Posted on 09/16/2007 3:45:54 PM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Nice non-sequitors.
Well, Ok, then mutations to DNA drive natural selection which over eons drives species change , aka evolution. Bu the cells would not be made without DNA so I would hold off on statements that cells dont need DNA.
Several examples of cells without nucleic acid - red blood cells- they only last a few weeks at best. But without DNA they cannot replicate.
Most neurotransmitters are not proteins but they are fabricated from enzymes that are proteins made from instructions included in DNA.
My non sequiters have been overshadowed and vanquished to their shame by your own.
Let the liberals cast them,
Down by their dusty shoes.
God will punish them,
For every chance that they didn't use.
I fear for your immortal soul, RightWhale.
Lately there have been these diversity yahoos going around to universities trumpeting the fact that 99.99% of genes in humans are the same. The message here being that we are all more similar than different. Even people from different races can be more genetically similar than people of the same race. I thought it was crap when I heard it, but this article confirms it.
I appreciate your concern but it is ill-informed.
On a C/E thread it can only mean there is a third party observing the fortifications from a distance.
You have at least one museum now with exhibits showing humans and dinosaurs together and 40,000 people went through that museum the first month from what I read. I see a lot of hundred-dollar shows out there when kids who’ve been through that thing end up sitting in highschool and college bio classes and some ****head teacher or prof starts talking about millions and trillions of years and evolution. Lot of those teachers and profs are going to feel like they’ve just walked into a Dangerfield movie.
Not at all the direction I am headed. BTW, where is memory stored?
That only proves that he’s consistent.
I still don't know what you imply by "two" parties.
I see young earth creationists who deny any evolution. I see the answers in Genesis crowd who believe in hyperevolution, directed pamspermia advocates, anthropic principal advocates, evolution with occasional interventionists, God in everythingists, evolution of everything but humanists, and more.
On this thread, I see people who have obviously not read the article chortling over the assumption that it represents a problem for mainstream biology.
I suppose the C crowd can be divided into as many tents as there are individual posters, sometimes even more. But, from a distance all their tents look like a single camp. Probably the same can be done with the E crowd.
Well, of course they are open minded, or else they wouldn’t be rethinking things.
Of course we first postulated a gene as a single entity, that represented a single condition. Then as additional information becomes available, additional complexity is discovered.
By contrast, religious approaches seem to have a lot of trouble with the rethinking part.
Alright, but when the Spanish inquisition has you confined to the comfy chair and starts prodding you with the soft cushions demanding how you let
Individual cells don’t get a whole heckuva lot done on their own, do they.
get by without proffering the requisite ecclesiastical response, well I just don't know what you're going to say.
= )
I have seen, through my microscope (yes, as a credentialed Skeptic, or Scientist I own a microscope) individual cells, one-celled creatures and they are sometimes very busy doing things. Going places, eating things; looks like they are doing it on purpose, too.
==On this thread, I see people who have obviously not read the article chortling over the assumption that it represents a problem for mainstream biology.
Materialist explanations for life will always present a problem for mainstream biologists because there explanations will always be resisted by the facts of Creation.
When it comes to unsettled issues, scientists are like Jews.
Two Jews, three opinions.
Yeah. Old joke. But true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.