Unraveling the DNA Myth

Harper's Magazine ^ | February 2002 | Barry Commoner

[Phaedrus]

Wonderful, wonderful contribution at #73 and indeed worthy of its own thread. Thank You, again, bb!

[AndrewC]

For lurkers who might want to know more about Rupert Sheldrake, check out his website: the website of Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D.

Thanks for the link.

This guy is obviously a luddite retard. How dare he have a broad and expansive education and draw his own conclusions from the information he had acquired.

I had a wonderful time at Harvard. I soon discovered that in the United States, university students are treated like children - told exactly what to read and then tested to make sure they have read it. In England I hadn’t been treated like that since I was fifteen. I didn’t like that system at all. So I decided I didn’t need the master’s degree I was supposed to be getting. Anyway, I could simply buy one from Cambridge University. If you have a Cambridge B.A. you have to do only two things to get an M.A.: stay alive for three and a third years and save up five pounds, the price of the degree. The result was that I spent a wonderful year at Harvard freed from the tyranny of exams, tests, and so on. I could do exactly as I liked, go to any lectures in any subject, read anything. It was wonderful. Unfortunately, very few people have this experience at universities because they’re nearly always on treadmills.

I also hate treadmills.

[Phaedrus]

I also hate treadmills.

Count me in.

[betty boop]

Thanks Phaedrus. "Entrenched atheist" and Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins (he calls himself an evolutionary biologist) says that we live in a universe in which there is “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” With that as your fundamental premise, how is it possible to do science? The moral implications are stark; but the methodological problems stemming from an assumption like this are much harder to see.

The point is, if things have "no design" (i.e., are not ordered according to some principle -- and arguably you need a Limit, a First Cause, an "uncaused cause" for things to be "as they are, and not some other way" -- if all of nature is "blind" and purposeless, you aren't talking about ordered things, but of chaos. If it is true that chaos is the fundamental nature of the universe, if the universe is utterly random -- an "accidental accident culminating from a long causal chain of accidents" -- then how could one falsify propositions? How could one replicate experiments? To do either requires the entities under examination to have a certain persistence and substantiality. If things are only just transiting from one ambiguous form to the next random manifestation, then how can they be measured at all?

More to the point, how does one explain one's own self on such a view?

I imagine Professor Dawkins is feeling a tad sad that the Human Genome Project has failed to deliver on its promises. Thanks again, P. All my very best, bb.

[PatrickHenry]

Hi BB. This post isn't particularly directed at you; it's just for general information regarding the thread.

Article on this in Scientific American says this:

As it turns out, at least every third human gene makes several different proteins through "alternative splicing" of its pre-messenger-RNA. Also human proteins have a more complicated architecture than their worm and fly counterparts, adding another level of complexity. And compared with simpler organisms, humans possess extra proteins having functions, for example, in the immune system and the nervous system, and for blood clotting, cell signaling and development.

I don't want to be accused of (gasp) launching an ad hominem attack on Commoner. However ... I don't believe he's a biologist. I am rather certain that he's a big-time leftie, and thus I really do doubt his sincerity and integrity in any project he undertakes. In any event, his qualifications to discuss this are dubious, and I would prefer to read about the topic in professional journals. Professional biologists don't seem to share Commoner's conclusions.

[aruanan]

And so all the leading lights of the biotech community, concerned about the small number of human genes, are misled and wrong, except you of course. Enlighten us. Please.

No, you're just behind on your reading. This is the problem with relying on sources of the Popular Science variety and news media. They are sometimes years behind in what they report. These variants were discussed quite fully in the scientific literature during the past year. You could start by looking at PubMed.

[betty boop]

I don't want to be accused of (gasp) launching an ad hominem attack on Commoner. However ... I don't believe he's a biologist. I am rather certain that he's a big-time leftie, and thus I really do doubt his sincerity and integrity in any project he undertakes.

Well a little skepticism never hurts, PH. Thanks for your contribution. All my best -- bb.

[AndrewC]

However ... I don't believe he's a biologist.

From Barry Commoner

Commoner was born in 1917. He attended Harvard University and received a doctorate in biology in 1941. In his work as a biologist, Commoner has focused especially on ozone layer depletion.

[Phaedrus]

No, you're just behind on your reading. This is the problem with relying on sources of the Popular Science variety and news media. They are sometimes years behind in what they report. These variants were discussed quite fully in the scientific literature during the past year. You could start by looking at PubMed.

I'm behind on my reading? No, you are behind on your reporting. You made the assertion. Back it up. And try to avoid being snide.

[Phaedrus]

It's always a genuine pleasure to encounter your material on any thread. A repeatable pleasure . . . ;-}

"Entrenched atheist" and Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins (he calls himself an evolutionary biologist) says that we live in a universe in which there is “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” With that as your fundamental premise, how is it possible to do science? The moral implications are stark; but the methodological problems stemming from an assumption like this are much harder to see.

The point is, if things have "no design" (i.e., are not ordered according to some principle) and arguably you need a Limit, a First Cause, an "uncaused cause" for things to be "as they are, and not some other way" -- if all of nature is "blind" and purposeless, you aren't talking about ordered things, but of chaos. If it is true that chaos is the fundamental nature of the universe, if the universe is utterly random -- an "accidental accident culminating from a long causal chain of accidents" -- then how could one falsify propositions? How could one replicate experiments? To do either requires the entities under examination to have a certain persistence and substantiality. If things are only just transiting from one ambiguous form to the next random manifestation, then how can they be measured at all?

More to the point, how does one explain one's own self on such a view?

I imagine Professor Dawkins is feeling a tad sad that the Human Genome Project has failed to deliver on its promises.

[PatrickHenry]

Okay, okay. So he's a biologist. I'll stand by the rest of my post.

[edsheppa]

Professional biologists don't seem to share Commoner's conclusions.

They must be part of the conspiracy.

[RightWhale]

most molecular biologists operate under the assumption that DNA is the secret of life, whereas the careful observation of the hierarchy of living processes strongly suggests that it is the other way around: DNA did not create life; life created DNA

This article is an excellent find. Things are happening in physics, too, even though biology has moved beyond experiments with pea plants.

[AndrewC]

I'll stand by the rest of my post.

To which I say, I agree that he is a left-wing nut, but that does not make him wrong on the observation of an irreducible cell. James Shapiro says as much. And the prion explanation is a very valid observation that DNA is not the sole repository of biological activity. What is the biological advantage to a prion? In other words, it is evident that the disadvantageous form of the protein is the more stable structure or the good form would be able to reform the bad form into the good form which it apparently does not.

[Doctor Stochastic]

What I think is that there is a conspiracy of silence within so-called science ...

This is why the tin-foil-hat crowd is so hard to deal with. Any denial of a conspiracy of silence is taken as evidence that such a conspiracy exists. Lack of evidence of a conspiracy only shows that the conspiracy is very powerful.

[PatrickHenry]

To which I say, I agree that he is a left-wing nut, but that does not make him wrong on the observation of an irreducible cell.

The "observation" that the cell is irreducible is far from being well-established. When a leftie like Commoner takes a position like that I'm naturally suspicious that he has some hidden agenda. I really don't trust him. That's all I'm saying. When the weight of professional opinion goes the same way, based on verifiable evidence we can all appreciate, I'll be ready to accept such a conclusion. But not on Commoner's say-so. I put him in the same boat with Hillary, notwithstanding his claim to being a biologist. Here's an example of Commoner's "science" opinions:
Barry Commoner: A leading environmentalist reviews his long, contentious past.

[Phaedrus]

Thank you for your . . . contribution?

[NukeMan]

I agree with you.... What may help focus the arguments here is the realization that Gould, Lewontin & Commoner are left-wingers (Gould/Lewontin are out-and-out Marxists) and as such are loathe to admit that heredity is all there is to human makeup.

Nonetheless, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, and you can get some insights from a Marxist that otherwise aren't available.

[Phaedrus]

I'm sure Commoner knows he's controversial and I sure that's why his magazine article is footnoted.

[thunderdome]

I hate to ask but where did the living cells fly in from?

< sarcasm >

Gaia's sister planets in galaxies far far away....They arrived on meteorites and cam in via the condensate that became "Mother Earth".

< /sarcasm >

I have no trouble with natural selection and evolution due to genetic mistakes (loss of genetic information), but the implied claim here that completely new evolutionary jumps can be made via a random single screwup (which would have to add multiple, self-compatible and mate-compatible screwups simultaneously) to create a new species is still absurd.

As for the rest of this article, aside from it's author, there is much to the statements that we are pushing too fast on putting genetically engineered food products into the mass market.

My little girl has a milk protein allergy, so she drinks "Soy Milk". Will she end up with long term problems due to some unknown proteins that are produced using bio-engineered crops? We just don't know the mechanisms effects of our tinkering with the fundamental building blocks of life.

We can't even cure my wife's MS yet or say what really causes it, yet we think that we understand DNA processes enough to blindly build industries based on hypothesis and ego?

I have worked in biotech at various companies and have spent time with the executives discussing the industry and technology and though there are many dreams of fixing and changing the world for the better, once you set a course and get the investors involved with millions of dollars a month, the ethical concerns take a back seat to Return On Investment. And when the ethical concerns get in the way, you start another company and get more money....:

http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/West.html

Note that Dr. West's working DNA telomere experience came from his former company that he co-founded:

http://www.geron.com