DNA Theory is Incomplete

[Ouroboros]

Most scientists and atheists would say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life. But this is untrue. What science currently knows about DNA is that it is the molecular blueprint for the production of proteins. There were also a lot of new discoveries with what was considered Junk DNA. As far as I know, there is nothing indicating how those proteins get organized into the body structure for life. This info not in the fertilized egg either. Maybe it is something that will be discovered later. But the point is that is not what science currently teaches. As far as I know, it DOES say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life.

Yeah. It's a bit more to how things work than just DNA. For instance, there are several other organs inside the cell that are important, and also the cell wall itself. Those things has to be copied for new cells, and they are very important for the DNA to even work.

Also, environment, these other components or organs in the cell, and even vitamins, chemicals, and such that has penetrated the cell, will all affect its performance. And I think there are some discoveries now that perhaps the actual shape or structure of the DNA can influence things as well.

Now, I've heard and read that DNA is the blueprint for life, just as you, but I haven't heard anyone say it's the "complete" blueprint. There's a difference adding that absolute qualifier in there. Secondly, the term "blueprint" has been criticized for being way to simple. It's more complex than that. A blueprint sounds like a simple paper with a diagram on it, but that's now how it works. It's more like a compression algorithm, or de-compression algorithm rather.

 

[Ouroboros]

Basically why is this lie being propagated if it is known to be untrue? Isn't it kind of like religious dogma being preached? They are not saying we don't know, they are saying it is the complete blueprint. Would be more honest to say we don't know if it is but maybe we'll find the answer later.
Sort of like religious fundamentalists saying God exists as the only truth when the real truth is nobody knows but we may find out in the future.

The reason that term is used is because it's like a 90% accurate statement, but to explain the whole genetic code and how it works would take a lot of writing. Put it this way, one of the books I have about genetics (only, nothing else), is hundreds of pages. So, should each article talking about DNA write hundreds of pages just to mention or express something new in science? Do we have to copy each and every books material to every post we make? How about use some terms or expressions that are not completely accurate, but are accurate enough to give a hint on what it is? Like an analogy. Like the analogies Jesus used in the Bible. Stories that explain concepts but everyone knows isn't the 100% thing.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Most scientists and atheists would say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life. But this is untrue. What science currently knows about DNA is that it is the molecular blueprint for the production of proteins. There were also a lot of new discoveries with what was considered Junk DNA. As far as I know, there is nothing indicating how those proteins get organized into the body structure for life. This info not in the fertilized egg either. Maybe it is something that will be discovered later. But the point is that is not what science currently teaches. As far as I know, it DOES say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life.

*blind post*

Of course the theory (our knowledge) of DNA is incomplete. How does that refer to DNA itself being incomplete? That is sloppy thinking at its finest.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually I think the current claim by science is that Hox genes specify body plan but I don't think this is accepted by others.

I don't remember now, but Hox genes are the big ones regarding this, but there are a couple of more. Can't remember what they're called. And then we have epigenetics that can affect the body plan as well. For instance, mothers who don't get enough zinc can give birth to boys with hypogonadism.

What do you mean that you think it's not accepted by others? Other scientists? Like who?

Others say Hox genes simply affect gene expression in already existing parts and have nothing to do with geometry.

Really. That's news to me. Do you have a link or source? I'm interested.

Ofcourse if science was willing to lie before they wont have a problem again.

Science isn't willing to lie. Science is a field of study that works hard on trying to find the objective truths about nature. Scientists, however, can sometimes lie. But that's what peer-review is for. And sometimes, wrong information, facts, or theories can stick around for a while until it's challenged by a new generation. Usually, during generation shifts in science, you see old theories put to the test. Rarely is faulty science around for very long.

I'll believe the hox gene theory when science proves it by making a tooth grow on some creatures back.

Look up Drosophila melanogaster.

 

[Ouroboros]

My point is is Science saying it does know when it doesn't? But maybe I should ask this on a research forum.

We do know that Hox genes are part of the expression, but we also know that it's only a part and not the whole thing. Also, the term "blue print" is a very simplified term, like "big bang" that wasn't a bang at all. Or in quantum mechanics, left, right, up, down, strange quarks, and some other silly names, for quarks that have nothing to do with up or down or strange. Sometimes terms are used that are the closest in colloquial language that we can use to describe to the public. Instead saying "Phenotypes due to loss- and gain-of-function mutations in mouse Hox genes have revealed that the spatiotemporally controlled expression of these genes is critical for the correct morphogenesis of embryonic axial structures" in a public newspaper, we'd say something like "the body plan changes depending on mutations in the genes."

Publications of scientific news to the general population has the challenge, always, to convey scientific discoveries in an easy way to understand. Some of these fields takes literally years to study just to get the terminology right for continued study. Not every reader is a geneticist. Biochemistry is one of the harder sciences to study. And there are reasons for it. It's just really difficult. So your suggestion is to present everything in its original scientific language to avoid uses of terms like "blueprint" because it's too simple?

Ofcourse Sheldrake is a scientist with a morphic resonance theory which will never be accepted by the dogmatists of material science. I dont know much. Reading first page of his book Science Set Free. So maybe my question is maybe there is an aspect of dogma instead of only truth in both science and religion? A willingness to preach something that is untrue to stop harm to your worldview? Or perhaps to be more accurate preach what you believe even when there is evidence there isn't? Like Catholic church preaching idea of hell which would not make sense if God was loving......

Oh. morphic resonance. Well, I have yet to read Sheldrake's book. I have nothing to say about his ideas or beliefs. But we do know that genes affects the phenotype. Genotype to phenotype. Even though that sometimes several genes together affect phenotype, and sometimes several phenotypes are affected by a single gene. So it's not a 1:1 relationship. But we do know that there's a relationship.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh cool you have a background in genetics? Then you may be the one to answer this question: Are Hox genes the ones claimed by science to be responsible for complete body plan geometry? Are you aware of papers disagreeing with this?

I can answer that.

No, the hox gene is NOT the complete responsible code for body plan geometry. Keyword: complete. It's an incorrect absolute qualifier.

Source. Very simple. We can find it even on Wikipedia!!!

Hox genes (also known as homeotic genes) are a group of related genes that control the body plan of an embryo along the anterior-posterior (head-tail) axis. After the embryonic segments have formed, the Hox proteins determine the type of segment structures (e.g. legs, antennae, and wings in fruit flies or the different types of vertebrae in humans) that will form on a given segment. Hox proteins thus confer segmental identity, but do not form the actual segments themselves.[1]

In other words, Hox genes aren't alone in the "body plan" production.

Here's another article, scientific one about the science behind the hox genes:
Hox Genes and Regional Patterning of the Vertebrate Body Plan
Read and enjoy.

 

[Ouroboros]

thanks brick i may check out the videos. but my question was about material plan for body not epigenetics

Epigenetics do have influence on body plan.

For instance, certain kinds of obesity can be transferred to the offspring. There's a lot of research going on regarding a mother's diet and nutrition and how it affects their offspring. Iron deficiency, vitamin deficiency, smoking, drinking, drugs, etc, it does affect the expression of the genes to body plan.

 

[outhouse]

I admit I dont know much about epigenetics

It would be best if you learned before going against academia and facts and knowledge.

 

[Satsujin]

ouroboros my entire basis for asking this question is this thread i found on a research site. A debate between one scientist who felt that researchers had been misleading regarding the hox gene and some others getting heated while trying to answer his question.

http://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh...notion_that_Hox_genes_determine_the_body_plan

There are also links to sources for differing parts of the argument. You may wish to check them out, I didn't. I just found it interesting that one scientist thought misrepresentation had been going on for a long time. He may have been mistaken but he seemed knowledgeable enough.

 

[outhouse]

ouroboros my entire basis for asking this question is this thread i found on a research site.

The problem is this is not a credible argument in academia.

This is a wide variety of opinions based on a blog

Thank you for the link though

 

[outhouse]

Remember, many aspects are based on facts and some are not.

We cannot throw out the facts because we are still questioning and learning different areas..

 

[Ouroboros]

Brick initially most of the dna science discovered was called junk that seemed to serve no purpose but later was mapped to functions like turning on genes and stuff i think. not sure. anyway they found it encoded for something when they initially thought it did nothing.

"Junk" DNA is not coding anything, as far as I know. I think it helps create a structure for the DNA, but it's still not coding any proteins.

 

[Satsujin]

ouroboros I didn't say Junk DNA had anything to do with coding proteins. From what I read, they have more to do with regulation of genes.

Outhouse: The only real opinon I'm bringing up is that there seems to be dogma in science just like in religion. The thread is what gave me the idea. Before you dismiss it, you may want to read it. It is long but quite scientific but the arguments are simple enough to understand. I think the original poster stopped responding because the last poster started by saying he could clarify some answers but basically ended by saying hox genes have been described as doing more than they can.

 

[Ouroboros]

ouroboros my entire basis for asking this question is this thread i found on a research site. A debate between one scientist who felt that researchers had been misleading regarding the hox gene and some others getting heated while trying to answer his question.

http://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh...notion_that_Hox_genes_determine_the_body_plan

Did you even read some of the answers?

Here's one: "They CONTRIBUTE to the body plan, together with other genes, some of which are earlier than the Hox and determine body axes and regions. Hox mutants have aberrant body plans, so they are required too.
Sep 30, 2013"

To contribute to the body plan is not the same as "they're absolute one and only one that the only one and nothing else".

No one says hox genes are the "complete" or "only" thing that controls the body plan. That's a lie when people are claiming that this is how science sees it. Can you link to a scientist or a scientific article that says that hox genes are the only and complete thing that controls the body plan? I still want to see it!

Here's another one: "Joseph, before you go and write-off all the work of a multitude of developmental biologists conducted over a long period of time, take note that no-one has the complete answer to the questions you are asking. If we did then we would be able to manipulate multicellular organisms to our advantage, e.g. regeneration therapies. With regards to Hox genes and the formation of body plan, to the best of my understanding, homeotic transformations in Drosophila first demonstrated that Hox genes are important for the development of specific structures. This work has been continued in other organisms, such as mice, as described above by other contributors to this discussion. Yet Hox genes alone do not account for the specification of body plan. The review by Westerman et al., (2003) Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1629: 1 – 7 helped me to understand how combinatorial actions between different transcription factors can lead to the formation of specific structures but this may only be part of the picture. I'm all for challenging the dogma since this is the way new discoveries will be made but respect the fact that some pieces of the puzzle have been clearly identified."

There are also links to sources for differing parts of the argument. You may wish to check them out, I didn't. I just found it interesting that one scientist thought misrepresentation had been going on for a long time. He may have been mistaken but he seemed knowledgeable enough.

Here's what he said: "They don't code for brains, limbs or body plans. Yet many scientists insist that Hox genes, and other transcription factors, are responsible for "laying out the flooor plan" of the organism when all they are observed to do is activate genes in already established segments of the developing embryo"

So, is he saying that hox genes have nothing to do with the development of the embryo?

Hox genes have a contributing part.

He's probably upset over Nova's expression of this: NOVA | Ghost In Your Genes | Gene Switches | PBS

 

[Ouroboros]

ouroboros I didn't say Junk DNA had anything to do with coding proteins. From what I read, they have more to do with regulation of genes.

You used the word "encoded" so I assumed you meant that they were a code. There are two basic groups of genes. Coded and non-coded. Coded are the ones that actually code for proteins, and non-coded do not. The "junk" was the label used for the non-coded DNA. It's still non-coding for proteins, as far as I know, even though it seems to be useful for other things.

Or do you have some source that suggests that the non-coding DNA is actually used as a code at some point?

I found an article that very simply explains the "junk" DNA: Functions of Junk DNA

So they can function as on-off switches for other genes, and the article even express that there might be more functions to it that we don't know about yet. Where's the lying here? Where's the dishonesty here?

 

[outhouse]

there seems to be dogma in science just like in religion

I would ask that you provide similar examples "in short" before I could agree with that statement.

What academia comments on, and what people debate in a blog are 4 different things.

 

[outhouse]

hox genes have been described as doing more than they can.

Im not well educated as the other posters in this thread on this topic. You may have a point but I would follows the others advise, its what I do.

 

[Satsujin]

Based purely on my Googling I found evidence of a scientist who says misrepresentation goes on. Like I said before, he may have been mistaken but seemed genuine enough. I've also found anti-ID sites that say Hox genes ARE the complete answer. I wont say they are scientific sites. Maybe Hox genes was not a good example of dogma in science.

Anyway, I think I will read Sheldrake's book to get a better idea of dogma in science. I don't have the resources to produce specifically scientific articles claiming what I say. Maybe they don't exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe complex life is so mind-boggling that current science understands so little because life also involves levels above the physical plane. As to your question of why this lie is propagated? I wouldn't call it a lie, but an insistence on materialism by many; an attempt by many to understand this mind-boggling universe by the little within our current scientific reach. For many science types, they don't like this opening the door to God/Spiritual sounding things that they have a distaste for; their scientific sense of superiority over the 'superstitious' is challenged when it appears these 'religious/superstitious' types may be on to something they (the science minded) don't know about.

You are talking about 'Scientism'. A lot has been written about that. Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think that is very different from Science, which is not religious in nature. Scientism is also a synonym of 'Logical Positivism' and 'Reductionism'. They are pretty much the same or nearly the same.

Suppose you try and disbelieve all things that can not be proven of value. You are in trouble, because lots of valuable things can't be proven to be valuable. It always depends upon how those things are seen. That is the problem with Reductionism, Logical Positivism, or Scientism, presuming there is only one way to evaluate all things.

 

[outhouse]

Anyway, I think I will read Sheldrake's

I would not waste time on someone who is so pseudo scientific.


Its not wise to read the far left or right, when you don't know the middle ground pat.