[First, Evidence-backed Programmatic Postulate:] certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [–> explicit reference to logic of abductive reasoning] by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. [2nd, Operational Postulate:] Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. [3rd, Empirical Warrant/Point of test or potential falsification postulate:] An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [Evidence Corollary:] Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life . . . . [4th, Designs and Signs Postulate:] as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such agents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. [–> definition of design, note, abductive inference from observed sign to signified cause.]
Where:
[Supplement, on evidence:] [a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or — as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s — as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly [b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire’s former Old Man of the mountain, or — as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 — a distinguishing feature of the cell’s information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or [c] IC — multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990’s — the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or [d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmicsearch processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also, [e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.) [(f) evidence of the fine tuned cosmos.] . . . .
"Thus, ID can be framed on postulates, and we may draw forth from such that cells using memory structures storing coded algorithms and associated execution machinery are strong evidence of the design of cell based life. With Drexler, we are looking a bit at nanotech issues." PPS: Kindly note p. 5 of Crick's letter to his son, March 19, 1953.kairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
SA, attn AF: In the OP here, I noted that there are three distinct considerations and themes:
It seems, despite UD’s resources tab, some still struggle to understand ID in the three distinct senses: inference, theory/research programme, movement . . . . [I:] . Observed tested, reliable signs such as FSCO/I [= functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, “fun-skee”] beyond 500 – 1,000 bits point to design as cause for cases we have not observed. This is the design INFERENCE . . . . [II:] we can identify ID Theory as a [small] research programme that explores whether there are such observable, testable, reliable signs, whether they appear in the world of life and in the cosmos, whether we may responsibly — notice, how duties of reason pop up naturally — use them to infer that cell based life, body plans, the cosmos etc are credibly the result of intelligently directed configuration . . . and that’s a definition of design. This, in a context where the proposed “scientific” alternative, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity has not been observed to actually produce things exhibiting FSCO/I etc . . . . [III:] Beyond the theory, there is a movement, comprising supporters and friendly critics as well as practitioners consciously researching design theory or extending thinking on it and applying same to society or civilisation, including history of ideas . . .
Those three senses are longstanding, and it is clear that senses I and II are scientific. Even were it to be falsified at a future date (just like the second law of thermodynamics) the design inference would remain as part of the history of inferences to best current explanation common in science. And of course, on trillions of observed cases it is a reliable explanation. The second, is little more than saying that there is a movement in science that supports and discusses ID, which gives a theoretical programme of research and analysis. KFkairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
AF, we notice, first your continued side-stepping of the pivotal case, R/DNA. Accordingly, I ask again:
Start with this, is there a genetic code that is part of protein synthesis? Y/N _____ Why/why not _______
This is the primary case, driven by multiple Nobel Prize winning work. Your answer to this will tell us whether any amount of observational evidence and reasoning would move you. My bet is, none. Prove me wrong. On the secondary case, there is something fairly serious on the table, but it is not the pivot of argument. To try to ignore a primary case while going after a secondary one tells us a lot. KFkairosfocus
July 17, 2022
July
07
Jul
17
17
2022
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
Alan
Well, it could have aspects of accuracy and other aspects of inaccuracy.
There is confusion about what ID is really saying. Some people think it's a worldview, others think that it's an entire parallel field of science (the ID way of doing science) others think that it's a religious phenomenon. But in my understanding, from Behe, Meyer and most of the scientists at the DI, ID is only one thing: "There is scientific evidence that some features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected, unintelligent process." There is evidence that some things in nature have been designed by intelligence. That's it. And therefore, if so, then there really couldn't be "aspects of accuracy and aspects of inaccuracy". There either is evidence of intelligent design in nature or there is not. ID is either true or false. I'm open to correction and I accept that some people view differently than I do.Silver Asiatic
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
LCD
Maybe is time to change your glasses or ask one of your grand-grandsons to read to you.
You didn't bother to read what was at those links, did you? The Gabius one is a classic example of speculation.Alan Fox
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Jerry at 35 That seems a reasonable assessment.Alan Fox
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
@KF Gabius died recently. There doesn't appear to be anyone developing his ideas. The fact is there is no substance to a glycan code, only wishful thinking. That may change some day but here is where we are now.Alan Fox
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Jerry, empirically anchored explanatory inference. Similar to many other scientific causal inferences. Again, Title of Vol 3 of Lyell, principles of Geology . . . is Geology Science?:
PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY: BEING AN INQUIRY HOW FAR THE FORMER CHANGES OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE ARE REFERABLE TO CAUSES NOW IN OPERATION. [--> appeal to Newton's Rules, in the title of the work] BY CHARLES LYELL, Esq, F.R.S. PRESIDENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OE LONDON . . . JOHN MURRAY , , , 1835 [--> later, publisher of Origin]
The Sciences make modern form inductive inferences to best explanation all the time. In this case, with codes and algorithms in the cell: language and goal directed process, it should long since have been acknowledged. KFkairosfocus
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Is there an accepted consensus of what “Intelligent Design” is as a philosophy or science
ID is logic on top of science. Is that philosophy? Many here want to say ID is science. I personally don’t believe it’s science but others will go through the wall that it is. At a minimum, ID concludes the universe was created by an intelligence. Some will also point to the Earth and say it was created by an intelligence. Some will point to OOL and say life was created by an intelligence. Some will point to Evolution and say an intelligence created most of the life form changes. Some will say an intelligence created life forms with consciousness. ID doesn’t say how or why or who did all the creating. Could it be more than one entity? ID does not say that just that it was an intelligence. Now people here will express their beliefs on who are the creators. But that is not ID. That includes a substantial amount of non scientific material. I’m sure this assessment will get a lot of pushback from some.jerry
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
AF, attn LCD, perhaps, some substantial matters can be on the table. Here, LCD's first link:
Review Article The sugar code: letters and vocabulary, writers, editors and readers and biosignificance of functional glycan – lectin pairing Herbert Kaltner 1 , José Abad-Rodríguez 2 , Anthony P. Corfield 3 , Jürgen Kopitz 4 and Hans-Joachim Gabius 1 1 Institute of Physiological Chemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Veterinaerstr. 13, 80539 Munich, Germany; 2 Membrane Biology and Axonal Repair Laboratory, Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos (SESCAM), Finca La Peraleda s/n, 45071 Toledo, Spain; 3 School of Clinical Sciences, Bristol Royal Infirmatory, Mucin Research Group, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8HW, U.K.; 4 Institute of Pathology, Department of Applied Tumor Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 224, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany Correspondence: Jürgen Kopitz (Juergen.kopitz@med.uni-heidelberg.de) or Hans-Joachim Gabius (gabius@tiph.vetmed.uni-muenchen.de or gabius lectins.de) Rceived: 11 July 2019 Revised: 31 August 2019 Accepted: 4 September 2019 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society 2623 Biochemical Journal (2019) 476 2623 – 2655 https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20170853 [ . . . ] Ubiquitous in Nature, even constituting the most abundant compounds on the Earth, namely the polymers, cellulose and chitin [3], and also prominently positioned on cell surfaces [4], carbohydrates qualify as more than being the biochemical fuel and molecular concrete of cell walls. Terminologically, the common presence of glycans as part of glycoproteins and glycosphingolipids was an incentive for coining the term ‘glycobiology’ [5] (or more general: glycosciences). It implies fundamental functionality. Conceptually, the term gave research work on glycans a clear direction. As a consequence, carbohydrates, like amino acids and nucleotides, gained the status of an alphabet of life [6]: ‘letters’ of this alphabet are shown in Figure 1. Chemical modi?cations, such as the derivatization of glucose (Glc) or galactose (Gal) to their 2-amino sugars and then to N-acetylated products (GlcNAc, GalNAc), can be likened to Umlaut formation in the German language. This process is especially frequent in the case of N-acetylneuraminic acid (Figure 1, bottom row — center). Its modification yields more than 80 different sialic acids, in mammals prominently O-acetylation and hydroxylation to N-glycolylneuraminic acid [7,8]. Thus, the ‘letters’ of an alphabet are available. By having a close look at the meaning of the term ‘carbohydrates’ and the structures shown in Figure 1, the fundamental potential of sugars to store (in ‘words’) and to transfer biological information (by molecular recognition) will become evident . . . . Figure 1. Letters of the sugar language. Illustration of the main letters of the third alphabet of life. In each case, the structure, name and symbol as well as known acceptor positions (by arrows) in glycoconjugates are presented. Four sugars have L -con fi guration: fucose (6-deoxy- L -galactose), rhamnose (6-deoxy- L -mannose) and arabinose are introduced during chain elongation or at branch positions, whereas L -iduronic acid (IdoA) results from the enzymatic epimerization of GlcA (at C5) in glycosaminoglycans that is sandwiched between the N-deacetylase/N-sulfotransferase and the O-sulfotransferase reactions. Its 1 C 4 conformer (left) is in dynamic equilibrium with the 2 S 0 form (right) that has the appropriate stereochemical arrangement for glycosaminoglycan (heparin/heparan sulfate)-receptor binding (please see also Figure 3d). Xylose is part of the GlcA-(Gal) 2 -Xyl linker between the proteoglycan core protein and the disaccharide repeat section of O-linked glycosaminoglycans (chondroitin, dermatan and heparan sulfates). Neu5Ac, one of more than 80 sialic acids, is a common constituent of glycoprotein and ganglioside glycans. Its presence and the ? 2-linkage to 3-, 6- or 8-positions of acceptors give the respective oligosaccharide a speci fi c meaning. Kdo is a building block of lipopolysaccharides in the cell wall of Gram-negative bacteria and is also found in cell wall polysaccharides of green algae and higher plants. Here, polysaccharides, such as arabinoxylans or pectins (such as rhamnogalacturonans), are abundant (from [248], extended; with permission).
In case someone wants to dismiss as templates for reactions, templates by definition are information rich structures, here is Merriam Webster:
Definition of template 1a(1) : a gauge, pattern, or mold (such as a thin plate or board) used as a guide to the form of a piece being made (2) : a molecule (as of DNA) that serves as a pattern for the generation of another macromolecule (such as messenger RNA) [--> which is edited and spliced to issue protein assembly algorithms.] b : overlay sense c 2 : something that establishes or serves as a pattern
KF PS, the more basic question still stands, from 27:
is there a genetic code that is part of protein synthesis? Y/N _____ Why/why not _______
kairosfocus
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Alan Fox @ LCD Did you follow any of those links and read what I found there? Because I found nothing about how the “sugar code” is supposed to work.
:) Maybe is time to change your glasses or ask one of your grand-grandsons to read to you.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
ID is either true or not.
Well, it could have aspects of accuracy and other aspects of inaccuracy. Is there an accepted consensus of what "Intelligent Design" is as a philosophy or science?Alan Fox
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
@ LCD Did you follow any of those links and read what I found there? Because I found nothing about how the "sugar code" is supposed to work.Alan Fox
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
a simple google search first 2 pages: The sugar code: Letters and vocabulary, writers, editors and readers Can chemists crack the sugar code? The Sugar Code and Lectin DecodingLieutenant Commander Data
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
The ongoing attempt to create an Atheist-Communist America.relatd
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 16
Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans - ScienceDaily "Almost twice as many Americans held a college degree in 2018 as in 1988," said co-author Mark Ackerman, a researcher at Michigan Engineering, the U-M School of Information and Michigan Medicine. "It's hard to earn a college degree without acquiring at least a little respect for the success of science."
That's a good reference, thanks. The anti-ID crowd will claim it as a victory. "See, ID is dying!" At the same time, some IDists will say that evolution has little to do with ID, and that ID fully accepts evolution as it is. For me, I consider the survey evidence of the spread of evil ideology. Call it "evolution" or not, when someone has to tell lies about their belief system, then I consider that evil manipulation. What lies? you may ask ...? Well, when a person equivocates on the use of the very term that defines their belief ("evolution") having it mean one thing to get a buy-in from ignorant students, and then mean another thing after people think that "all educated people accept evolution" - that's propaganda and manipulation. But that's what they've done. And how do evil ideas spread through society like that? Weirdly, it's explained by the author of the survey:
Almost twice as many Americans held a college degree in 2018 as in 1988,"
So, its the colleges and universities that are indoctrinating students into the evolutionary cult. Given the philosophical consensus among the professorial caste, that kind of indoctrination is not surprising. Students can gain a degree in English literature without ever having read Shakespeare. Other professors (as our own Caspian can attest) will be fired merely for mentioning that "ultimate verities such as God could be considered in the origin of the universe".
said co-author Mark Ackerman, a researcher at Michigan Engineering, the U-M School of Information and Michigan Medicine. "It's hard to earn a college degree without acquiring at least a little respect for the success of science."
The last phrase says it. They give "respect for the success of science". That's why they buy-into Darwin. It's not that evolutionary theory is successful at all - it's the fact that it is taught and propagandized against all counter-evidence that indicates that evolution is "successful". So again, if you want to be part of the intellectual elite, accept Darwin has a hero and that his theory is unquestionable. ID is either true or not. If it's true, it remains true even if the entire human race denies it.Silver Asiatic
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
AF, for reasons as seen, you likely never will. Start with this, is there a genetic code that is part of protein synthesis? Y/N _____ Why/why not _______ KFkairosfocus
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I’m just wondering how much concrete evidence there is for a glycan code. In my enquiries so far, I have found none.
Then you are willfully ignorant.ET
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
We need an interpreter.
The sugar code: Why glycans are so important The cell surface is the platform for presentation of biochemical signals that are required for intercellular communication. Their profile necessarily needs to be responsive to internal and external factors in a highly dynamic manner. The structural features of the signals must meet the criterion of high-density information coding in a minimum of space. Thus, only biomolecules that can generate many different oligomers ('words') from few building blocks ('letters') qualify to meet this challenge. Examining the respective properties of common biocompounds that form natural oligo- and polymers comparatively, starting with nucleotides and amino acids (the first and second alphabets of life), comes up with sugars as clear frontrunner. The enzymatic machinery for the biosynthesis of sugar chains can indeed link monosaccharides, the letters of the third alphabet of life, in a manner to reach an unsurpassed number of oligomers (complex carbohydrates or glycans). Fittingly, the resulting glycome of a cell can be likened to a fingerprint. Conjugates of glycans with proteins and sphingolipids (glycoproteins and glycolipids) are ubiquitous in Nature. This implies a broad (patho)physiologic significance. By looking at the signals, at the writers and the erasers of this information as well as its readers and ensuing consequences, this review intends to introduce a broad readership to the principles of the concept of the sugar code.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28709806/
An introduction to the sugar code Carbohydrates have physiological importance far beyond their roles as source of energy (glycolysis) and activated hydrogen for synthesis (pentosephosphate pathway) or as constituent of the backbone of nucleic acids and of cell wall polysaccharides. The extent of compositional and structural variability of their oligomers (glycans) is unsurpassed in Nature due to the unique property of independently combining the following parameters with sequence: anomeric status, linkage positions, ring size, addition of branches and site-specific introduction of substitutions. The monosaccharides (letters of the third alphabet of life) thus generate 'words' (signals) of high-density coding capacity. These 'words' are part of the glycans on proteins and lipids, and the glycome represented by these 'words' in their entirety has cell type-dependent features. The often limited intramolecular flexibility of oligosaccharides along with an abundance of contact points for intermolecular interactions is ideal for binding processes. Glycan-based 'words' can thus be 'read,' and their message translated into cellular effects by receptors called lectins. This journal's special issue covers central aspects of the concept of the sugar code.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27975142/ Maybe we can make sense of it.jerry
July 16, 2022
July
07
Jul
16
16
2022
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply