Enforcement of Textbook Orthodoxy Annals: Xist Gene X-ed

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 18, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In “Re-Write The Textbooks: Key Genetic Phenomenon Shown To Be Different Than Believed,” (ScienceDaily, July 2, 2009) we learn,

Because females carry two copies of the X chromosome to males’ one X and one Y, they harbor a potentially toxic double dose of the over 1000 genes that reside on the X chromosome.

To compensate for this imbalance, mammals such as mice and humans shut down one entire X-chromosome through a phenomenon known as X-inactivation. For almost two decades, researchers have believed that one particular gene, called Xist, provides the molecular trigger of X-inactivation.

Now, a new UNC study appearing online July 1 in the journal Nature disputes the current dogma by showing that this process can occur even in the absence of this gene.

Hope no careers went down on account of doubt on this point …

Comments

If this "is how science" is done, then Darwinist would allow for skeptical opinions to exist in Textbooks about the failure of Gradualism, the fossil record and the Fraud through the ages by Darwinist supporters and they would not commit a priori to an Unguided process without evidence of observable data today for macro evolution by an unguided theory. The story mentions "dogma" which is perfect for Darwinist and their religion through their high priest Darwin. The article that Denyse posted also mentions "non-coded" RNA, yet another failed prediction of Darwinist, materialist, evolutionist. What this also shows is how little science really knows, yet people here rail against Denyse? For what? Pointing out how dogma works and textbooks include bad knowledge? You should be ashamed for supporting such sham theatrics. Real scienct should not be teaching a failed Dogma. Where is Darwin in this discovery? Where is JunkDNA? A prediction by Darwinist? "Now, a new UNC study appearing online July 1 in the journal Nature disputes the current dogma by showing that this process can occur even in the absence of this gene." “Our study contradicts what is written in the textbooks,” said senior study author Terry Magnuson, Ph.D., Sarah Graham Kenan Professor and chair of genetics, director of the Carolina Center for Genome Sciences and a member of the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center." Contradict? So to does the study of the fossil record, so-called "JunkDNA" predictions, vestigial organs, Dino-Bird theory, Darwin's TOL, etc., etc., each new discovery contradicts what is in the TextBooks from a Darwinist dogma. There is no "gradual" record of fossils, therefore no evidence of gradualism, therefore a Contradiction to what is taught to children around the world. But thats ok? Because, "thats how science" is done? Haha... right, keep teaching children a radical, unproven, unsustainable DOGMA over and over until they believe it? Thats how Fascism works with propaganda tactics. If "this is how science works," then is it not time after 200yrs to update them with the failures of prediction and the true fossil record? Otherwise, show all the transitions. Be honest, you don't have them. LOL.... what a condescending remark from a hypocritical bunch of blind faith worshippers in a blind process. This is not the only "dogma" that needs a "Re-Write" in the Textbooks today. The entire Darwinian fictional fairy tale needs to be rewritten and admitted as a complete failure. Everyone, please show me the tens of thousands of "Transitional" fossils for the "Gradual" MacroEvolutionary Fictional Story of your priest Darwin. What.... Tiktaalik? LOL... anything else? What a joke of a smokescreen. Come on.... back up your dogma and your statements of "how science is done" smokescreen. Show me the Tens of Thousands of transitional fossils that should be in evidence for the record. Anyone with a clue understands if there is indeed a slow, gradual process for Macro Theory, we should have 2,3,4.... 1000 times the Transitional fossils in order than we do today in comparison to current fossil records. Yet, what do we have? Only Dogma in Textbooks with no observable proof. Instead, what should be written is we have an explosion of information and fossils already formed with what... .00001 percent if that of any transitions found? This is the biggest scam, sham, blind dogma of science for the record ever committed, blindly followed and adhered to by so many in science for so long that future generations will wonder why so many fell for such a failed theory. This is worse than alchemy of turning lead into gold. Take your condescending attitudes back to the drawing board to rewrite more fictional tales for the kiddies, unless you can show a completed fossil record with the Tens of Thousands of Missing Links. I know you cannot to this. You know you cannot do this, so the TextBooks need a Re-Write entirely about Darwinism and its failures. Non-Coded RNA... gee, it has a purpose yet again. Go figure, yet another failure of a failed Dogma.DATCG_{July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

And, of course, the emphasis was removed from my blockquote although it appeared in the preview.Tajimas D_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

herb says:
...now that they’ve challenged the Darwinist orthodoxy.
Well, let's just check the article (emphasis added):
Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that X-linked genes have evolved to become dependent on Xist RNA for their silencing; however, silencing can initially occur independently of Xist RNA and is a consequence of differentiation of the mammalian sex chromosomes... the evolution of XCI to encompass individual segments and the relatively recent appearance of Xist RNA argue that the initial silencing of X-linked genes may be a local or regional, rather than a chromosome-wide, event; therefore, multiple mechanisms may mediate the initiation of imprinted XCI.
Oops. Maybe I missed the "design inference".Tajimas D_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

You know, it really wouldn't kill you to post direct links to relevant scientific articles. Or maybe post the abstract of the relevant studies. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08161.html
XX female mammals undergo transcriptional silencing of most genes on one of their two X chromosomes to equalize X-linked gene dosage with XY males in a process referred to as X-chromosome inactivation (XCI). XCI is an example of epigenetic regulation. Once enacted in individual cells of the early female embryo, XCI is stably transmitted such that most descendant cells maintain silencing of that X chromosome. In eutherian mammals, XCI is thought to be triggered by the expression of the non-coding Xist RNA from the future inactive X chromosome (Xi); Xist RNA in turn is proposed to recruit protein complexes that bring about heterochromatinization of the Xi. Here we test whether imprinted XCI, which results in preferential inactivation of the paternal X chromosome (Xp), occurs in mouse embryos inheriting an Xp lacking Xist. We find that silencing of Xp-linked genes can initiate in the absence of paternal Xist; Xist is, however, required to stabilize silencing along the Xp. Xp-linked gene silencing associated with mouse imprinted XCI, therefore, can initiate in the embryo independently of Xist RNA.
Tajimas D_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

they’ve challenged the Darwinist orthodoxy. As far as I can see this study is nothing to do with how anything evolved. It would be equally true if the XCI process were designed by a committee of Martians. It is a straightforward bit of genetics which presumably will be established in detail and with great certainty one day. It is getting to the stage where all of science is "Darwinian orthodoxy".Mark Frank_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Hope no careers went down on account of doubt on this point …
Denyse, you just don't seem to get it: this is NORMAL. Science investigates unanswered questions, it learns stuff, and sometimes old ideas turn out to need changing, which results in textbook revisions. IOW, the discovery, if it holds up, is news (if a few weeks old at this point). The fact that older ideas may be invalidated? Not news. Certainly nothing people will be losing their jobs over. For the interested, here is the link to the letter in Nature: Evidence of Xist RNA-independent initiation of mouse imprinted X-chromosome inactivationdbthomas_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Hope no careers went down on account of doubt on this point …
So do I. And the authors of the paper better watch their backs now that they've challenged the Darwinist orthodoxy. It seems like we see examples like this every day---it just goes to show how steeped in dogma the biological sciences are.herb_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply