Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jonathan Wells Jonathan Wells, the author of The Myth of Junk DNA, offers some thoughts on the limitations of what DNA does. Read this before you pay attention to any more DNA fundamentalism:

We have rigorous experimental evidence that DNA does not even code completely for proteins; in most cases the final forms of proteins are not fully specified by DNA sequences.

After transcription, most multi-exon eukaryotic genes undergo alternative splicing, which changes the sequence. [1] We know of one DNA sequence (a “gene” in now-obsolete parlance) in Drosophila from which over 18,000 different proteins are derived, mostly through alternative splicing. [2]

After alternative splicing, some mRNAs undergo editing, in which various subunits are modified or removed and new subunits are added. [3] Because of alternative splicing and RNA editing, the sequences of most mRNAs are different from the original DNA sequence. Instead, their final forms are specified by processes mediated by huge epigenetic complexes (spliceosomes and editosomes) that respond to extracellular cues and operate differently in different developmental stages.

Even after RNAs are translated into proteins, the latter change in ways that cannot be traced back to DNA sequences. First, proteins with the same amino acid sequences can adopt different three-dimensional folding patterns; these are called “metamorphic proteins.” [4] Second, most proteins are glycosylated: That is, complex carbohydrates are chemically bonded to them to generate enormous diversity in protein functions. [5] Since carbohydrate molecules are branched, they carry many more orders of magnitude of information than linear molecules such as DNA and RNA. This has been called the “sugar code,” and although it is highly specified it is largely
independent of DNA sequence information. [6]

So DNA does not completely specify proteins; but even if it did, it would not specify their spatial locations in the cell or embryo. After a protein is transcribed in the nucleus, it must be transported to the proper location in the cell with the help of cytoskeletal arrays and membrane-bound targets that are not themselves specified solely by DNA sequences. The pattern of spatial information in the membrane — called the “membranome” — is known not to be specified by DNA [7] Since spatial localization is essential for proteins to function properly, this adds yet another layer of complexity to the specification of form and function. [8]

Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.

[1] Kornblihtt AR, Schor IE, Alló M, Dujardin G, Petrillo E, et al. (2013) Alternative splicing: A pivotal step between eukaryotic transcription and translation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14:153-165. doi:10.1038/nrm3525

[2] Sun W, You X, Gogol-Döring A, He H, Kise Y, et al. (2013) Ultra-deep profiling of alternatively spliced Drosophila Dscam isoforms by circularization-assisted multi-segment sequencing. EMBO J Jun 21, 2013. doi:10.1038/emboj.2013.144

[3] Peng Z, Cheng Y, Tan BC, Kang L, Tian Z, et al. (2012) Comprehensive analysis of RNA-Seq data reveals extensive RNA editing in a human transcriptome. Nat Biotechnol 30:253-260. doi:10.1038/nbt.2122

[4] Bryan PN, Orban J (2010) Proteins that switch folds. Curr Opin Struct Biol 20:482-488. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2010.06.002

[5] Furukawa K, Ohkawa Y, Yamauchi Y, Hamamura K, Ohmi Y, et al. (2012) Fine tuning of cell signals by glycosylation. J Biochem 151:573-578. doi:10.1093/jb/mvs043

[6] Gabius H-J (2000) Biological information transfer beyond the genetic code: The sugar code. Naturwissenschaften 87:108-121. doi:10.1007/s001140050687

[7] Cavalier-Smith T (2004) The membranome and membrane heredity in development and evolution. In: Hirt RP, Horner DS, eds. Organelles, Genomes and Eukaryote Phylogeny. CRC Press (Boca Raton, FL) pp 335-351.

[8] Wells J (2013) The membrane code: A carrier of essential biological information that is not specified by DNA and is inherited apart from it. In: Marks RJ II, Behe MJ, Dembski WA, Gordon BL, Sanford JC, eds. Biological Information: New Perspectives. World Scientific (Singapore) pp 474-488.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Yes, we know Joe, you think he's referring to the mRNA sequence. And yet scordova, your own pal, disagrees with you and agrees with me.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
RodW:
I think the vast majority of biologists would agree with me that the genetic information ultimately determines the form of an organism
Until they come up with supporting evidence or some way to test that claim, no one cares what they agree with. It ain't science.
In any case, if the major source of information on form is not genetic information where does it come from?
Other parts of the cell including its cytoskeleton and membrane.
Has this other form of information ever been demonstrated?
Yes.
How is it different from genetic information?
It isn't geneticJoe
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Andre, you question my use of wiki and then send me a link from a random website? Good one bud. Epigenetics is the closest thing to support for lamarck and it consists of heritable modifications made to DNA structure made largely during development. You should really try to learn about biology from sources other than what you friends here at UD are peddling.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
AVS the only theory of evolution came from Darwin.
Wells’ argument is that alternative splicing results in a difference in the amino acid sequence and what would be expected from the DNA coding regions.
That is NOT what he says. You are a moronJoe
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
AVS If you did not know, and I know you did not, both Lamarck and Wallace argued that evolution is a directed process, aka, designed. Both these gentleman have been vindicated.... http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184 Noe please if you have a single ounce of integrity, please do the right thing and apologize, then go learn what you have missed all these years. It's an amazing journey I promise you.Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
AVS Not only has a village lost its idiot the circus is missing it's clown... http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Lamarck.html knock yourself out...Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
That comment was specifically for you Andre. Not only is there evidence for the evolution of splicing mechanisms, but it has been shown that some RNA sequences can splice themselves. Half a lung is always better than no lung, just as half a brain is better than no brain. I really wish you had at least a half a brain Andre.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
AVS Is that just a general observation or have you addressed me? So how about your measurements on being more schooled than me? Can I have it then? Since you are not forth coming in any answers let us start with; "But anyways I can picture a scenario where" You know AVS I can picture a scenario where Megan Fox falls in love with me, but that does not mean it actually happened...... "but a relatively simple protein evolves that is capable of modifying RNA at low levels, producing a new protein with a slightly different function that may benefit an organism" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence do you have some to verify this claim? "You’re problem is that you think these huge complex protein complexes we see in eukaryotes today had to all come about at once. No one is claiming this happened.” In light of this, can I ask you what good is half a lung? Half a brain? Half an anus? Half a penis? Here is your problem, you have to much faith in your imagination.Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
"Mutate a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and observe only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly." Seriously what does that even mean? The fact you guys think that is even an intelligent statement just goes to show how clueless you are, were you expecting an "alien" fly?AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
The fact that you are on here trying to talk about evolution, despite you obviously having no real knowledge on the subject tells me your are an idiot.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
I can see I've been posting on the wrong thread! Joe brought up this topic and this is what I posted over there: Joe said,
See also Why Is A Fly Not A Horse? Dr Sermonti is a geneticist. Jonathan Wells is a developmental biologist and he also disagrees with you.
I think the vast majority of biologists would agree with me that the genetic information ultimately determines the form of an organism ( with a few caveats) I’m not familiar with what Sermonti says on the matter. I only know his arguments that the leaf and stick-mimic insect fossil record was evidence against evolution. Was the quote that genes only influence form from Wells or Denton? In any case, if the major source of information on form is not genetic information where does it come from? Has this other form of information ever been demonstrated? How is it different from genetic information?RodW
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
AVS I will quote you.... "But anyways I can picture a scenario where genes do not need to be spliced, but a relatively simple protein evolves that is capable of modifying RNA at low levels, producing a new protein with a slightly different function that may benefit an organism. You’re problem is that you think these huge complex protein complexes we see in eukaryotes today had to all come about at once. No one is claiming this happened." Do you see the problem with your words above? Read it to yourself aloud and report back what you've found please?Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
AVS Lets have some fun..... Now how do you measure that you are somehow more "schooled" than me? Please do tell?Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Ah yes, and the illiterate tells the educated to "get schooled." Enjoy life in the slow lane Andre.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
O Brother, why do I even bother? Get schooled friend come back when you've learnt something. Start here.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhQWkTl1PQAndre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Andre, you can join Joe and BA on the sideline now, you have nothing intelligent to say and have demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Are you serious Andre? Lamarck has been proven to be almost completely wrong about the mechanisms of evolution over the last 200 years. A giraffe that stretches its neck out to reach higher leaves does not have offspring with a longer neck. Only changes in the heritable material are passed to offspring. And Wallace had virtually the same idea that Darwin did, he actually spurned the publishing of Darwin's work.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
AVS If you think epigenetics has become part of Darwin's pseudo scientific ramblings then it's abundantly clear you don't really know much about the subject in-spite of your recurring and often vehement claims about your proficiency on the subject. Stultus Est Sicut Stultus FacitAndre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Again, I love how you guys refer to things as darwinian. Outside of your kool-aid drinking circles, here in the world of science, it's "the theory of evolution" and it has stemmed from the ideas put together in Darwin's book. One of the first things often taught in evolution classes is the, "evolution" of the idea itself, starting with Linneaus' classification system in the 1700's. Darwin may not have been the only person to think of evolution, but he was the first to think of it clearly and amass the evidence needed to support his new hypothesis.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
AVS Perhaps you could spare some time and read Lamarck's work and then some Alfred Russel Wallace so you can understand better what ID people like me understand about evolution. The Darwinian blind luck did it just does not hold with the evidence, Wallace and Lamarck observations and theories however does.Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
AVS Firstly, is there such a thing as evolution and I would say yes like most other ID people, is there such a thing as Darwinian evolution and the answer is no. Darwin's theory is mostly stolen from other people, that's a free lesson for you. Darwin was a crazy, delusional angry at God racist. Evolution is true but it ain't Darwinian.Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
I love how you guys toss the phrase "darwinian" around. If you guys ever want to be taken seriously , you should refer to it as "the theory of evolution." And epigenetics does not refute the theory of evolution, it has become a part of it.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Well epigenetics is non Darwinian and thus the only reason, AVS rejects it, you can't mess with the Jesus of materialism (Darwin), atheists will have none of that, you see it would compromise their belief system....Andre
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
So what??? Wells' argument is that alternative splicing results in a difference in the amino acid sequence and what would be expected from the DNA coding regions. This is completely false, except in the case of RNA editing. Joe has already proven my point that Wells' wording is ambiguous anyway. Could you let him know that the sequence Wells refers to in the alternative splicing sentence is most likely the amino acid sequence, by the way.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
AVS
Put an amino acid sequence of the whichever final protein is made, up to the corresponding exon in the DNA. The sequence predicted from the DNA will exactly match that of the actual amino acid sequence.
So what? The point of alternative splicing is whether or not an exon is included in the mRNA or not. Alternative splicing is influenced by epigenetic inputs.Jehu
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Jehu, AVS has been backed into a corner and now he is relegated to flailing away. He has no idea what Wells claims He has been caught misrepresenting Wells and now he just spewing meaningless drivel. Typical but still pathetic.Joe
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Yes it most certainly is true. Put an amino acid sequence of the whichever final protein is made, up to the corresponding exon in the DNA. The sequence predicted from the DNA will exactly match that of the actual amino acid sequence. Like I've said three times now, RNA editing is the only process that supports Wells' claim and it not only occurs rarely, but it rarely changes the final fold of the protein.AVS
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
AVS
While it was interesting to learn that we think epigenetics has a role in splicing, the fact still remains that the amino acid sequence of the final gene product is still exactly what would be predicted from the corresponding nucleotide sequence in the DNA.
That is simply not true. DSCAM, for example, can express over 38,000 different proteins depending on alternative splicing. Epigenetic inputs influence alternative splicing, therefore the resulting protein cannot be predicted from the DNA alone.Jehu
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
AVS- Obviously I understand biology better than you do. At least I knew what transcription entails.
Everything I have said completely refutes Wells’ dishonest presentation of biological processes.
Liar. You don't even understand what Wells said.
The fact that you think you have corrected me in much of anything is laughable.
The evidence says I have corrected you.
the fact still remains that the amino acid sequence of the final gene product is still exactly what would be predicted from the corresponding nucleotide sequence in the DNA
So what? No one is saying anything different. Are you really that dishonest or stupid?Joe
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice. Proverbs 13:20 Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm. Proverbs 14:7 Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge. Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. Proverbs 15:14 The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly. Proverbs 16:22 Good sense is a fountain of life to him who has it, but the instruction of fools is folly. Proverbs 17:10 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 20:3 It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling. Proverbs 23:9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words. Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. Proverbs 29:9 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. Proverbs 29:11 A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back. Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Taken together the latter two verses illustrate the point that no proverb is intended to cover every possible situation. The apparent contradiction in the two proverbs indicates that proverbs must be appropriately applied. One situation demands that we avoid playing the fool’s game by giving an answer, while another demands that we expose the folly so that the fool is not considered wise.Dionisio
April 2, 2014
April
04
Apr
2
02
2014
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply