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: 8
109
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I have no interest in the Intelligent Design debate so I skipped a lot of this thread. Could someone explain if this discovery could have anything to do with genetic memory? Experiments have been performed on creatures that regenerate such as worms where they're trained to a specific behavior, cut in two, and both halves then go on to perform that behavior. Suggesting that atleast in some animals memory isn't contained in just the brain. Then we have examples where a species is domesticated and the offspring inherit their parents view of humans, even if there was no contact to teach that behavior. Which would again suggest memories are passed through DNA.
edit on 17-12-2013 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


This is a perfect example as to why you need to read the thread before you respond to a post. In this thread people have talked about this article in particular and how this relates to intelligent design in general. So when you say this, it makes no sense in the context of my posts:


You still dont appear to be making any distinction at all betwen "old" knowledge, and the "new" knowledge from this study.


Of course there isn't any distinction when it comes to intelligent design in general. When I talked about the study, I quoted an author of the study and talked about things like gene control programs. Again, it's obvious that I was talking about the study in particular and then I talked about what you call "old" information in the context of intelligent design. So when you read my post it should be simple to understand unless you're reading it in a vacuum and then having a knee jerk response.

Also, of course you were trying to belittle the study as nothing new. I think I debated you before and you did something similar. When you get called out on it, you try to change your tune. Sadly, you're not the only one that has tried to belittle the study. Here's more of what you said about the study in this thread in an earlier post:


The idea that DNA sequences not only code for proteins, but also code for gene control is not news. This has been known for decades.


No it hasn't. It's no different then you saying any 1st year biology student would know this. Again, an attempt to belittle the study. I also see most of your attempts to belittle the study were ignored and for good reason.

This type of selective nonsense gets ignored because it should be ignored.

What happened is people began to connect the study as more evidence of intelligent design and people felt threatened. So the objective was not to debate the study but to belittle the study as no big deal. It happens everytime there's a thread started that doesn't walk in lock step with materialism of course the objective will be to try and convince everyone that it's no big deal.

You were so desperate to belittle the study, you said ignore the official press release which quotes the Author of the study but people should treat random comments from reddit as Gospel.

It boils down to this. People are upset because the press release talked about duons and talked about a second code. As soon as the word code was mentioned operation let's belittle the study was activated.

This is the problem with the convoluted theory of evolution. It was based on a lie.

Darwin essentially found a watch(human body) on the beach with no instructions as to how the watch was constructed. Darwin then came up with a theory as to how this watch could have evolved over time in successive steps. People cheered and said we don't need any God we have Darwin! Then the instructions were found(DNA). By then it was too late. The convoluted theory of evolution had become a holy sacrament for atheist and materialist. So obvious intelligent design was ignored in favor of the convoluted theory of evolution because the theory has been used to support a belief system.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Aazadan
Could someone explain if this discovery could have anything to do with genetic memory? Experiments have been performed on creatures that regenerate such as worms where they're trained to a specific behavior, cut in two, and both halves then go on to perform that behavior.



Not really.
What the study found was that transcription factor binding sites are now found inside gene coding regions as well as outside gene coding regions.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

neoholographic
In this thread people have talked about this article in particular and how this relates to intelligent design in general.


No, actually they havn't.
The new study has not been discussed at all.
1. The new study found that transcription factor binding sites have been located in gene coding regions, (but with no direct evidence that they are used) and _NOBODY_ has discussed transcription factor binding sites at all, except in the "old" knowledge way.
2. The study found that these newly located sites are highly conserved regions, and _NOBODY_ has given that so much as a passing mention.




neoholographic
Here's more of what you said about the study in this thread in an earlier post:

The idea that DNA sequences not only code for proteins, but also code for gene control is not news. This has been known for decades.


I stand by that.
The idea that DNA sequences code for gene control is not news.

My next sentence after that (which you decided to censor out) even makes the distinction clear, between that and the new knowledge from the study.







neoholographic
People are upset because the press release talked about duons and talked about a second code. As soon as the word code was mentioned operation let's belittle the study was activated.


The only belittling I would do here is to take to task the people who get all excited about a "second code" and talk about it endlessly without having any idea what they're talking about, or realising that its just press release sensationalism.
If you disagree, I dare you to describe this "second code".
Be specific. Exactly what is this "second code", and how does it differ from the "first code"?





neoholographic
Darwin essentially found a watch(human body) on the beach ...


On a heath.
Why is it that creationists NEVER mention the original.
Its an incredibly well known analogy, but nobody ever ever ever ever ever uses the original.
Everyone wants to change it.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



Like I said, you seem to have read comments you posted from reddit and you just take them at face value. My advice, read the study and not just comments on the study if your goal is to try and reduce the study to something that's meaningless and has been known for years.

There's several things and some of this will get technical. The Authors said:


“~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (“duons”) that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites.”


Why is this important?

The experiment was carried out on cell lines from the human exome. What's the exome?


The exome is the part of the genome formed by exons, the sequences which when transcribed remain within the mature RNA after introns are removed by RNA splicing. It differs from a transcriptome in that it consists of all DNA that is transcribed into mature RNA in cells of any type. The exome of the human genome consists of roughly 180,000 exons constituting about 1% of the total genome, or about 30 megabases of DNA.[1] Though comprising a very small fraction of the genome, mutations in the exome are thought to harbor 85% of disease-causing mutations.[2] .


en.wikipedia.org...-2

This is big news. Again, the reason this is being belittled is because people are threatened because it's just more evidence for intelligent design.

The Scientist found the Transcription Factors don't just bind to DNA promoter's but to the exons and particularly the exome which are thought to harbor 85% of disease causing mutations. The study said this:


Intriguingly, TFs involved in positioning the transcriptional preinitiation complex, such as NFYA and SP1 (29), preferentially avoid the translated region of the first coding exon (Fig. 3A) and typically occupy elements immediately upstream of the methionine start codon (Fig. 3B and fig. S9A). Conversely, TFs involved in modulating promoter activity, such as YY1 and NRSF, preferentially occupy the translated region of the first coding exon (Fig. 3, A and C) (30, 31). These findings indicate that the translated portion of the first coding exon may serve functionally as an extension of the canonical promoter.


This is a simple explanation of the second code.

Transcription factors involved with positioning avoid the translated region of the first coding exon while transcriptions factors involved with modulating promoter activity prefer to occupy the translated region of the first coding exon.

Why is that?

Herein lies the term duon or the second code. The second code is twofold. It shows the translated portion of the first coding exon may also serve as an extension of the canonical promoter and the second code also determines which region the transcription factors occupy and why they occupy them.

THIS IS HUGE!

This second code could help us with things like diseases and give us better understanding of epigenetic marks.

Here's a laymen example. I hate to get so technical but it's sad when people have a silly, knee jerk reaction when they see the words intelligent design. Once intelligent design was mention the objective quickly switched to trying to belittle this important study that could lead to profound breakthroughs.

You see some websites that offer tests that will determine your genetic factors for disease. This practice has been highly scrutinized by the FDA. I think the company 23 and Me even stopped giving these kind of tests. The second code could make these kind of tests commonplace. Here's more on 23 and Me:


Silver Spring, MD—The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a warning letter to 23andMe, a genetic testing service, for marketing its product for the diagnosis of diseases without approval.

23andMe’s DNA Spit Kit is a Personal Genome Service (PGS) device that, according to the company’s Web site, analyzes over 240 health conditions and traits, including risk for breast cancer and diabetes. It also reports on how the patient’s genetic makeup indicates they would respond to certain medications and drugs. As FDA’s warning letter indicates, some of these intended uses have not been classified and their lack of premarket approval are thus in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).


www.wholefoodsmagazine.com...

The second code could make tests like these mandatory when you visit the Doctor. What 23 and Me is doing right now is like fishing without bait. The current tests can't give you a complete picture. The position of duons that contain the code of transcription factors in exomes or the second code, could allow a diagnosis of diabetes or cancer to be caught earlier just through the understanding of this second code.

Another blow to the convoluted theory of evolution. Again, Darwin didn't have the instructions and just looked at the end result of these instructions(DNA) and came up with a theory that belongs in the trash can after we have found the instructions. I'm not saying all of the things that Darwin discovered are meaningless, I'm saying the interpretation based on what Darwin discovered belongs in the trash can. This is a convoluted theory of evolution that excludes intelligent design.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pandersway
 


The more and more we discover, the more and more I think we are all just programmed computers.



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

greywolf45
reply to post by pandersway
 


The more and more we discover, the more and more I think we are all just programmed computers.


Speak for yourself, 1001010110110110101110101010000101010
edit on 23-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Rather than waste time by arguing without resolution about the validity of inferences from DNA properties about "intelligent design", you might, instead, want to learn about amazing discoveries made in the past few years by a theoretical physicist proving the existence of A UNIVERSAL, MATHEMATICAL ANALOGY between the composition of intervals between the notes in the seven diatonic musical scales, the 64 hexagrams used in the ancient Chinese I Ching system of divination, the geometries of the Hindu Sri Yantra, the five Platonic solids and the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, the 64 codons of mRNA and the 64 anticodons of tRNA. See here. His rigorous proof of this analogous mathematical pattern in different phenomena and in sacred geometries regarded by some as blueprints for life has only one inescapable conclusion that can explain such detailed correlations: there exists a transcendental Intelligence that has designed the DNA molecule - an Intelligence whose mathematical intent has been captured in certain sacred geometries and is now revealed for the first time.

For more details, visit: smphillips.8m.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


You said a mouthful! A well written post, and I'm interested in the data you present. Connections are everywhere and everywhen, they just have to be brought to the conscious mind to contemplate and enhance.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I'm going to echo other sentiments in this thread and say that this really isn't as much of a huge deal as news outlets and posters here are making it out to be. I had a quick read of the article and of the article that it cites and though it certainly adds something new to the story of how our genetic constituents operate, it's hardly a ground breaking discovery. Important and interesting, sure, but no reason to go around saying that we've discovered a new genetic code. In reality, we've known for a while that DNA contains regulatory elements and certainly no one would have ever said that functional regions of the genome were all there was to it. At least no one with any knowledge of genetics would.

What they did was present evidence to suggest that sequence-specific transcription factor binding within protein encoding regions drives things like codon bias. I really don't think that it deserves to be heralded as a second genetic code and it's unfortunate that the use of this terminology has detracted from the content of the paper in the public eye. And what this has to do with ID, I will never know.



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join