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
JDD, its nice to see someone reasonable on here for once. Thank you. Erik, when you're ready to talk about biology you can try to refute my original points. I won't hold my breath.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Scordova, since you are the only UDer that I know to have some intelligence, I will respond to you and most likely you only. My problem with Mr. Wells is not only what he says, but how he says it. Not only is his assertion about alternative splicing wrong, but he words it vaguely, most likely on purpose. In that first sentence he is trying to bolster his claim that protein sequences are not fully specified by DNA sequence. He makes it seem as if alternative splicing is changing the primary sequence of the protein so that it no longer exactly matches what would be predicted from the corresponding coding segments of DNA. This is completely false. You can take the exon straight from the DNA, and compare its translation to the corresponding segment in the expressed protein, and the two would match perfectly.AVS
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Dr JDD: (where most very intelligent scientists are in fact not even aware of many of these arguments against naturalistic evolution nor have given it thought given the axiom of atheistic evolution that has been largely established without question in the scientific community). This is exactly right. I have a degree in Biology that is well dated. However, I remember taking chordate morphology and thinking: when will they explain the so-called "missing links"? It never happened. And I thought, "Oh well, maybe they explain that in some other class." And on I went, assuming a kind of, as you say 'theistic evolution' per Darwinian mechanisms. Then I read the Origin of Species in an old book shop. Oh, my! "Difficulties on the Theory"! I should say. Then Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Denton's "A Theory in Crisis." I decided to go looking for an answer. Surely it had to be out there. It was never to be found. Then you go to the blogosphere thinking they will have an answer to your questions and objections. No. Instead they simply belittle you and cast scorn on you. Then you know there is no answer or else they would have provided it instead of the scorn. I think the vast majority of scientists simply accept what the evolutionary biologists tell them, supposing the entire time that if pushed, these scientists could buttress their claims. EVS is probably one of those scientists. They're simply unaware that the "emperor has no clothes."PaV
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Dr JDD:
I feel this argument, or rather the evidence presented in quotes above can be easily picked apart like AVS is done. So I agree with him on those points (that even carbohydrate addition is down to the DNA as it is a specific sequence, etc.) but I interpret that as complexity of DNA outside the reach of a naturalistic evolution. It is not proof of either, it is merely adding complexity which makes one theory more difficult to rationalize and the other easier to believe (to my simple mind).
Welcome JDD. At the end of your last post you seem to acknowledge an unfamiliarity with 'trolls.' In a certain sense, that's what AVS is. You're new to UD, and that's great. But we who have been here for years have seen it all by now. That's part of the reason we might seem (and be) edgy at times. When you wrote, "I interpret that as complexity of DNA outside the reach of a naturalistic evolution. It is not proof of either, it is merely adding complexity which makes one theory more difficult to rationalize and the other easier to believe . . ." you simply are stating the EXACT way we here at UD understand these things. AVS is a "Johnny-come-lately," with this being the first we've seen (or heard) of him. We've had these kinds of arguments before with others like AVS, and we will have them again. And, unlike you, the arguments seem to mean nothing to the 'other side.' It does tend to make us a little impatient. What is so obvious---or should be so obvious to all---is the tremendous levels of complexity that are "integrated" together to effect cellular function . . . and LIFE! Exactly how long it's going to take before the Darwinists "give up the ghost," no one knows for sure. But what is crystal clear right now is that every advance of biological technology damages the likelihood of current 'evolutionary' thought to explain it, and, in the case of Darwinism, completely dismantles it. Welcome aboard. Now, as to some of the things AVS wrote: (a) He writes something like "all of these are subject to typical evolutionary mechanisms." How nice. And what are those mechanisms? Positive/directional selection? Neutral Genetic Drift (NGD)? There's another thread that's up as we speak centering on how population geneticists now favor NGD over selection as the means by which evolution advances. In the face of the 'layers' of complexity we are talking about, how is this possible? It is inane to even begin to think that NGD could bring this about. But, now, traditional population genetics have been abandoned. Why? Because of genetic load. And that means that the amount of directional selection that can take place is now itself limited. Each layer contributes to more complexity and, hence, to greater genetic load. So, whence these 'layers' of complexity? (b) We are talking about the living world here in biology, while at the surface it may seem similar to the computer world, there are a vast amount of differences. The best way I can sum it up is the fact that biology is concerned with living things, to which there is no real comparison in the non-living world. And, yet, when it comes to "evolution," computer models are built which, we are told, simulate what happens in real life. Most of what is used to prop up evolution is somehow tied to computer models. (c) Anyway here are some terms you can look up to get you on your path to knowledge: transcription factors, cell determination, cell differentiation, fate maps, ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm, gastrulation, mitosis, hox genes, and morphogens Wiki is a good resource, goodluck Besides the sneering quality these words drip with, this is a pathetic retort. You're asked for an explanation, and you answer by saying to go look up the most basic structures of embryology. You fail to "see the forest for the trees." The ID argument is one of unexplainable levels of complexity. That there are all these various inputs to sequence information requires us to believe that the information stored in DNA must be information that is 'computable' with a whole series of other codes, or modes of processing. Is it permissible---that it, can logic sustain the hypothesis---to believe that this unimaginable level of complexity slowly arose out of natural forces themselves? Darwinists love to mock IDists by saying our view is simply: "God did it." Your view, I'm afraid, is simply: "DNA does it." Now if you could only explain where all the information contained in DNA came from, this would be an acceptable answer. Oh, yeah, I remember: "Typical evolutionary mechanisms can explain it all." So, I guess it isn't "DNA does it all," but "NGD and selection" does it all. Would you like to explain how it does this, or should I just accept this on faith?PaV
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
News note: Just been notified that Jonathan Wells has an article accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal that tackles this question for an academic audience. We'll doubtless be notified, and some of you may wish to comment in that venue.News
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Upright / Eric / Querius / Moose - many thanks for the generous welcome to UD. I sincerely hope I can in some small way occasionally add value to discussion. It is a breath of fresh air to be able to share common thought-processes that constantly come under fire on an almost daily basis coming from the science world (where most very intelligent scientists are in fact not even aware of many of these arguments against naturalistic evolution nor have given it thought given the axiom of atheistic evolution that has been largely established without question in the scientific community). I look forward to many more stimulating articles and discussions! JDDr JDD
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
I'd also note: How many ID proponents have their interest in ID hanging on what percentage of the information in the cell is entirely gene-based versus epigenetic? I'm willing to bet the number is virtually zero.Upright BiPed
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Dr JDD, your post #109 is a breath of fresh air. Thanks.Moose Dr
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
JDD, Thanks so much for your cogent, insightful comments. As you have, my rejection of Darwinistic evolution is based on recognizing the prevalence of speculation over science, although you have a much deeper understanding of the biochemical issues than I have. What I picture is a sort of raisin bread---the raisins are observations with a high level of scientific confidence. In following the data, I wouldn't mind if it led me to some form of evolution. But it currently doesn't, and I think the paradigm that's used for the context---the bread around the raisins---needs a major revision. Now I'm hungry for some toasted raisin bread. ;-) Hope to see more posts from you. -QQuerius
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
AVS, "I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but I do understand enough of it to know that it makes sense and puts biology in perspective." Wow, a note of humility. AVS, I have three questions for you: 1 - Do you believe that astrology is valid? (I presume you would say "No"). 2 - Do you have a rich understanding of astrology? (I would presume you would say "No". If you don't say no, please explain the relationship between the phase of the moon and a person's life path. I presume that you know that astrology is much more intricate than what "sign" you were born under.) 3 - Do you believe that you have enough information about astrology to come to your conclusion in question #1?Moose Dr
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
JDD: I was writing my comment #111 when you posted #109 and didn't see it before I posted. Thanks again for your clarification and for sharing your thoughts.Eric Anderson
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
JDD: Thanks for your comments. I hope you will continue to participate and comment. It is instructive to note, however, that Wells has provided a number of references for what he is describing (some cited in the OP). Meanwhile, the supposed takedown by AVS was characterized by bald assertions, strawmen, insults, and a lack of citations. He has not dealt with the substantive issues raised by Wells, but loudly proclaims that he is the only one who has addressed the science in this thread. In my view, it is a very open -- and fascinating -- question whether all information for an organism is specified in DNA. A growing number of researchers (not just Wells) are starting to suspect that there are additional layers of information in the cell beyond what is contained in DNA itself. This is a highly-interesting and cutting-edge question. Unfortunately, in his haste to trash anything on this site or anything by someone like Wells who deigns to question the evolutionary mantra, AVS has not only made mistakes about what Wells' argument is, he has also essentially dismissed with the wave of a hand a very interesting and front-and-center research question that is receiving a lot of attention in the research community right now.Eric Anderson
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Again Dr JDD, I hope you'll find the time and continue to contribute.Upright BiPed
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Hi, Perhaps I did not explain myself very well, or perhaps I was misunderstood – however I am happy to accept the former. Please do not see my reply as “rushing to the defence of AVS” as nothing could be further than the truth. I was not rushing, I was trying to provide a more balanced approach that is often lacking I feel. It appears to me that when we do not make the small concessions needed we give the impression we are extremists and not scientists. I do not think that the whole of Dr Wells quote above is wrong – far from it I wholeheartedly agree with the implications. However I do feel aspects of it are, as AVS says in SOME of his response (I am not defending AVS I am questioning some of the ways in which we respond) are due to perhaps the way it is phrased (in particular the carbohydrate addition). My post was intended to potentially raise the point that, for example, if a child does not understand something, and throws a tantrum do you respond by calling names and throwing a tantrum or do you as a mature adult, rise above it, explain the fallacy in their argument and not resort to name-calling? I fear that when we engage in an immature name-calling manner we open ourselves up to severe criticism. This is how I read it, in response to AVS’ first main post: 1)      Yes alternative splicing is a genetic code determined thing i.e. splicing sites at intron-exon boundaries have specific sequences which allow them to be recognised and spliced. However Dr Wells is not talking about that, he is saying that other cues are in place, outside of the genetic code that determine which exons are transcribed into proteins. These environmental cues are not DNA events so they are outside the DNA code control (although they do rely on gene-encoded proteins to perform these events and other gene-encoded transcription factors) 2)      Yes a carbohydrate addition can only occur at a glycosylation motif, which is genetically determined by the DNA code. However, if indeed the complex carbohydrate added to the protein that the DNA transcribed also contains information or its own “code” as studies suggest, this sugar code is independent of DNA code and has a purpose not dictated by an evolving genome as such (although you could argue that simply the presence of a glycosylation site dictates the presence of a sugar code so DNA has some role but this is a weak argument IMHO). 3)      I agree with Dr Wells about the spatial distribution of proteins in particular on membranes and membrane trafficking/transport (in fact I did my PhD on this) and the lipid interactions and properties (especially if things such as lipid rafts do exist, for example) are complex processes that cannot be explained by DNA code, as Dr Wells elegantly summarises. So I would completely disagree with AVS here as (in his 2nd post) he only address protein:protein and protein:carbohydrate interactions and completely omits protein:lipid importances, which Dr Wells, IMO clearly alludes to. My personal opinion (which may well be wrong I will accept, and may change the more time I would spend on UD and get fed up of people talking to others like AVS does in such a dismissive, patronising way at times) would be that the most fruitful discussions address the issues directly. I was writing my original post in this thread having read through the first number of posts that seemed to change the direction, go off topic, and not answer AVS’ objections when I believe there are rational arguments against what he said, while he does make some (NOT ALL!) valid points. He just fails to take them where I believe Dr Wells intended them to go. Perhaps I am a bit naïve and Utopian about all this but I believe if as ID’ers we really want to be taken seriously we cannot stoop to the level of name-calling and accepting rational points but engaging with people over them (even if they do not offer us the same luxury). Otherwise we set ourselves up to be labelled unreasonable and immature. Regards, JD (a bit naïve to trolls ;) ) PS - this was not aimed at all responders just a general comment from observing a few responses to this and other postsDr JDD
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
AVS said: the actual exons that become the protein coding mRNA retain completely retain their sequence.
Did Wells say exons change sequence, or is that just your false insinuation that he said exons change their sequence?scordova
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
TSErik and Dionisio, Frankly, it’s becoming blatantly obvious that you’re having to endure vacuous insults and puffery from people who have little else to offer than cutting and pasting from who knows where.
Certainly. And I admit I didn't touch the original topic or the claims therein. I find it necessary to hold a mirror up to the nihilistic and antisocial drones. To cut open their parrot statements to reveal the absurdities that rattle around in their vacuous crania.TSErik
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Dr JDD, I have been fortunate to catch both your first two comments on this forum. Truly, I hope you'll see fit to continue to contribute. That said, AVS's first point in his critique of Wells made the deliberately dishonest implication that Wells was saying something that Wells never said. Moreover, it was not what Wells actually said that AVS was objecting to (in fact he confirmed Well's point). Instead it was his own dishonest implication that he used to launch his attack on Wells. This is the act of an intellectual coward. When I called AVS on it, he did not address the false implication, instead he packed on additional slurs - at which point, there was little reason to proceed.Upright BiPed
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Dr JDD, No, AVS did not pick apart Wells claim, instead AVS put up a strawman. Wells was talking amino acid sequence not DNA sequence! AVS made a subtle misrepresentation insinuating that Wells was arguing a change in Exon sequence when Wells was talking about amino acid sequence.
Yes they undergo alternative splicing, but the actual exons that become the protein coding mRNA retain completely retain their sequence.
You were being far too generous to AVS for saying he picked Wells apart. AVS picked apart a statement Wells never made. In that respect, you're get points docked for not recognizing a rhetorical gimmick and rushing to AVS defense prematurely. ID proponents should be criticized when they make misstatements, but in this case the AVS picked apart a statement Wells did not make.
On that note, and please before you jump on me, remember I am a complete theist and one who rejects (macro) evolution (very much accept evolution on the “micro-scale” just not for arisal of new functional pathways and complex genes especially in a naturalistic setting) – I actually agree and see where AVS is coming from initially (I just wish his first post was a bit less patronising).
You deserve to be jumped on. Someone obviously as knowledgeable and intelligent as you should have picked out that Wells was talking amino acid sequences in a protein and AVS was talking DNA sequences -- they are not the same because: 1. DNA sequences are made of DNA 2. protein sequences are made of amino acids
Yes they undergo alternative splicing, but the actual exons that become the protein coding mRNA retain completely retain their sequence.
Where did Wells argue the Exons change? Strawman.
Dr JDD: Even the splicing is dictated by DNA code.
Not exactly. Environmental queues can affect the epigenome, and that may determine which splices to make. Example, in developmental biology we can either physically and or chemically affect the developmental paths. Wells used to do that with frogs. This necessarily affects how cells are developed which means different protein isoforms and alternative splices are made based on environmental queues. A more charitable reading would have perceived this was the sense in which Wells was talking. Thus DNA may dictate alternative splices, but what dictates when the DNA is to make an alternative splice in the first place? If the epigenome has a say, then the epigenome may have memory, and if the epigenome has memory its memory may or may not be heritable.scordova
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
AVS, You don't get a pass on the information problems in Darwinism by waiving your hands around and saying "it's a living system." Since I actually do have a job, I can't sit here all day and debate you point for point, but I have seen your type over the years and basically you are unable to comprehend the difference between a fact being false and a fact being used in an argument you disagree with. You believe that all facts must be used only to support your materialistic world view or else the person using the facts is a liar or a rube. In short, you are unable to objectively comprehend your own metaphysical biases and so you rage and rage against everyone that doesn't agree with you, sputtering foolish nonsensical objections. Darwinism is over. Give up.Jehu
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
AVS is full of itself. It cannot demonstrate that blind watchmaker evolution produced alternative gene splicing. It doesn't even know where to start such a demonstration. Yup, all science so far, AVS.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
AVS @ 39:
And it produces a different protein, Joe.
LoL! That is what happens when you alter the amino acid sequence, duh.
I’m not sure what your point was.
You sed that the amino acid sequence wasn't altered. You were wrong, as usual.
Try to make a point when you post and not just make single ambiguous statements that demonstrate your insecurities in talking about biology in such detail.
Nice projection.Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
I hold that the reason why a organism starts to disintegrate in fairly short order upon death is because the quantum information, which is 'conserved', is 'missing' from the organism and existing elsewhere in the universe:
Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information) - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578 Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
Of related note to quantum information in biology, not only is quantum information in the cell not reducible to the sequential information in the cell, but the sequential 'classical' information is found to be a subset of quantum information by the following method:
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
In fact, not only is quantum information in the cell not reducible to the sequential information in DNA, but all the energy and mass of an entire human body can 'theoretically' be reduced to quantum information and teleported elsewhere in the universe:
Quantum Teleportation of a Human? - video https://vimeo.com/75163272
Verse and Music:
Luke 23:42–43 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Evanescence - My Heart Is Broken http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/my-heart-is-broken/USWV41100052
bornagain77
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
The following paper deduces that the quantum information in the DNA is what gives DNA its characteristic twist:
Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/
That Quantum Information in the DNA, in regards to structure, is playing a much larger role than the sequential information in DNA is, is also made clear in the astonishing manner in which DNA is repaired:
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm
DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.
NP-hard problem - Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard#Examples Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins - May 8, 2013 Excerpt: quantum computing is, "in some cases, really, really fast." McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous "travelling salesperson" problem that's been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,, "This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast," McGeoch says. "There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it's built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it's thousands of times faster than anything I'm aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes -- it does as well as some of the best things I've looked at. At this point it's merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508122828.htm
Since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster logistic problem, in a purely ‘material’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘traveling salesman problem’, for DNA repair, is somehow being computed by ‘non-local’ quantum computation within the cell and/or within DNA. That DNA has the inherent capacity for quantum computation is elucidated by Stuart Hameroff here:
Is DNA a quantum computer? Stuart Hameroff Excerpt: DNA could function as a quantum computers with superpositions of base pair dipoles acting as qubits. Entanglement among the qubits, necessary in quantum computation is accounted for through quantum coherence in the pi stack where the quantum information is shared,,, http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/dnaquantumcomputer1.htm
Moreover, the presence of such an elaborate DNA repair mechanism in the cell is itself a contradiction to evolutionary theory:
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems Excerpt: The bottom line is that repair mechanisms are incompatible with Darwinism in principle. Since sophisticated repair mechanisms do exist in the cell after all, then the thing to discard in the dilemma to avoid the contradiction necessarily is the Darwinist dogma. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-darwinism-contradiction-of-repair-systems/ Contradiction in evolutionary theory - video - (The contradiction between extensive DNA repair mechanisms and the necessity of 'random mutations/errors' for Darwinian evolution) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzh6Ct5cg1o
Another clue that brings clarity to the fact to the sequential information in DNA only has 'tenuous' influence over the structure of a cell, and the body plan of a organism, is made clear by the fact that a organism, though having the same collection of molecules immediately before and after death, starts to disintegrate in fairly short order upon death:
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,,Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
bornagain77
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
That the sequential information in DNA has only 'tenuous' (weak or very slight) influence over shape and form in the cell, and over the overall body plan, is made clear in part by the these following videos and articles. The following video gives a small glimpse of the astonishing process of DNA Replication, Wrapping and Mitosis:
DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis https://vimeo.com/33882804
Whatever it is in the cell directing such a highly choreographed ballet, during the process of DNA Replication, Wrapping and Mitosis, it simply is not reasonable to believe that the sequential information in the DNA is directing such a beautiful process. Especially considering the fact that basically the same highly choreographed process/ballet is happening in every cell of every organism on earth no matter what the sequential information in their DNA happens to be! In the following video Dr. Robert Carter speaks on the 'multi-dimensional genome'.
Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8905048/
Specific to the topic at hand, at the 5:20 mark of the preceding video Dr. Robert Carter speaks about the '3rd Dimension' (DNA Architecture) of information in the Genome in which genes with related physiological roles, though far apart sequentially on the DNA, are brought together. Here are a couple of articles making much the same point:
Scientists' 3-D View of Genes-at-Work Is Paradigm Shift in Genetics - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Highly coordinated chromosomal choreography leads genes and the sequences controlling them, which are often positioned huge distances apart on chromosomes, to these 'hot spots'. Once close together within the same transcription factory, genes get switched on (a process called transcription) at an appropriate level at the right time in a specific cell type. This is the first demonstration that genes encoding proteins with related physiological role visit the same factory. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215160649.htm 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm “Three-Dimensional Connections Across the Genome“ Keith Dunaway - ENCODE 2012 Excerpt: These analyses portray a complex landscape of long-range gene-element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kb to several Mb, including interactions among unrelated genes (Supplementary Figure Y1). Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50-60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue specificity for gene-element connectivity http://www.nature.com/encode/threads/three-dimensional-connections-across-the-genome Tissue-specific spatial organization of genomes - 2004 Excerpt: Using two-dimensional and three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization we have carried out a systematic analysis of the spatial positioning of a subset of mouse chromosomes in several tissues. We show that chromosomes exhibit tissue-specific organization. Chromosomes are distributed tissue-specifically with respect to their position relative to the center of the nucleus and also relative to each other. Subsets of chromosomes form distinct types of spatial clusters in different tissues and the relative distance between chromosome pairs varies among tissues. Consistent with the notion that nonrandom spatial proximity is functionally relevant in determining the outcome of chromosome translocation events, we find a correlation between tissue-specific spatial proximity and tissue-specific translocation prevalence. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific and point to a role for tissue-specific spatial genome organization in the formation of recurrent chromosome arrangements among tissues. http://genomebiology.com/content/5/7/R44
Of related note:
Shoddy Engineering or Intelligent Design? Case of the Mouse's Eye - April 2009 Excerpt: -- The (entire) nuclear genome is thus transformed into an optical device that is designed to assist in the capturing of photons. This chromatin-based convex (focusing) lens is so well constructed that it still works when lattices of rod cells are made to be disordered. Normal cell nuclei actually scatter light. -- So the next time someone tells you that it “strains credulity” to think that more than a few pieces of “junk DNA” could be functional in the cell - remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig.html
And remember until ENCODE 2012, many Darwinists had argued that upwards to 90 percent of the genome was junk. Even to this day, many Darwinists still argue that huge portions of the sequential information in the genome is junk. Another piece of evidence that the linear sequence of information on DNA only has tenuous influence over the structure and form of the cell (and over the body plan) is made clear by the quantum information in the cell.
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
bornagain77
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
I find it a shame when we feel the need to throw around insults. Sorry, this is only my second post and I’m not sure of what value I can add but I feel a bit sad when things descend into insults (both sides) and it seems as though we forget the purpose of why we look into things, perhaps. There is also a danger with these discussions, that we are all so biased that we grasp onto any piece of information that supports (or we think supports) our views, and argue it until we are blue in the face. Secondly, we often as biased people will not accept anything the other side has to say. On that note, and please before you jump on me, remember I am a complete theist and one who rejects (macro) evolution (very much accept evolution on the “micro-scale” just not for arisal of new functional pathways and complex genes especially in a naturalistic setting) – I actually agree and see where AVS is coming from initially (I just wish his first post was a bit less patronising). In the context of the quotes, I think the argument Dr Wells makes here is somewhat weak. As AVS points out in his second post, the genetic information does in fact determine the final protein form by in large. Even things like carbohydrate modifications (not to mention palmitoylation, myristolation, prenylation, geranylgeranylation, ubiquitination, sumoylation, and all other manner of post-translational modifications of proteins) are in fact dictated by the amino acid motifs that allow these additions, which are in fact dictated by the DNA. Even the splicing is dictated by DNA code. So perhaps I would agree, the way this argument is portrayed does not make, in my scientific mind, the point that Dr Wells is trying to make.   Personally, what I think ID-ists should be focusing on with respect to the complex nature of this is there for the taking though. For example, think about all these different post-translational modifications, such as lipid anchoring modifications which are in some cases, absolutely necessary to anchor a protein in a membrane for a particular orientation and to “see” its substrate correctly, and be useful as a protein. How did this arise? If the protein’s function is dependent upon these modifications, the original machinery and genetic code had to be in place when this gene came into existence. For example, the enzymes needed to attach this modification to the specific amino acid motif present on the protein. It is a network that again, seems somewhat irreducible and therefore makes its gradual appearance by evolution much more difficult to believe/explain. It points more to design (in my opinion)... (cont...)Dr JDD
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
I find it a shame when we feel the need to throw around insults. Sorry, this is only my second post and I’m not sure of what value I can add but I feel a bit sad when things descend into insults (both sides) and it seems as though we forget the purpose of why we look into things, perhaps. There is also a danger with these discussions, that we are all so biased that we grasp onto any piece of information that supports (or we think supports) our views, and argue it until we are blue in the face. Secondly, we often as biased people will not accept anything the other side has to say. On that note, and please before you jump on me, remember I am a complete theist and one who rejects (macro) evolution (very much accept evolution on the “micro-scale” just not for arisal of new functional pathways and complex genes especially in a naturalistic setting) – I actually agree and see where AVS is coming from initially (I just wish his first post was a bit less patronising). In the context of the quotes, I think the argument Dr Wells makes here is somewhat weak. As AVS points out in his second post, the genetic information does in fact determine the final protein form by in large. Even things like carbohydrate modifications (not to mention palmitoylation, myristolation, prenylation, geranylgeranylation, ubiquitination, sumoylation, and all other manner of post-translational modifications of proteins) are in fact dictated by the amino acid motifs that allow these additions, which are in fact dictated by the DNA. Even the splicing is dictated by DNA code. So perhaps I would agree, the way this argument is portrayed does not make, in my scientific mind, the point that Dr Wells is trying to make.   Personally, what I think ID-ists should be focusing on with respect to the complex nature of this is there for the taking though. For example, think about all these different post-translational modifications, such as lipid anchoring modifications which are in some cases, absolutely necessary to anchor a protein in a membrane for a particular orientation and to “see” its substrate correctly, and be useful as a protein. How did this arise? If the protein’s function is dependent upon these modifications, the original machinery and genetic code had to be in place when this gene came into existence. For example, the enzymes needed to attach this modification to the specific amino acid motif present on the protein. It is a network that again, seems somewhat irreducible and therefore makes its gradual appearance by evolution much more difficult to believe/explain. It points more to design (in my opinion). Secondly, intron-exon existence in genes to me, does provide a difficult process to explain by natural selection alone. Even prokaryotes (archaea) possess introns despite for many years people assuming/thinking that this was one thing that separates eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic ones. Furthermore, how do introns arise? Surely an early assembly of a DNA-based code due to naturalistic evolution would simply have code with start and stop codons perhaps (another issue difficult to understand) but as soon as you introduce introns you have to have the machinery to deal with splicing those out from the RNA, and the machinery allowing the exons to be joined together. Then we have to take all of these other important aspects of gene regulation into account. Much of the “non-coding” DNA is necessary for proper gene control and many genes if over or under-expressed are detrimental to the organism. Even more than this it is often the relative gene expression to another gene (or sets of genes) that needs to be perfectly in balance by transcription factors and regulatory factors (not even getting into issues like DNA methylation, imprinting etc – all touted as evolutionary mechanisms yet can also point to complexity and intelligent design). Thus changing just one nucleotide may severely alter these processes, perhaps for the better but more likely for the worse. Furthermore, the recent description of the genetic “duon” that DNA codons have in fact more than just the role of defining an amino acid but also contribute to the gene regulation is also a paradigm for evolutionary changes. No longer are DNA mutations resulting in amino acid changes either detrimental or beneficial to a protein’s function ALONE, but also can have impact on the gene regulation given this duon effect. To me, that makes the probability of beneficial mutations even less likely to produce different functional proteins from one protein and give a favourable advantage.   The argument would make more sense if Dr Wells focused on the incredible complexity of everything the DNA encodes for as screaming of design, rather than try (in my humble opinion) to make this assertion that it isn’t just the DNA. There are better and other arguments that can be made that allude to this point (e.g. protein orientation, organisation, cell circuitry etc). I feel this argument, or rather the evidence presented in quotes above can be easily picked apart like AVS is done. So I agree with him on those points (that even carbohydrate addition is down to the DNA as it is a specific sequence, etc.) but I interpret that as complexity of DNA outside the reach of a naturalistic evolution. It is not proof of either, it is merely adding complexity which makes one theory more difficult to rationalise and the other easier to believe (to my simple mind). Does agreeing with AVS on some points make me a non-IDer?! No, of course not, but if we wish to be true scientists I think we have to accept some arguments do us little favours by over-interpreting data. It would be nice if the evolutionists could do the same, but hey, some of us scientists have to take the moral high-ground!! JDDr JDD
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
I find it a shame when we feel the need to throw around insults. Sorry, this is only my second post and I’m not sure of what value I can add but I feel a bit sad when things descend into insults (both sides) and it seems as though we forget the purpose of why we look into things, perhaps. There is also a danger with these discussions, that we are all so biased that we grasp onto any piece of information that supports (or we think supports) our views, and argue it until we are blue in the face. Secondly, we often as biased people will not accept anything the other side has to say. On that note, and please before you jump on me, remember I am a complete theist and one who rejects (macro) evolution (very much accept evolution on the “micro-scale” just not for arisal of new functional pathways and complex genes especially in a naturalistic setting) – I actually agree and see where AVS is coming from initially (I just wish his first post was a bit less patronising). In the context of the quotes, I think the argument Dr Wells makes here is somewhat weak. As AVS points out in his second post, the genetic information does in fact determine the final protein form by in large. Even things like carbohydrate modifications (not to mention palmitoylation, myristolation, prenylation, geranylgeranylation, ubiquitination, sumoylation, and all other manner of post-translational modifications of proteins) are in fact dictated by the amino acid motifs that allow these additions, which are in fact dictated by the DNA. Even the splicing is dictated by DNA code. So perhaps I would agree, the way this argument is portrayed does not make, in my scientific mind, the point that Dr Wells is trying to make.   Personally, what I think ID-ists should be focusing on with respect to the complex nature of this is there for the taking though. For example, think about all these different post-translational modifications, such as lipid anchoring modifications which are in some cases, absolutely necessary to anchor a protein in a membrane for a particular orientation and to “see” its substrate correctly, and be useful as a protein. How did this arise? If the protein’s function is dependent upon these modifications, the original machinery and genetic code had to be in place when this gene came into existence. For example, the enzymes needed to attach this modification to the specific amino acid motif present on the protein. It is a network that again, seems somewhat irreducible and therefore makes its gradual appearance by evolution much more difficult to believe/explain. It points more to design (in my opinion). Secondly, intron-exon existence in genes to me, does provide a difficult process to explain by natural selection alone. Even prokaryotes (archaea) possess introns despite for many years people assuming/thinking that this was one thing that separates eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic ones. Furthermore, how do introns arise? Surely an early assembly of a DNA-based code due to naturalistic evolution would simply have code with start and stop codons perhaps (another issue difficult to understand) but as soon as you introduce introns you have to have the machinery to deal with splicing those out from the RNA, and the machinery allowing the exons to be joined together. Then we have to take all of these other important aspects of gene regulation into account. Much of the “non-coding” DNA is necessary for proper gene control and many genes if over or under-expressed are detrimental to the organism. Even more than this it is often the relative gene expression to another gene (or sets of genes) that needs to be perfectly in balance by transcription factors and regulatory factors (not even getting into issues like DNA methylation, imprinting etc – all touted as evolutionary mechanisms yet can also point to complexity and intelligent design). Thus changing just one nucleotide may severely alter these processes, perhaps for the better but more likely for the worse. Furthermore, the recent description of the genetic “duon” that DNA codons have in fact more than just the role of defining an amino acid but also contribute to the gene regulation is also a paradigm for evolutionary changes. No longer are DNA mutations resulting in amino acid changes either detrimental or beneficial to a protein’s function ALONE, but also can have impact on the gene regulation given this duon effect. To me, that makes the probability of beneficial mutations even less likely to produce different functional proteins from one protein and give a favourable advantage.   The argument would make more sense if Dr Wells focused on the incredible complexity of everything the DNA encodes for as screaming of design, rather than try (in my humble opinion) to make this assertion that it isn’t just the DNA. There are better and other arguments that can be made that allude to this point (e.g. protein orientation, organisation, cell circuitry etc). I feel this argument, or rather the evidence presented in quotes above can be easily picked apart like AVS is done. So I agree with him on those points (that even carbohydrate addition is down to the DNA as it is a specific sequence, etc.) but I interpret that as complexity of DNA outside the reach of a naturalistic evolution. It is not proof of either, it is merely adding complexity which makes one theory more difficult to rationalise and the other easier to believe (to my simple mind). Does agreeing with AVS on some points make me a non-IDer?! No, of course not, but if we wish to be true scientists I think we have to accept some arguments do us little favours by over-interpreting data. It would be nice if the evolutionists could do the same, but hey, some of us scientists have to take the moral high-ground!! ;)   JDDr JDD
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
Querius, don't feel bad man, I was brainwashed for 41 years. I was a theistic evolutionist who actually debated young earth creationists until I actually started to take a long, hard and quiet look at some of the claims of Evolutionists and my faith in evolution started to crumble. Some of evolution is actually good science but much of it is more philosophy then anything else. It's actually an ambolucetas of a tale, opps , I meant a whale of a tale ;)wallstreeter43
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Stephen Meyer was the main reason I left evolution after being a believer for 41 years. People like AVS who feel the need to insult an ridicule others confirm my suspicions that when you feel the need to insult others that you are really insecure about your own views. It's is the typical tactic is the atheist/materialist/Darwinist How would you like it AVS if I said that if we debates and discussed the shroud of turin that I would make you look like an amateur nimrod idiot that would have to abandon science , logic and reason to stick to your belief taint the shroud is a forgery and a fraud. I would be able to that easily but is it how someone who is confident in what he believes in acts? Definitely not For you to claim that wells and meyer don't know squat about biology or evolution is ridiculous. I am getting an image in my mind and this is the only way I picture you by yoir personality and actions on this blog. This image fits you best http://mlkshk.com/p/CEKwallstreeter43
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
TSErik and Dionisio, Frankly, it's becoming blatantly obvious that you're having to endure vacuous insults and puffery from people who have little else to offer than cutting and pasting from who knows where. And to think that I used to also believe the 19th century fantasy that they're defending with such vehemence and unquestioning faith. I personally went through several stages of scepticism before completely losing my faith in Darwin's plagiarized theory: 1. Geological dating being dependent on dating the fossils and vice versa. 2. The struggle between the supporters of spontaneous generation and biogenesis...and that OOL is simply looking for another recipe for Von Helmont's experiment. 3. Learning some of the amazing array of interrelated and complex chemical cycles essential for cellular metabolism. (later biology) 4. Learning the incredibly destructive effects of ionizing radiation in a nuclear safety class. 5. Finding out that a lot of the Darwinist "truths" were only half truths or outright frauds when I delved into the details. There are so many of these! For example, how can the chimpanzee genome be 98-99% the same as the human genome when the chimpanzee genome is 6-10% larger (by weight) than the human genome? "We don't count those." LOL 6. The overuse of the word "musta" when speculating about improbable or fanciful explanations for Darwinian evolution. For example, fossils that are virtually identical with contemporary species are arbitrarily assigned a to different species or even genus purely on the reasoning that they "musta" been different genetically. The whole sorry mess is so contrived and lame. And then you get attacked by the rabid, abusive supporters... -QQuerius
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply