More on the splicing code (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Thursday, January 17, 2013, 01:47 (4121 days ago)
The informational exons can be spliced in many ways to create different proteins from the same gene. The authors discuss another level of complexity in the genome, a splicing code in junk DNA:-http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/%E2%80%98junk%E2%80%99-dna-hides-assembly-instructions/
More on the splicing code
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 17, 2013, 02:54 (4121 days ago) @ David Turell
"This is a tightly regulated process, and a great number of human diseases are caused by the 'misregulation' of splicing in which the gene was not cut and pasted correctly."- I am reminded of a wonderful line from Peter Pan: "Oh the cleverness of ME!" How much more complexity will they have to find before there can be no doubt that it was not random chance? They are already beyond the realm of their own 'Law of Probability" by a mind boggling amount, and each new finding is simply another nail in the coffin.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
More on the splicing code
by David Turell , Thursday, January 24, 2013, 18:21 (4114 days ago) @ David Turell
The informational exons can be spliced in many ways to create different proteins from the same gene. The authors discuss another level of complexity in the genome, a splicing code in junk DNA: > > http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/%E2%80%98junk%E2%80%99-dna-hides-assembly-in... view of how alternate splicing with the same gene makes two different species, and might show how speciation happens. But where is the intelligent decision-making source hidden in the setup. That is not yet clear, or is it foredained somehow in the original DNA code?-"To assess alternative splicing patterns as well as transcription levels, both groups performed high-throughput sequencing of messenger RNA. They extracted RNA from a large array of organs of different vertebrate species, including frogs, chickens, primates, and humans. "It's a massive amount of data," said Cooper. Blencowe's team showed that the species-specific alternative splicing changes tended to be driven by differences in the transcripts themselves, which carry a splicing code that guides the splicing machinery—rather than differences in the splicing machinery. For example, human transcripts expressed in mouse cells exhibited human, not mouse, splicing patterns, despite being spliced by mouse machinery. "These are very important papers that provide for the first time a large-scale view of the evolution of alternative splicing in vertebrates," said Brent Graveley, professor of genetics and developmental biology at the University of Connecticut, who was not involved in the research. "They demonstrate how dramatically rapidly alternative splicing evolves, and suggest that it might play a role in speciation.'"- http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/33782/title/Evolution-by-Splicing/
More on the splicing code
DAVID: The informational exons can be spliced in many ways to create different proteins from the same gene. The authors discuss another level of complexity in the genome, a splicing code in junk DNA:-http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/%E2%80%98junk%E2%80%99-dna-hides-assembly-in...-Another view of how alternate splicing with the same gene makes two different species, and might show how speciation happens. But where is the intelligent decision-making source hidden in the setup. That is not yet clear, or is it foredained somehow in the original DNA code?-Wonderful stuff! Could it be that our scientists are gradually beginning to find evidence supporting the theory discussed so presciently and so learnedly and in such detail on this forum under the heading "The Intelligent Cell", later rechristened "The Intelligent Genome"? (Did I hear someone whisper: "Nobel"? Or was it "No, bull"?) Just to remind the breathless world: this theory 1) removes Darwinian dependence on random mutations as the mechanism for innovation; 2) explains the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution; 3) explains the gaps in the fossil record; 4) thus establishes punctuated equilibrium as a replacement for gradualism; 5) offers a plausible explanation for the Cambrian Explosion; 6) should be acceptable to theists and atheists alike, apart from those theists who believe in separate creation, since it leaves open the question of how the "decision-making source" came into existence.-Would common descent (= all forms of life are descended from earlier forms) have been possible without such a mechanism?
More on the splicing code
by David Turell , Saturday, January 26, 2013, 01:12 (4112 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: 6) should be acceptable to theists and atheists alike, apart from those theists who believe in separate creation, since it leaves open the question of how the "decision-making source" came into existence. -Your euphemism "decision-making source" skips the real issue. Intelligent genomes must get their intelligence from some other intelligence. Otherwise you are proposing chance can create intelligent information. No Way. > > dhw: Would common descent (= all forms of life are descended from earlier forms) have been possible without such a mechanism?-I doubt it.
More on the splicing code
dhw: 6) should be acceptable to theists and atheists alike, apart from those theists who believe in separate creation, since it leaves open the question of how the "decision-making source" came into existence. DAVID: Your euphemism "decision-making source" skips the real issue. Intelligent genomes must get their intelligence from some other intelligence. Otherwise you are proposing chance can create intelligent information. No Way.-Why is it a "euphemism"? The expression was yours, David, not mine: "Another view of how alternate splicing with the same gene makes two different species, and might show how speciation happens. But where is the intelligent decision-making source hidden in the setup. That is not yet clear, or is it foredained somehow in the original DNA code?"-The issue here is a credible model for evolution, which currently does not (in my view) deal adequately with the 5 points you have not quoted from the post to which you are replying. Your argument against chance applies to ANY explanation of life and evolution, but not every scientific theory has to answer the God question! Darwin's didn't, though it revolutionized the way we think about life's history. However, I'm delighted with your response, because clearly you now appear to accept the concept of "the intelligent genome":-dhw: Would common descent (= all forms of life are descended from earlier forms) have been possible without such a mechanism? DAVID: I doubt it.-Thank you.
More on the splicing code
by David Turell , Saturday, January 26, 2013, 16:41 (4112 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: However, I'm delighted with your response, because clearly you now appear to accept the concept of "the intelligent genome"-I sure do, but you haven't answered my question about the source of information and intelligence. Tell me how the genome became intelligent, please!
More on the splicing code
dhw: However, I'm delighted with your response, because clearly you now appear to accept the concept of "the intelligent genome"-DAVID: I sure do, but you haven't answered my question about the source of information and intelligence. Tell me how the genome became intelligent, please!-Ain't I done enough already? If you must know, the source was Abie Shyster Cohen. He sold me the formula ten years ago, but I still haven't figured out how it works.-Your turn. Tell me how "first cause energy" became intelligent, please!
More on the splicing code
by David Turell , Sunday, January 27, 2013, 17:31 (4111 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: However, I'm delighted with your response, because clearly you now appear to accept the concept of "the intelligent genome" > > DAVID: I sure do, but you haven't answered my question about the source of information and intelligence. Tell me how the genome became intelligent, please! > > dhw: Ain't I done enough already? If you must know, the source was Abie Shyster Cohen. He sold me the formula ten years ago, but I still haven't figured out how it works.-Be careful, you are bringing up my first wife's family of Cohans, Cohens, Cohns, etc., Mickey Cohen of L.A. mafia fame not included. > > dhw:Your turn. Tell me how "first cause energy" became intelligent, please!-Goddidit, of course.
More on the splicing code
dhw: However, I'm delighted with your response, because clearly you now appear to accept the concept of "the intelligent genome" DAVID: I sure do, but you haven't answered my question about the source of information and intelligence. Tell me how the genome became intelligent, please! dhw: Ain't I done enough already? If you must know, the source was Abie Shyster Cohen. He sold me the formula ten years ago, but I still haven't figured out how it works. DAVID: Be careful, you are bringing up my first wife's family of Cohans, Cohens, Cohns, etc., Mickey Cohen of L.A. mafia fame not included.-I should have guessed you were involved somehow. I want my money back. dhw: Your turn. Tell me how "first cause energy" became intelligent, please! DAVID: Goddidit, of course.-According to one of the Cohens' in-laws, God IS "first cause energy". So what is the formula for do-it-yourself intelligence, please?
More on the splicing code
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 29, 2013, 14:51 (4109 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: According to one of the Cohens' in-laws, God IS "first cause energy". So what is the formula for do-it-yourself intelligence, please?-From Paul Davies:-"Most research into life's murky origin has been carried out by chemists. They've tried a variety of approaches in their attempts to recreate the first steps on the road to life, but little progress has been made. Perhaps that is no surprise, given life's stupendous complexity. Even the simplest bacterium is incomparably more complicated than any chemical brew ever studied. But a more fundamental obstacle stands in the way of attempts to cook up life in the chemistry lab. The language of chemistry simply does not mesh with that of biology. Chemistry is about substances and how they react, whereas biology appeals to concepts such as information and organisation. Informational narratives permeate biology. DNA is described as a genetic "database", containing "instructions" on how to build an organism. The genetic "code" has to be "transcribed" and "translated" before it can act. And so on. If we cast the problem of life's origin in computer jargon, attempts at chemical synthesis focus exclusively on the hardware ... the chemical substrate of life ... but ignore the software ... the informational aspect. To explain how life began we need to understand how its unique management of information came about."-None of know how the information was put into biological life, but it is there and facts speak louder than words. God did it. God is first cause energy. I wish we could ask him, but that takes faith.