Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetics “Central Dogma” Is Dead
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | September 12, 2007

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 ...


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: coyotemanhasspoken; creation; dna; evolution; genetics; genome
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-207 next last

1 posted on 09/16/2007 3:45:56 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Spaghetti code?


2 posted on 09/16/2007 3:48:47 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

3 posted on 09/16/2007 3:53:14 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

More likely: “Whatever comes in the days ahead, it appears that there is far more information processing occurring in the cell than even Watson and Crick imagined – and that was startling and elegant enough. Barry states that the raw genetic information transcribed in DNA now appears to be 62 times what genes alone would produce. The fundamental operational unit of life may, therefore, be nonphysical: information, not molecules.”


4 posted on 09/16/2007 3:53:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; metmom; editor-surveyor; Alamo-Girl; BlueDragon; AndrewC; ari-freedom

ping!


5 posted on 09/16/2007 4:20:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

I laughed and laughed at that picture.


6 posted on 09/16/2007 4:21:11 PM PDT by Greg F (Duncan Hunter is a good man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Very fascinating article - thanks for posting it. It’s interesting to hear that life is more complex that the basic genetic model. I have seen a few other articles posted here relating to this dawning realization.


7 posted on 09/16/2007 4:21:33 PM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg F

I actually saw that as a car decal a few months ago. It’s too obscure for any but a few to understand, though.


8 posted on 09/16/2007 4:22:38 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“This is a classic case of a paradigm change in science occurring before our eyes. Even what we mean by an intuitively-obvious word like gene is being questioned: is there such a thing? Does it have physical reality, or is it a mental picture humans have imposed on a much more subtle reality? The new buzzword is network, but is that an accurate characterization? Networking is concerned more with the interactions of entities than with the entities themselves; this means that the rules of the game are more important than the nodes of the network. How could that fit within a materialistic world view?”


9 posted on 09/16/2007 4:24:29 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Our living world clearly is based on an information code which is more complex than anything man and/or his computer science has ever yet devised. Anybody who thinks this kind of stuff can evolveis living in lala-land.


10 posted on 09/16/2007 4:26:44 PM PDT by rickdylan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; ..


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



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.

So much for the open-minded and lofty predictions of evolution! Evolutionists were ready to ditch the whole project as unworthy of their time - until they thought to challenge what evolution was telling them.

Similarly, Dr. Schweitzer looked beyond what evolution predicted, and rocked the paleontological world with her Big Bob find.

Look beyond evolution, and all kinds of possibilities open up.
11 posted on 09/16/2007 4:28:56 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan; LiteKeeper

Amen to both!!! Epigenetics should prove a very interesting field in the coming decades!!! I suspect that the Darwinists will be forced to retreat into a neo-lamarckian paradigm in a last ditch effort to salvage materialism—GGG


12 posted on 09/16/2007 4:30:31 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The problem, both camps, is DNA is taken as what drives evolution.


13 posted on 09/16/2007 4:31:59 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Creationists don’t buy the whole “junk DNA” argument, and science is validating them.


14 posted on 09/16/2007 4:33:57 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rickdylan
Our living world clearly is based on an information code

Quite an assertion. Information is irrelevant.

15 posted on 09/16/2007 4:34:19 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

DNA doesn’t drive evolution, and isn’t actually vital to the life of cells: some cells get by with no DNA for months. OTOH, neuronic cells use DNA to build various neurotransmitter chemicals and do it all the time.


16 posted on 09/16/2007 4:37:32 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

17 posted on 09/16/2007 4:39:23 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Individual cells don’t get a whole heckuva lot done on their own, do they.


18 posted on 09/16/2007 4:39:48 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Really? Most life is single cell. By weight. That includes a considerable fraction of our very own bodies.


19 posted on 09/16/2007 4:41:19 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The problem, both camps, is DNA is taken as what drives evolution.

I don't know what you mean by "both camps," but Darwinian evolution was around for 80 years before genetics became the focus.

The concept of variation and selection does not imply any specific mechanism, nor does it imply only one simple mechanism.

Obviously a lot of people have reputations invested in specific theories, but then so did particle physicists during the 20th century. The alternative to failed models is not divine intervention.

20 posted on 09/16/2007 4:46:06 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-207 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson