Genome and evolvability: layers that modify in first life? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 25, 2020, 17:27 (1673 days ago) @ David Turell

When I noted the last article, I am not surprised when I now see the ID community so excited in their comments which tuned up other articles of which I was not aware:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/

"In the enthusiasm surrounding the progress of genomics, we end up overstating the real nature of our DNA and believing that it is more important than it is. The Oscar for Genetic Ravings goes to Advanced Technologies, an Indian DNA company whose website claims that genetic code is a “Divine Writing,” but genetic determinism—the idea that DNA will determine our fate and identity—is deeply ingrained in our culture. Make a Google search, and you’ll find hundreds of sources (including textbooks and leading scientists) describing DNA as the blueprint of life. It would be a great, easy-to-understand analogy, if it wasn’t wrong and outdated.

"DNA is not a blueprint: it’s a recipe coding for thousands of different proteins that interact with each other and with the environment, just like the ingredients of a cake in an oven. Whereas a blueprint is an exact, drawn-to-scale copy of the final product, a recipe is just a loose plot that leaves much more room to uncertainty.

***

"Take two identical twins: they share the same DNA, and their embryos developed side-by-side in the same uterus. Yet, they have different tastes, characters and attitudes, and make different choices in life. When you read the DNA of twins, you find a duplicate copy of the same recipe, but two distinct personalities. Not what you would call a fixed plan.

"We do not inherit specific instructions on how to build a cell or an organ. Our DNA contains a list of biochemical ingredients (the proteins coded in the genes) and the basic rules for their assembly (some proteins are labeled as “master” and can control the activity of others, while others can start a dominolike cascade of events) but the pieces self-organize into biochemical pathways, cells and tissues without reading a manual. The genetic recipe for a cat will not give an elephant, but you can’t read the DNA of an individual and see a Mini-Me of his features.

***

"Make no mistake: some traits are indeed genetically programmed, and some diseases are deterministic: people with a pathogenic mutation in the CFTR gene will develop cystic fibrosis regardless of their lifestyle. Even abilities once considered only a matter of upbringing like language, abstract thinking and many behavioral traits have a significant genetic component. But it doesn’t mean that DNA always has the upper hand. The opposite is true: an overwhelming majority of our traits depend on the blending of many genetic and nongenetic factors and therefore are hard to predict from DNA.

***

"Powered by petabytes of data and intelligent algorithms, the genetic profiles of the future will be mighty, and their breadth will be frightening. Yet, no test will ever be able to predict our personalities accurately, not to mention our fates, because a significant part of what we are is not written into DNA."

Comment: another view showing the original simplistic interpretation of DNA's importance is gone. As we learn about our own genome and all its necessary hidden layers, we have gone from a kindergarten view to a position now where perhaps we are entering early high school in our knowledge. What it means to me is the simplistic view of origin of life is not correct. RNA naturally appearing on is own without all the other surrounding layers is poppycock. All of this integration of molecules influencing each other, some 'mastering' each other, cannot naturally be added layer by layer in a chance fashion to end up with life as we know it. This requires precise design by a designer. The existence of a designer cannot be denied no matter how that designer is named or not named. This is the ID position.