Mysteries of DNA

T

Tao_Equus

Guest
With the human genome project having mapped the entire sequence of human DNA we thought we would unlock the mysteries of what makes a human human. But not entirely unexpectedly this mapping project has done nothing more than highlight our ignorance and give us an inkling of just how far we have to go before we can make sound assessments of what the DNA code does in practice.

We have touched on in numerous threads the question of DNA, whether it be the differences between mitochondrial DNA and 'normal' DNA, or of 'junk' DNA or of the genetic predispositions we inherit from our DNA. I start this thread to start collecting bits and pieces of breaking news in this research field.

I start with this intriguing snippet which suggests we have portions of our DNA that are able to resist mutation over very large timescales.. something we assumed could not happen.

Mysterious DNA Found to Survive Eons of Evolution | LiveScience
 
Tao_Equus said:
I start with this intriguing snippet which suggests we have portions of our DNA that are able to resist mutation over very large timescales.. something we assumed could not happen.http://www.livescience.com/health/081009-mystery-dna.html
Click to expand...

Conserved regions have been known of ever since DNA sequencing was invented and applied to more than one species. This means they have been known of for decades. Cytochrome p450.
 
Well, it does raise questions about how it can be determined that we share DNA with yeast and bananas. If we are so far removed, how is it that the DNA is still similar enough to make a comparison?
 
Dogbrain said:
Conserved regions have been known of ever since DNA sequencing was invented and applied to more than one species. This means they have been known of for decades. Cytochrome p450.
Click to expand...

Hemoprotiens are coded for on some 51 genes but they are proteins "written up" by our DNA and not intrinsic and unchanging part of it. It is not what the article is talking about.

tao
 
juantoo3 said:
Well, it does raise questions about how it can be determined that we share DNA with yeast and bananas. If we are so far removed, how is it that the DNA is still similar enough to make a comparison?
Click to expand...

As I understand it it is a bit like the developing human foetal brain. It starts primitive and layer upon layer of complexity is built up till it reaches that of a human. I think DNA also builds upon to some extent at least. Well it has to really. It cannot start fresh with every strand created :p So in effect though DNA is mutating at a given rate it is also carrying a record of all that it has been in its ancestry. As much of our early ancestral DNA originated from a common source, bacteria and viral, everything more evolved carries the same coding... whether it be yeast or a blue whale. It is a great validation of evolution theory.


tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
As much of our early ancestral DNA originated from a common source, bacteria and viral, everything more evolved carries the same coding...
Click to expand...

And what else coding do you look for? I comprehend it's strange fact prima facie, but what impossible here is? Nothing. All the creatures have the same origin place - the Earth. Theories of life origin from other heaven bodies are out of date. They do not explain anything. And life, organic life appeared here, not there. And it's strictly logical every animal, plant, bacteria have the same DNA coding.
An old French orientalist Louis Jacolieau once asked a facir to call spirits and asked them "Who's our common mother?". And their answer was in Sanskrit - 'Vasunda', that means 'Earth'. But it proves nothing that
Tao_Equus said:
It is a great validation of evolution theory.
Click to expand...
because this theory in its modern view is logically dirty and mud. It can't be humane was born by an ape, even very clever one! Scientists are looking for primitive homos about 1,5 century. And they still couldn't find the complete system of Evolution. And the question: how they knew that all organisms have one progenitor?! O cause, evolution is, but not in that form it is in minds of our Science's children.
 
Dharmaatmaa said:
And what else coding do you look for? I comprehend it's strange fact prima facie, but what impossible here is? Nothing. All the creatures have the same origin place - the Earth. Theories of life origin from other heaven bodies are out of date. They do not explain anything. And life, organic life appeared here, not there. And it's strictly logical every animal, plant, bacteria have the same DNA coding.
An old French orientalist Louis Jacolieau once asked a facir to call spirits and asked them "Who's our common mother?". And their answer was in Sanskrit - 'Vasunda', that means 'Earth'. But it proves nothing that

because this theory in its modern view is logically dirty and mud. It can't be humane was born by an ape, even very clever one! Scientists are looking for primitive homos about 1,5 century. And they still couldn't find the complete system of Evolution. And the question: how they knew that all organisms have one progenitor?! O cause, evolution is, but not in that form it is in minds of our Science's children.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that whatever you read and believe to be true is so out of date, misinformed and ignorant of the actual processes involved in evolution. They are debated at length on other threads so forgive me if I do not start all over again.

tao
 
Dharmaatmaa said:
because this theory in its modern view is logically dirty and mud. It can't be humane was born by an ape, even very clever one! Scientists are looking for primitive homos about 1,5 century. And they still couldn't find the complete system of Evolution. And the question: how they knew that all organisms have one progenitor?! O cause, evolution is, but not in that form it is in minds of our Science's children.
Click to expand...

According to this "logic", cancers have no biological cause, since the pathways of the various cancers are also very incompletely elucidated by biology.

Remember, bacteria don't cause disease because it is the "Germ Theory of Disease". Gravity doesn't really exist, because it's the "Theory of Gravity"
 
Tao_Equus said:
I am sorry that whatever you read and believe to be true is so out of date, misinformed and ignorant of the actual processes involved in evolution. They are debated at length on other threads so forgive me if I do not start all over again.
Click to expand...

Clever and educated persons would never say so directly to a man they completely don't know such things as if they're ignorant or so. How you know? Maybe I'm a Doctor of Sciences?! And that's just rude, intentually. But I don't want spend time and mine, and yours to talk about ethics. And it's a good question who is "misinformed". :mad:

But I wouldn't like to break the borders of our theme and discuss philosophical aspects. "They are debated at length on other threads" as you have already noticed. But I believe it's not the right way of studying any subject using smart words only. Anyone who looks at our messages will see hundreds of unspeakable Greek-Latin words with dozens of roots. If you say it's fashioned knowledge in comparision with mine, "out of date" one, this genetics's just a masked linguistics. Isn't it so?! ;)

Yes, I know many Latin words and Latin in general, so what? Do I become a master of all sciences if I understand what their terminology means? But I assert again and again real scientifical lore is underneath that empty words. In principle, I try to avoid using Latin terms. Real knowledge may be said about without clever words. One may say "shovel", and a scientist - "agricultural unit". Did the very nature of the shovel change in both cases? Didn't.

And I shall say it directly: here is no very much lore in long Latin words. And contemporary genetics explains but particles of knowledge. It uses complicated terms to hide its ignorance! For example, what's "genetical information" per se? Wikipedia answers: "information coded by genes (basic unit of heredity)". But tell me how it does. How unconscious genes, - 'large organic compounds made of amino acids' (wikipaedia says) - can have any information. The latter is just 'the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind, as in education, instruction, or training' (wiki again). How do genes influence to organisms? I mean namely 'how?', 'quomodo?' in Latin, 'by what means?'. And even Darwin's theory don't explain how new species appear on the planet.

And what says "out of date" Oriental lore? Let's see. It teaches organisms have their archetypes. What it means? When man and woman are making a child, it starts growing bigger and bigger since then. But how those little cells know where their places in organism? They use the archetype existing in unconscious mind of the organism in general and each little cell in particular. You will ask for proves. I'll answer that one should look at the window at his own home when winter comes. How could you, Tao Equus, explain their appearance? They look like plants, and there needn't any imagination to see them. Everybody saw it. Is it coincidence that they (ice crystalls) group so beautifully, so 'pulchre' (for Latin fans :D)?

And what about DNA? Yes, they're important. It's a mind of a cell. It determines what a cell has to do and what's forbidden to it. I think genetics teaches the same. And it you think you'll see that not my lore is "out of date", but Latin is very much "out of date"!:)
 
Thank you Dharmaatmaa,

I started this thread with a rather well defined remit, to discuss breaking news in the field of DNA research. You came in with some metaphysical standards on Evolution that have been thoroughly debunked. As I already said I am interested here in cataloguing new information not rehashing tired old discussions.

Now you want to focus on the issue of nomenclature! Well such language is used mostly amongst experts who fully understand what they are talking about. It is simply a precise language to aid their expertise. I know my Fraxinus excelsior from a Corylus avellana and would not try hunting on the Fraxinus for a nut. I know that Latin because it has been pertinent in my past to my particular expertise. It is not out of date and nor does it seek to hide. Quite the opposite, it gives unambiguous clarity amongst experts.

This is the Science and the Universe section, not philosophy and the thread in particular has a narrow focus. My apology if my tone offended you but I simply want the thread to stay on topic and not meander down already well trodden avenues. You are of course free and welcome to contribute as you see fit but if you want to debate metaphysics or other fanciful ideas reliant on faith alone then there are plenty other places here to do that.

tao
 
Dharmaatmaa said:
Yes, I know many Latin words and Latin in general, so what? Do I become a master of all sciences if I understand what their terminology means? But I assert again and again real scientifical lore is underneath that empty words.
Click to expand...

The linnean binomial system is not "empty words". It is a precise and technical use of Latin/ized terms to allow for specific identification of organisms among scientists of multiple countries. I would have to learn and use dozens of words for "rat" if it were not the convention to simply write Rattus vulgaris to specify a specific species. Modern gene names employ a similar convention, specifying a fixed and internationally agreed-upon name for a gene. Thus, any biologist could know what I mean when I write a review mentioning APP, BACE1, MAPT, COMT, or SLC6A4, for example (Which I currently am doing. Quick aside, what is my lab's major disease of interest? You should be able to guess from that list.).



One may say "shovel", and a scientist - "agricultural unit".
Click to expand...

Give me a single quote of a single peer-reviewed paper wherein an actual scientist used "agricultural unit" to mean "shovel". You're making up straw men to knock over.
 
I've never supposed to anyone "to debate metaphysics or other fanciful ideas reliant on faith alone". It's not abstract talkings I meant of. What metaphisical did I say? I think the idea I decided to touch here is much more "new" than any fact you read in genetical books. No metaphisics! I said about genetical facts. What is "genetical info"? Does genetics give an answer? I don't mean those ridiculous ones.

Many genetical theories ground on ideas only, on fanciful ideas. Mendel was right in many things, of cause. But what he said that rejects theory of archetypes? I thought and still believe science don't divide theories on a priori correct and a priori "fancy" ones. How can you divide?

We must think over every hypotesis to find the truth. And I suppose you to give me facts that will show to everybody that theory of archetypes can't exist. Do it, please! And if science helps you to, I'll promise to give you obvious experimental data to my Oriental theory.
 
Dharmaatmaa said:
I've never supposed to anyone "to debate metaphysics or other fanciful ideas reliant on faith alone". It's not abstract talkings I meant of. What metaphisical did I say? I think the idea I decided to touch here is much more "new" than any fact you read in genetical books. No metaphisics! I said about genetical facts. What is "genetical info"? Does genetics give an answer? I don't mean those ridiculous ones.

Many genetical theories ground on ideas only, on fanciful ideas. Mendel was right in many things, of cause. But what he said that rejects theory of archetypes? I thought and still believe science don't divide theories on a priori correct and a priori "fancy" ones. How can you divide?

We must think over every hypotesis to find the truth. And I suppose you to give me facts that will show to everybody that theory of archetypes can't exist. Do it, please! And if science helps you to, I'll promise to give you obvious experimental data to my Oriental theory.
Click to expand...

Hi Dharmaatmaa,

I have to say that I really struggle to comprehend exactly what you are saying and this may cause some problems with our communication. Perhaps it would be easier if you were to post your thoughts, so that I might gain some clarity on your thinking, and we can take it from there?

tao
 
Oh, please, don't! Don't tell me about communication. I'm aware of it more than you think. English is the easiest language in the world - it's fact. I express my thoughts clear. But now I say about genetics!

If you're ready to prove that a gene or their group can be a matrix for any "genetical information" and will show how it's possible for molecules to be so smart for building of a body of an animal, plant or whatever you wish! How molecules of an acid (Just in case: I mean DNA if you are "really struggling to comprehend exactly" now) CAN in their group to form bodies per ipso? To be frank, I guess nobody's able to. Why? Because genetics consists of Latin terms, not on facts at first. In fact, scientists in genetics find out new theory. OK. But then they try to put new facts into explanations of this old theory. And new points of view they can't even look at, becoming sick at once! And the most clever of them are just being "I don't understand you! I don't speak English!" gentlemen. Do you remind someone?

And speaking on top of seriosity, I can say contemporary genetics with all their long words from old dictionaries is very little developed till now. Albeit Dogbrain said everything correct - terms are needed "to specify a specific species". Agreed. But I propose to look under the terms to find the very nucleum of contemporary theories in genetics. What do we see? Thousands of clever words and very little sense. You, dear sir Tao Equus, will definitely say I'm wrong. And if you thing another way you should think - "Thousands of clever words and very much sense".

Well, I say genoms and that DNA at all can't do the job scientists say them to do. Molecules, unconscious protein connections, can't have built organisms. There is something other to have done that. That'll do...

But everything I said before is still actual. I think clever people aren't to lose their time in Latin-terms woods, but had better pay attention to new productive ideas.
 
Dharmaatmaa said:
Oh, please, don't! Don't tell me about communication. I'm aware of it more than you think. English is the easiest language in the world - it's fact. I express my thoughts clear. But now I say about genetics!

If you're ready to prove that a gene or their group can be a matrix for any "genetical information" and will show how it's possible for molecules to be so smart for building of a body of an animal, plant or whatever you wish! How molecules of an acid (Just in case: I mean DNA if you are "really struggling to comprehend exactly" now) CAN in their group to form bodies per ipso? To be frank, I guess nobody's able to. Why? Because genetics consists of Latin terms, not on facts at first. In fact, scientists in genetics find out new theory. OK. But then they try to put new facts into explanations of this old theory. And new points of view they can't even look at, becoming sick at once! And the most clever of them are just being "I don't understand you! I don't speak English!" gentlemen. Do you remind someone?

And speaking on top of seriosity, I can say contemporary genetics with all their long words from old dictionaries is very little developed till now. Albeit Dogbrain said everything correct - terms are needed "to specify a specific species". Agreed. But I propose to look under the terms to find the very nucleum of contemporary theories in genetics. What do we see? Thousands of clever words and very little sense. You, dear sir Tao Equus, will definitely say I'm wrong. And if you thing another way you should think - "Thousands of clever words and very much sense".

Well, I say genoms and that DNA at all can't do the job scientists say them to do. Molecules, unconscious protein connections, can't have built organisms. There is something other to have done that. That'll do...

But everything I said before is still actual. I think clever people aren't to lose their time in Latin-terms woods, but had better pay attention to new productive ideas.
Click to expand...


I cannot say where you are from and you may or may not be correct about English language being the "easiest in the world". However you grasp of its written form is less than perfect. Not a criticism but a statement of fact. You are quite difficult to understand but I do make the effort.

Genes are command prompts on DNA. There are many more genes in a sequence of DNA than are used as they have to be 'switched on' to serve a function. And they can be switched on in different ways too, they are not merely on/off switches. They are far more complicated than a mere switch and far from fully understood. But to suggest that gene switching is not responsible for the forms that arise from the DNA code is frankly ridiculous. There have been 10's of 1000's of experiments that clearly demonstrate that genes are switches that regulate and command cell growth, chemical and hormone production and more. Not only have there been all these experiments that show genes do as stated but there are now several therapies that are in clinical use based on that knowledge. So how can you say it does not work?

Again you come back to your antipathy toward the use of technical language. It seems to me to be a bit of an obsession for you. I think no matter how clearly I or others try to explain the obvious to you you will retain that chip on your shoulder. So I will not bother trying.

You again hint that you have some "new and secret" knowledge. Well here on this forum I have heard that more times than I have had hot dinners. So if you have something to say...say it. Put up or shut up. I think you will find whatever crackpot mysticism you are about to spout I can shoot down in flames. Not because I am an expert on Genetics, I most certainly am not that, but because all the the mystical theories I have thus far heard are patently flawed from the start. Genetics and DNA research does not in any way pretend to have all the answers, unlike you. It is an ongoing research field in its infancy. You can write it off to suit the ego trip of your own "idea" but the science will be around long after you, and I, have bitten the dust.

tao
 
Of cause we should stop that long struggling. Yes, maybe my sententions looked quite misty, but never mystical. No mystics, OK? It's just one more misunderstanding. I bring a white flag. Don't be so angry, s'il vouz plair. It's not a scientifical discussion when people are angry. Ears can't hear when anger reigns, can they? I'll try to ask straight off what I am meaning all the time:

1) I think it isn't correct to take with open arms anything genetics says. There must be the healthy criticism, right? I know there are many experiments, and I've never said or even meant "gene switching is not responsible for the forms that arise from the DNA code". It really is. But it explains only a little bit of possible phenomena. And in Scientific American very often appear many anti-theoretical facts (for ex, paramutation - unexplained fact - was if I'm not mistaken published at May 25, 2006. I'm sorry I can't give English address, so just in case: Çàêîíû ãåíåòèêè äàþò òðåùèíó - ÆÓÐÍÀË Â ÌÈÐÅ ÍÀÓÊÈ). And we can't stay blind for them, looking after our favorite old hypoteses. Maybe I'm not an expert, but I think people like you just have to pay their attention to that strange facts.
And since that light day when genetical dark-questions are in past didn't still come, we can't say - this is certainly true, and that isn't. Right?

2) And if in here people discussed namely problems of contemporary genetical science - it would be bis useful. The theory's unlimited. It can be discussed untill we all are old! New proposals, new thoughts, and new decisions - that's the purpose of that thread, is it not?

I laughed a lot when read you think I've got a "new and secret" lore. What secret I said? I just say I can ground my viewpoint. And I think genoms aren't just a piece of protein. Why not? What's criminal if I say that genoms have their own cause? I just wanted to know someone's opinion. And about "new" knowledge. It isn't new, but in such a strict science it may look new.

Anyway, thanks for your time you lost reading that mystical (hehe) posts...
 
Ok, so what are you trying to say?
And I "am not" angry, its just my style of writing.


tao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top