It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code

page: 7
109
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

soficrow
reply to post by tsingtao
 


the dna can identify a single individual


Seems it can't always. Depends which part of the body you sample. Check this out:

Novel Genetic Patterns May Make Us Rethink Biology and Individuality







interesting article, thanks.
but i still think that even with the mutations/chimerism (sp) one can be identified.




posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 





An organized design team, then?


People of science, are often so quick to scoff at anyone, who mentions ID.
As if it is a religion they immediately start bashing religion, churh and
God. When just as these three obviously share a commonality, they're
all completely different entities. So it is with I.D.

I find it very suspicious indeed when everywhere, everyone agrees,
everything is possible. I agree, so I accept that evolution is a possibility.
That is all the study of the fact based theory has proven. That it is possible.
So thanks for calling attention to and confirming the obvious, right ? By all
rights, science should involve another study for research and discovery,
rather then to appear so bias to a preconcieved outcome or notion.


I sense hatred is a large factor in regards to intelligent design not being
a field worthy of consideration and study by the scientific community.
Simply because God can not be observed or tested ? How does God
himself, have anything to do with a scientific study and research, in
regards to the possibility of I.D.? It's the study of the possibility
of design to determine the possibility of a designer. Because design
does not happen without a designer. Do I believe science can prove we
our selves are a design ? Yes. Have we been proven to be a design ?
Maybe.
But I don';t refuse to see that we are a design in the first place.
Whom as he were, would be the definition of the word GOD.Why
not prove another possibility possible? Oh that's right, discrimination,
bigotry, cynicism, hatred and from there you can see the possibility of
deliberate deception.




The human cell, the very foundation of human life, possesses an intricate and highly sophisticated design
Source


Why science isn't legally stricken from any use of the word(design) at all, is beyond me ?

edit on 14-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
So Francis Crick? - or Rosalind Franklin?

Heres the thing - The Code of DNA - If one, supposed, he took L-S-D to find-out the helix discovery.. (crick)


So he was high - his mental and projection around, the environment.. the sensitivities.

Did they do D-M-T, too find out the 2nd part of DNA?? -- Kidding...


But really- There is a tie here, just as much when things connect. DNA should be looked more naturally -

I know DNA can be turned into a computer code...
I know Computer code can be made into a simulator..
I know the simulator needs the input of instruction..
We can be connected to the machine..
Everything has a foot-print in DNA code..
All things connected. Your factors contribute too the DNA structural.. Your environment, influences, parents ect..

What scares me , is the altercation with detail now, We already do it too ourselves... Electromechanics screws things up.. our body, our structure is no more then like a machine, naturally. "Project Avatar 2030" are probably #ting gold bricks right now...
edit on 14-12-2013 by Y3K89 because: because my words where blocked...



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
For all we know, there might be a third hidden language in the DNA that controls/manifests our behavioral pattern. These gene sequencing might be so complicated that they can change positions depending on our moods and line of thinking. There may be some behavioral genes that are hard to change but can be done so with some effort from the person.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Thanks. Gotta love that Rumi guy.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ParasuvO
 


Without the WHY, WHO CARES about the mechanisms, and how could anyone possibly get to the bottom of it without finding out the WHY.


I agree that the WHY is fundamental, and suggest that the answer is a personal process. I'm over 60, and have revisited that question in depth at least 50 times. As a result, I keep coming to my own terms with the WHY - those terms are deeply spiritual and quite personal. While I happen to greatly value and thoroughly enjoy serious theological and philosophical discussions, I certainly would not seek such discourse on a site given to superficial "religious" tweets and dogmatic so-called Christian rants. Moreover, this is the Science and Technology forum - if I were seeking what passes for philosophical and theological discussion here, I would look elsewhere, and respectfully suggest you do the same:

Philosophy and Metaphysics
Religion, Faith, And Theology
Origins and Creationism

It is difficult to have serious in depth discussions - one helpful rule is to stay on topic.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


i still think that even with the mutations/chimerism (sp) one can be identified


Yes, individuals can be identified - but it does matter where the DNA 'sample' is taken from in the body. Interesting, dontcha think? ...and the implications are huge for organ transplant, paternity suits, criminal checks... ???



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Maybe now they'll stop calling all the stuff they don't yet understand 'junk DNA'.

Second line..



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
This discovery puts the nail in the coffin for interpretations of evolution absent intelligent design. The nail was already in place, this just hammers it in even further.

Evolution absent intelligent design belongs in the fantasy section at the bookstore.

The Genetic Code doesn't just regulate the production of proteins, which is a blow to evolution absent intelligent design, we now know that theres a second code that's quality control for the protein.

THIS IS JUST AMAZING!

Again, intelligent design does 2 important things. Intelligence arranges letters and symbols into a sequence and it gives that sequence meaning. Secondly, it builds machinery that reads and translates the sequence of letters, numbers or symbols. We see this in everything from DVD players and Televisions to DNA.

Quality control is important because if a mistake occurs, quality control is there to correct the mistake.

Here's more:


The newfound genetic code within deoxyribonucleic acid, the hereditary material that exists in nearly every cell of the body, was written right on top of the DNA code scientists had already cracked.

Rather than concerning itself with proteins, this one instructs the cells on how genes are controlled.


www.foxnews.com...

This is just incredible. The genetic code instructs the regulation and production of proteins but there's a second code of regulatory sequences that control and oversee this process.

Again, how can this evolve without intelligent design? A regulatory sequence that controls the regulation of proteins. It's like having a Foreman overseeing the production. Here's more:


"For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made," said lead author John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine.

"Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture," he said.

"Many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously."


Gene Control Programs?

If you ask me, there's not even a debate between intelligent design and evolution. Evolution requires Intelligent Design. You can't just look at the Phenotype and extrapolate a convoluted theory of Evolution anymore. DNA has shattered that. This is clear intelligent design.
edit on 15-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

neoholographic
If you ask me, there's not even a debate between intelligent design and evolution. Evolution requires Intelligent Design. You can't just look at the Phenotype and extrapolate a convoluted theory of Evolution anymore. DNA has shattered that. This is clear intelligent design.

All of that post was a worthy and interesting argument, neo, and lot to think about indeed.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

randyvs
Why science isn't legally stricken from any use of the word(design) at all, is beyond me ?

Priceless. Do I have your permission to put it on a t-shirt, randy?



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 





Priceless. Do I have your permission to put it on a t-shirt, randy?



Is your home work done ?




posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


I consider that a contaigion of aboration not a genetically inherited trait. Kind of like racism. It gets passed from generation to generation. I've seen it first hand,with my racist boss and now his eight year old son. On the flip side I've passed tolerance on to my kids.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

neoholographic
This is just incredible. The genetic code instructs the regulation and production of proteins but there's a second code of regulatory sequences that control and oversee this process.


You're completely misunderstanding the point of this new research paper.
Everything you typed above, has been known for many decades.

What Stamatoyannopoulos's team found, was evidence for these transcription factor binding sites to be not only outside the coding regions, but also inside the coding regions.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this isnt as groundbreaking as the press release puts it, either, because other people before also had some evidence for that.

What you're going crazy over, is knowledge that any 1st year Molecular Biology student could have told you a very very long time ago.

Its also worth noting that although the team found transcription factors inside coding regions, nobody yet has any direct evidence that they are actually USED as transcription factor binding sites. Or if they are used, to what degree they might be used.

But whatever... you just keep on with your "argument from incredulity".



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


This is funny yet predictable.

Of course people who are threatened by this discovery will try to say it's nothing and it's meaningless. Every discovery seems to give weight to intelligent design. This is just one more nail in the coffin. Like I said, people will say this means nothing and it's meaningless because they can't stand the fact that it's just more support for intelligent design.

Here's more from the study. They even gave the new code a name:


Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said Stamatoyannopoulos. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

The discovery of duons has major implications for how scientists and physicians interpret a patient’s genome and will open new doors to the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

“The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously,” said Stamatoyannopoulos.


Of course this is something new. That's why the second code "remained hidden" for so many years and why duons have "MAJOR IMPLICATIONS and could open up NEW DOORS to diagnosis and treatment of disease."

But of course, it means nothing and any 1st year biology student already knew this LOL. Like I said, funny yet predictable. If telling yourself this means nothing makes you feel better than by all means keep fooling yourself. It reminds me of a quote from Werner Heisenberg:


“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” -W.Heisenberg


The first gulp in evolution was Darwin who said:


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species


The destruction of Darwin came with DNA. Evolution absent intelligent design is just a fantasy.

There's no evidence that regulatory sequences of DNA evolve in successive steps. That's just absurd. When a sequence of DNA letters are inserted function occurs. There's no evolution or guesswork involved.

If I write aaaThejjozGIRLjjffgINvvcdTHEklppBLUEkkloaDRESS

The sequence of the letters THE GIRL IN THE BLUE DRESS is predetermined by intelligence. This is the same with DNA. When DNA letters are in a regulatory sequence function occurs. That sequence instructs the production of proteins and now scientist have discovered duons. A second hidden code of gene control.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

neoholographic
Of course people who are threatened by this discovery will try to say it's nothing and it's meaningless.


Straw man argument.
Nobody is saying "it's nothing and it's meaningless".

What is being said are the factually correct statements that:
- It is not as groundbreaking as the university press release makes it out to be,
- Evidence for this has been noted before,
- The study makes some interesting findings about conserved sequences, **
- The study did not show that the transcription factor binding sites are actually used at all, or if used, how much.

** you ought to do a bit of reading about conserved sequences, because it is evidence for evolution. But dont clutter up this thread, start a new one if you wish to beat your head against that specific topic.




neoholographic
Here's more from the study.


No, thats from a press release.
You do know the difference between a scientific paper and a press release, dont you?



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


You did say it was meaningless. It's obvious to anyone with even a little bit of common sense. You wanted to belittle the study and that's just predictable. This is why you said this:


What you're going crazy over, is knowledge that any 1st year Molecular Biology student could have told you a very very long time ago.


This is just a flat out lie with one objective. The objective is to render the study meaningless. If any 1st year biology student knows this then it's no big deal.

Sadly for you this isn't the case.

This is from one of the authors of the study:


“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made,” said Stamatoyannopoulos. “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

“The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously,” said Stamatoyannopoulos.


He even calls them gene control programs.

At the end of the day, if you have to deny reality in order to maintain your belief system then you need to question your belief system. That's just my advice. If you run into a discovery that threatens what you already believe the tactic shouldn't be to try and belittle the study. The tactic should be to ask questions but in most cases that will not happen because people are blinded by belief.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

neoholographic
You did say it was meaningless.
What you're going crazy over, is knowledge that any 1st year Molecular Biology student could have told you a very very long time ago.
This is just a flat out lie with one objective. The objective is to render the study meaningless. If any 1st year biology student knows this then it's no big deal.


What I was replying to was not the study, but your response to the FoxNews article, where you incredulously stated:

This is just incredible. The genetic code instructs the regulation and production of proteins but there's a second code of regulatory sequences that control and oversee this process. Again, how can this evolve without intelligent design?
A regulatory sequence that controls the regulation of proteins. It's like having a Foreman overseeing the production.


The "regulatory" aspect. What you call the "foreman overseeing the production", has been known for decades.
And thats why I said any student would know that.




neoholographic
He even calls them gene control programs.


And he'd be perfectly right.
They are indeed.

---

Edit - still not convinced you actually know what new knowledge is the study actually found.

edit on 16-12-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



Of course you were replying to the study LOL. This is why you tried to belittle the study when you said this:


What you're going crazy over, is knowledge that any 1st year Molecular Biology student could have told you a very very long time ago.


Again, you were trying to reduce the study to no big deal. It's just something any 1st year biology student would have known.

I have seen this same argument from others that feel threatened by the study in different articles on the study. Anyone with a little common sense has seen this tactic used over and over again. Instead of trying to belittle the study as something any 1st year biology student would know, you should ask yourself questions about your beliefs if you feel so threatened by this study.

The study is saying there's a second code that stabilizes protein production. This is a very important distinction that you fail to grasp. It doesn't regulate protein production, it's a code that stabilizes the process.

You said:


The "regulatory" aspect. What you call the "foreman overseeing the production", has been known for decades.


Again, this has nothing to do with the study and is just another attempt to belittle the study. It's no big deal, these things have been known for years. Like I said, if you feel the need to belittle the study, you need to ask yourself why.

The second code is just another nail in the coffin for any interpretation of evolution absent intelligent design.

You have regulatory sequences, sequences that give you proteins and now a second code that stabilizes beneficial features of the protein.

This could also give Doctors a better understanding of some disease. But according to you, it's nothing new. Any 1st year biology student already knows this.

How do regulatory sequences evolve? It's just an absurd notion. The meaning of these sequences are predetermined by intelligence. This is intelligent design. We give meaning to letters, numbers and symbols and then build machinery that will read these instructions.

If I were to randomly scramble the alphabet and the name Betty Jean was spelled out, in order for the sequence of letters that spell Betty Jean to mean something, intelligence has to first give it meaning.

Evolution just tells us that the instructions that were designed by intelligence. These sequences that are given meaning by intelligence and instruct the production of proteins and when these genes reach the phenotype they adapt to their environment.

Let's look at the TATA box in the Lac Operon. This is a sequence of DNA letters that instruct other molecules where transcription begins. It's called a Promoter. Again, a sequence that gives instructions is the hallmark of intelligent design. I have a toy race track for my nephew and it came with instructions. These instructions are letters and numbers put into a sequence and given meaning by intelligence.

The meaning of the sequence of letters, numbers and symbol don't evolve. The sequence is given meaning by intelligence and this is how the machinery knows how to construct a car or parts on an assembly line.


A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded. It is a type of promoter sequence, which specifies to other molecules where transcription begins. Transcription is a process that produces an RNA molecule from a DNA sequence. The TATA box is named for its conserved DNA sequence, which is most commonly TATAAA. Many eukaryotic genes have a conserved TATA box located 25-35 base pairs before the transcription start site of a gene. The TATA box is able to define the direction of transcription and also indicates the DNA strand to be read. Proteins called transcription factors can bind to the TATA box and recruit an enzyme called RNA polymerase, which synthesizes RNA from DNA.


Again, in order for the sequence TATAAA to be read, decoded and to indicate the DNA strand to be read, the sequence is first given meaning by intelligence. There's no evolution involved. The only thing that evolves is the organism that comes from this production and interacts with it's environment. The instructions that regulate and control production don't evolve. These instructions can be changed through copying error or what's called mutations. The problem that has occurred is people have built a convoluted theory of evolution around the end result of the instructions or the phenotype. DNA has shattered this convoluted theory of evolution but it has become like the Bible or Torah for Atheist and Materialist.

You have instructions for the protein insulin and instructions for the protein myoglobin. Why does this sequence of DNA letters give instructions for the production of these proteins? Why do regulatory sequences regulate the production of these proteins? Why do these sequence control and stabilize this production? Why does the machinery read these instructions? How does the machinery know what these sequences mean?

These things didn't evolve. The end result of these instructions evolved as they interacted with their environment. The convoluted theory of evolution was built without knowing the extent of these instructions. As we learn more and more, that convoluted theory of evolution belongs in the realm of fantasy.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

neoholographic
Of course you were replying to the study LOL.
This is why you tried to belittle the study
Again, you were trying to reduce the study
Instead of trying to belittle the study
is just another attempt to belittle the study.
if you feel the need to belittle the study


Sigh.
So I repeat myself yet again...
What I was replying to was not the study, but your response to the FoxNews article, where you incredulously stated:
A regulatory sequence that controls the regulation of proteins. It's like having a Foreman overseeing the production.
The "regulatory" aspect. What you call the "foreman overseeing the production", has been known for decades.
And thats why I said any student would know that.
Because they would.





neoholographic
But according to you, it's nothing new. Any 1st year biology student already knows this.


Not at all.
The study is regarding information that I doubt any first year student would be aware of.

---

You still dont appear to be making any distinction at all betwen "old" knowledge, and the "new" knowledge from this study.
And that is massively underlined with the rest of the post that I'm replying to, where you start discussing TATA boxes at great length. Its also where you talked about the "foreman overseeing the production", your earlier post where you talked about "this arrangement that controls and regulates gene expression", posting a youtube video about gene regulation, your earlier post where you started talking about "Gene regulation and control clearly shows that we were designed by intelligence", and boxes of Cheerios.

but _NONE_ of it has anything to do with the new information that came out of this new study.

Will you please please move forward into the year 2013 and start talking about the new information that came out of the study by Stamatoyannopoulos et al. I've mentioned it several times now, so there's no excuse for not being aware of it.



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join