Genetics “Central Dogma” Is Dead

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | September 12, 2007

[GodGunsGuts]

“The gene is dead... long live the gene,” announced subtitles to an article in Science News this week.1 Geneticists have come to a striking conclusion over the last few years: genes are not the most important things in DNA, if they even exist as a concept.

The “central dogma” of genetics, since Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA, is that genetic information flows one-way – from the gene to the protein. In the textbooks, a gene was supposed to be a finite stretch of DNA that, when read by the translation process, produced a messenger RNA, which recruited transfer RNAs to assemble the amino acids for one protein.

As Patrick Barry described in his article “Genome 2.0,”1 the situation in real cells is much messier. “Mountains of new data are challenging old views,” his subtitle announced, including the “modern orthodoxy” that only genes are important:

"Researchers slowly realized, however, that genes occupy only about 1.5 percent of the genome. The other 98.5 percent, dubbed “junk DNA,“ was regarded as useless scraps left over from billions of years of random genetic mutations. As geneticists’ knowledge progressed, this basic picture remained largely unquestioned...." "Closer examination of the full human genome is now causing scientists to return to some questions they thought they had settled. For one, they’re revisiting the very notion of what a gene is."...

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070912a

[dan1123]

Most important quote from the article:

Gene regulation may not sound sexy, but it's a powerful way for a cell to evolve complex behaviors using the tools—proteins—that it already has. Consider the difference between a one-bedroom bungalow and an ornate, three-story McMansion. Both are made from roughly the same materials—lumber, drywall, wiring, plumbing—and are put together with the same tools—hammers, saws, nails, and screws. What makes the mansion more complex is the way that its construction is orchestrated by rules that specify when and where each tool and material must be used.

[dan1123]

Spaghetti code?

From the Science News article:


TANGLED GENES. In the classic view of the genome (top), individual genes were distinct segments of DNA that a cell transcribed into RNA whole and in one direction. New data show that multiple and overlapping genes can occupy a single strip of DNA that also produces several functional RNAs that don't encode proteins (bottom, not to scale). S. Norcross

[GodGunsGuts]

My pleasure.

[doc30]

Notice that these evolutionist-minded scientists were operating on a prediction they made according to evolution (assuming human beings were lying atop a mountain of evolved DNA) and therefore assumed the 98% "junk DNA" number. Daring to look beyond that, they're totally revisiting everything they thought about genetics.

"Junk DNA" is not a technical term. It would be better refered to as coding versus non-coding DNA. This is just another article covering an emerging subject in genetics relating to gene regulation by non-coding DNA. In other words, DNA does more than simply encode for proteins.

And there is nothing here that refutes evolution. It really amazes me that you make such assinine statements without even understanding what such articles are even about! Maybe if you actually understood what evolution actually means from a scientific perspective, rather than an Answers in Genesis talking points memo, your arguements would make sense.

[doc30]

Amazing how such a creationist museum can ruin a young mind. But as long as they get indoctrinated so they will grow up good, obedient Christians who make their pledges.....

[doc30]

"Look beyond evolution, and all kinds of possibilities open up."

None of which help creation "science."

And none of which ever originated with Creation(tm) Science.

[Thumper1960]

It sounds like the old claim that one can get 100 differing opinions from a room of 70 economists.

I had a friend in high school, whose father was an Auschwitz survivor, tell me that she'd never go the "JAP" route and marry a doctor. She'd go to college, earn her degree and make a life of her own.

She married a doctor.

She's also divorced with two kids.

[gondramB]

>>The “central dogma” of genetics, since Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA, is that genetic information flows one-way<<

This has been suspected since it was determined that insanity can be inherited from one’s children.

[DannyTN]

"science is validating them" - DaveLR

"I wouldn't accept that if I were inclined toward Creationism. Lie down with dogs . . . " - RightWhale

That's because you frame the debate as Science vs Creationism or Science vs Religion. While Creationist frame the debate as the Word of God vs the current extremely limited often faulty scientific interpretation. Creationists aren't against science at all. We're not against scientific observation, we're not against forming hypotheses or scientific testing (as long as it doesn't do something stupid like violate the sanctity of human life).

It's just that we know in the end, that the scientific explanation must match what God said happened. To assume otherwise, would be like taking the word of a modern literary critic over the word of William Shakespeare, about what Shakespeare's plays meant. The critic might be educated about literary forms and historical content, but his knowledge on the subject pales in comparison to the original Author.

[donmeaker]

I figured there was sufficient information for that back in Darwin’s day.

Since that time, I stopped underestimating stubborness and stupidity.

[49th]

“My point about how evolution would have written off this important field still stands.”

No it doesn’t. At no point ever has any evolutionary scientist said anything along the lines of “Well, that’s it, we know everything. We can quit now.” To claim that evolution would somehow have ‘written off’ a field of research is absurd in the extreme.

“Based on their beliefs and assumptions, evolutionists were ready to slam the door on exploring the “non-coding” sections anymore.”

Of course this also is not true. Considering that the people who did this research and made these discoveries, not to mention those who peer-reviewed the work for the journal it was published in are certainly all supporters of Evolutionary theory.

“Of course not, the grand theory (in your minds) can sustain numerous flesh wounds as it navigates the fields of flack. “

At no point in this article is the word ‘evolution’ mentioned. Nothing in this article has anything at all to do with evolutionary theory other than that the prediction made by Darwin (That a method for information transfer between one generation and the next would be discovered) is clearly true and is being given more support.

This is a fascinating article about the method by which our bodies construct themselves. It is interesting that our understanding of DNA and how it works is expanding. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and it absolutely certainly in no way lends any support to the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old and all creatures were created as they currently exist.

You still have no evidence to support your claim.

[49th]

“It’s just that we know in the end, that the scientific explanation must match what God said happened.”

This statement is the problem with the whole notion of “Christian science”. You have decided on what the outcome must be before performing the experiment. This is the very antithesis of science and rational inquiry.

For whatever reason, be it fear, a personal weakness, or simply indoctrination, you have come to the erroneous conclusion that when science disagrees with your book, it’s the science that is wrong. A rational person would recognize that it is the book which is wrong and would then come to the unavoidable conclusion that it is therefore NOT the word of god.

[muawiyah]

doc30, many REAL Christians believe that "pledges" are the work of the devil.

Are you sure we are all talking about the same bunch?

[muawiyah]

Yes, too many MSM journalists have been laid off and now they're over there in the peer-review journals "fixing things".

Scientific orthodoxy reigns in the print media ~ only place you'll see speculation, or original research these days, is on the net, and fortunately everybody puts everything on the net.

[DannyTN]

"A rational person would recognize that it is the book which is wrong and would then come to the unavoidable conclusion that it is therefore NOT the word of god."

If the only credentials the book had for being the word of God was the disputed science, I'd probably agree with you. But the book has fulfilled prophecies, and it has the nation of Israel's testimony to being the written works of Moses who was confirmed by both prophecies and miracles.

This statement is the problem with the whole notion of “Christian science”. You have decided on what the outcome must be before performing the experiment. This is the very antithesis of science and rational inquiry.

Actually I think it's the other way around. The current scientific clique is predetermined to make everything fit into a long age framework

Anyway, we don't decide outcomes, it's the interpretations of what outcomes mean, that we dispute. And we dispute them, because the Creator has way more credence with us, than the latest so-called scientific fad. That's why Dave posts all those articles where the leading so-called scientific minds are constantly chucking out one theory and imagining a replacement theory.

[49th]

I reiterate; At no point in the article is the word ‘evolution’ used. The word ‘evolved’ is used twice:

“A group led by Katherine S. Pollard of the University of California, Davis identified DNA sequences shared by people and chimpanzees, but with large differences, meaning that they have EVOLVED rapidly since the two species shared a common ancestor.”

“Scientists’ definition of a gene has EVOLVED several times since Gregor Mendel first deduced the idea in the 1860s from his work with pea plants.”

—I said in this specific field, evolutionists were ready to write off further study because they were inhibited by belief in evolution.—

You’re putting thoughts in people’s head with this statement. Some geneticists might have felt like their attention should have been focused on coding sections of DNA rather than non-coding sections, but this would have been a result of the current understanding of the functioning of DNA. It would have nothing to do with their acceptance of evolution or not.

Again you are, deliberately or not, misunderstanding this article and its implications. This is not a discovery that has much at all to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with genetic theory (the existence of genes having been predicted by Darwin). It does not lend any credence to a creationist or even ID viewpoint.

You still have no evidence to support your theory, you have launched no ‘broadsides’, and you certainly have nothing resembling a ‘substantive scientific challenge’.