Noble Prize Design in DNA III

Designed Universe ^ | September 11, 2003 | myself

[gore3000]

Nobel Prize Design in DNA III

DNA and the Life Process:

Paul Berg, Walter Gilbert and Frederick Sanger won the [1980] Prize for their discoveries in DNA sequencing. Berg was the first to show that the 'one gene, one protein' hypothesis was false with his studies of the SV40 circular virus which amazingly was able to code for different proteins in its small genome by reusing DNA to make different proteins by starting transcription from different positions. This brought forth the question of how such genes with multiple starting points come to be expressed. They tried many things to get these proteins to be transcribed in various mammalian genomes. They found that to do so they had to also copy the start sequence (not the part being made into a protein) of the SV40 virus. Once they did that, they were able to introduce the virus into many different species [1980a]. Sanger found a bacterial virus which expressed two different proteins by reusing the same DNA. This virus PX174 did so by reading the codons from a different reading frame, an almost incredible form of reuse necessitating the perfect symmetry of both reading frames [1980b].

The [1982] Prize went to Aaron Klug for his work on crystallography of proteins which enabled him to discover how DNA is packed in the chromosomes by using 5 kinds of histones which serve as a spool around which the DNA is entwined. The histones have a positive charge and DNA a negative one which makes the combination of the two neutral. The histones have a 'tail' which can be altered and is sometimes cut off by mutations. Because the way in which DNA is entwined around the histones requires mechanisms to unwind it for transcription, the alteration of the histones can facilitate or prevent transcription altogether. Recent research is beginning to confirm that there is a 'histone code' which regulates gene transcription [1982a]. In addition, the marking of histones with chemical tags is used in cell differentiation, preventing some cells from transcribing some genes, while allowing others to do so[1982b].

While Barbara McClintock's discovery of mobile genetic elements (hence abbreviated as MGEs) was made in the 1940's it was not till [1983] that it was awarded the Nobel Prize. Part of the reason was that she was ahead of her time and the significance of the discovery did not become evident until more was known about DNA. In fact, the significance of this discovery is still highly disputed. The discovery has been very useful in research because the mobile genetic elements (also called transposons,retrotransposons, and IS elements according to what type they are) almost invariably destroy gene expression and thus are useful in seeing what happens when a gene is inactivated.

Cleanliness: As a mode of mutagenesis, transposons are relatively clean; that is, in contrast to other forms of mutagenesis they do not cause a large number of alterations in the genome. While the sections above note the possibility of deletions and inversions caused by insertional events, at worst, only a few percent of the selected insertions are accompanied by such problems. To a first approximation, mutagenesis with a transposon will produce strains with a single insertional event. The downside is they are only knockouts, never alterations of function.

[1983a]

Due to this use we know quite a bit about how and where it is inserted as well as that these MGEs can cause chromosome damage and chromosome mis-crossing. One problem when mis-crossing occurs is that the end of the chromosome will lack a telomere. This lack is fixed during embrionic development but in maize at least, not during subsequent cell replications. [1983b] McClintock attributes the activation of transposable elements to stress detected by the cell when a chromosome lacks a telomere. Because the splits ends occur during cell replications all cells are not affected giving the 'spotted' appearance to the kernel seen at left.

The problem with determining exactly when a transposable element transposes and even what a transposable element is is due to their activation occurring very infrequently. While scientists know how to activate many of MGEs, they have a problem ascertaining when they are actually activated. Current guesses say that they are naturally activated in one in 10 million duplications. We do know that in many cases, especially in mammals, such elements are kept under very tight control and often are completely silenced by methylation.

MGEs have been claimed to be a source for much genetic recombination as well as the source of much of the DNA which is non-coding. This last has been proven to be incorrect by the discovery of the usefulness of ALU sequences which constitute 1/10th of the human genome which had previously been considered a transpositional element:

Proteins essential for cohesion are known. They are called cohesins. A cohesin-containing complex binds specifically to Alu containing elements (ref), a dispersed family of highly repeated DNA. [1983c]>

It should also be noted that mutations in cells not involved in sexual transmission do not affect succeeding generations. Their actual activation and operation in vivo in mammals and humans is very little known and must await further research.

Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein won the [1985] Prize for discovering the regulation of cholesterol metabolism. This is done primarily by the LDL particle which carries cholesterol from the liver to the cells. Cholesterol helps process fats and is also necessary in the formation of the cell membrane and the making of certain hormones. However, cells will only take up as much cholesterol as they need. The excess cholesterol carried by the LDL will remain in the cell walls and cause atherosclerosis. The cells themselves have an LDL receptor and lack of such a receptor or an insufficient amount of receptors can cause atherosclerosis.

LDL which had bound to the receptor was taken up by the cells as a LDL-receptor complex. The receptor is localized on the cell surface in what is called a coated pit. The coated pit invaginates and pinches off to form a coated vesicle (Figure 2). Fusion of several vesicles gives rise to an endosome. The entire process is named receptor-mediated endocytosis. The cholesterol in the LDL particle is released inside the cell. One effect of the uptake of cholesterol is that it inhibits the manufacture of new LDL-receptors on the cell surface. A reduced number of LDL-receptors leads to a diminished LDL uptake. LDL then remains in the blood stream with the risk of accumulation in the arterial walls.[1985]

A second particle takes excess cholesterol from the bloodstream back to the liver for reprocessing. A proper balance between the amount of LDL particles and HDL particles is required to clean up the circulatory system. [1982a]

Susumu Tonegawa won the [1987] Prize for discovering the principle of antibody diversity. The question of how the body could produce hundreds of millions of different antibodies from a small set of genes had been a great puzzle for the scientific community. Again we see a very elegant solution (see 1972 for the discovery of the antibody protein). There are a total of over 224 genes in humans of three different types. When forming a white cell antibody, a gene from each different type is used and the DNA in it is mixed to form billions of different possibilities. Since the mixing is achieved by either deletion or inversion of the DNA from the different three different types of genes used, a cell will only produce that single type of antibody. The number of cells involved in antibody production is thus quite large and is estimated to be as large as a trillion. While these 'T' cells are produced in the bone marrow, they are 'educated' in the thymus gland where any that are sensitive to the body's own antigens are eliminated [1987a].

The [1989] Prize went to J. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus for discovering some of the mechanisms of cancer. They found that cancer occurred in many genes but that those genes were very common in all species. This led them to dig further and find that these genes had altered properties which changed how much they were transcribed and also produced a enzymatic effect on the protein produced. This deregulation of gene activity caused the cancerous activity.

In the fully developed individual carefully balanced conditions prevail. Damage of an organ elicits sophisticated repair processes which lead to restitution of the original condition of the organ. However, if a single cell escapes the network of growth control the result may be an abnormal local proliferation of cells or in the worst case a cancer implying the dissemination of cells running amok. [1989]

There are some 100 trillion cells in an adult human being which multiply numerous times during a lifetime.

[gore3000]

Part I

Part II

[gore3000]

Come check it out!

[f.Christian]

Congratulations ... impressed as --- always !

[gore3000]

Congratulations ... impressed as --- always !

Glad you like it.

[balrog666]

More Gore3000 "science".

[Consort]

...They located the Liberal Gene.

[gore3000]

More Gore3000 "science".

Interesting that the evolutionists who claim to be scientists cannot discuss a scientific topic but can only hurl lame insults.

[tallhappy]

Why the sarcasm?

Are you trying to indicate it is not "science?"

[rmmcdaniell]

Why the sarcasm?

Are you trying to indicate it is not "science?"

These posts are quite funny. Gore3000 has apperently just lifted a bunch of material off of books, articles, and other literature. Somehow all of this is supposed to make us become creationists.

What is Gore3000's motivation for spending such an enormous amount of time discussing evolution on FR? If his ideas were really as valid as he claims them to be, he would not waste his time on a political forum. He should be conducting research and trying to get his "creation science" published in a scientific journal.

[visualops]

:::snort:::lol

[I got the rope]

Cool. But I don't get it. I thought you were a creationist. Hopefully you are now seeing what wonderful discoveries science can give us. One of the things that I find fascinating about this field of science is the possibility of histones. Here is a link to one study: Histones

[rmmcdaniell]

Cool. But I don't get it. I thought you were a creationist. Hopefully you are now seeing what wonderful discoveries science can give us.

Yes I'm not sure what gore3000's intentions are on these "Nobel Prize" threads; as he didn't care do give us a thesis statement. These three threads are nothing more than a brief overview of various topics in genetics that do not lead to any particular point. For a more thorough understanding I suggest the readers of these threads check out a genetics or molecular biology textbook.

However I will venture a guess as to Gore3000's purpose: He is presenting information on a political forum where many participants don't have a strong background in the material. He's hoping these people will read this and think "Gosh darn, it’s so complex and amazing that it couldn't have happened by anything other than design."

[gore3000]

These posts are quite funny.

Actually your post is quite funny. It really shows the truth of the dictum that 'none are so blind as those who do not wish to see'. Clearly, scientific truth is to be demeaned and ignored by you because it does not agree with your agenda.

Bringing the truth to a larger audience is always a worthwhile endeavor.

[I got the rope]

Some of the stuff he posted gave me Biochem I and II flashbacks. Man...I'm glad those days are gone.

The good thing about him doing this is that once people have a better understanding of genetics then you can understand variance in genes, inheritance, why we taxonomy, biodiversity, etc. Eventually some will understand what the us evilutionist are talking about.

Then again...maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.

[Shryke]

Agreed.

Gore (as all of us) can be rational or irrational in these threads, however, I find his posts misleading, every single time.

Before you jump on me Gore, I'll admit that I have never once eliminated the possibility that there was an intelligence behind genetics/evolution. I simply decided along time ago that that belief is untestable. Your continuing "proofs" demonstrating "irreducable complexity" simply demonstrate the current limits of science (as you see it), nothing more.

[gore3000]

Cool. But I don't get it. I thought you were a creationist. Hopefully you are now seeing what wonderful discoveries science can give us.

I reject the name creationist. I am a Christian. Believe it or not Christians are interested in science and some of the greatest scientists on earth, such as Newton and Pasteur, were Christians. That Christians and those who believe in God in general are unfriendly to science is one of the viscious falsehoods spread by evolutionists. As you can see this Christian has no problems with science.

What you need to get and understand is that the above well established scientific facts (and those in parts 1 and 2) disprove both evolution and abiogenesis, the central themes of materialism nowadays. The above systems are totally unexplainable by chance or by any undesigned means.

[rmmcdaniell]

Actually your post is quite funny. It really shows the truth of the dictum that 'none are so blind as those who do not wish to see'. Clearly, scientific truth is to be demeaned and ignored by you because it does not agree with your agenda.

I don't demean the work done by the researchers listed in your article. You are the blind one, you have the knowledge yet you completely rule out the possibility of evolution and ruthlessly attack those who accept it.

[gore3000]

I find his posts misleading, every single time.

Funny of you to say that and not be able to say in any way how anything I say in the article is misleading.

I'll admit that I have never once eliminated the possibility that there was an intelligence behind genetics/evolution. I simply decided along time ago that that belief is untestable.

Which means that you have decided to follow your prejudices rather than the facts. Does not say much for your theory of evolution does it?

The above clearly shows the necessity of a designer to fashion the above systems. If you disagree though, you are welcome to try to explain how the above systems could have arisen by unguided, undirected, random chance.

[gore3000]

The good thing about him doing this is that once people have a better understanding of genetics then you can understand variance in genes, inheritance, why we taxonomy, biodiversity, etc. Eventually some will understand what the us evilutionist are talking about.

Yup, that is exactly what I am trying to do - to lift the veil of ignorance which has been the source of the belief that evolution is science.

You are welcome to try to show how any system above could have arisen through Darwinian gradual evolution. Much smarter people than either of us have tried and failed.

[gore3000]

You are the blind one

I see you are not interested in facts. I also see that you cannot disprove the above or show how it can be explained by your theory so all you can do is insult. Shows quite well the truth of my tagline. The adherence of many to evolution is due not to adherence to scientific truths, but an adherence to an anti-religious mindset.