Posted on 01/31/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by EnderWiggins
That’s entirely silly. The promoter region is the start of the genetic processing engine itself!
Do you have a software background at all? Serious question (and yes, I realize that you are going to puff puff back questions about my own background with biology simply because you are so far gone).
Nope. You have to have the centromeres for cell division. It's part of the signaling command coding structure. The telomere protects against genetic data deterioration via redunduncy, but it's STILL GENETIC CODE!
I guess your statement that “all DNA has the genetic code” was your idiotic way of claiming that all DNA is functional.
Now you are insisting that all functionality is some sort of “code” and that is a misuse of the word, as well as being rather idiotic. Must I ask you again if you consider a philips head screwdriver fitting into a philips head screw as some sort of “code”?
A centromere is not part of the genetic code, but it does have functionality. All functionality is not a code, and only if it is translatable into an amino acid sequence is it the GENETIC code.
Short repeat DNA has no known function, and it is also not part of the genetic code. And again I repeat to you, because you seem to be having a real hard time figuring it out, functionality does not imply a “code”.
Where do you dream up such nonsense?!
A short tandem repeat (STR) in DNA occurs when a pattern of two or more nucleotides are repeated and the repeated sequences of genetic data are directly adjacent to each other (in intron sections of DNA data).
That's still genetic data!
Incorrect. Not all genes in DNA code for amino acid proteins. Other sections of DNA data are transcribed to precursor mRNA.
That's *STILL* genetic code being processed and used in DNA.
That's entirely incorrect and betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge of DNA (e.g. transcribing into mRNA).
Wow are you TRYING to be obtuse, or are you just so ignorant that you cannot help it?
How many times must I mention to you that DNA is transcribed into mRNA and that it is the mRNA that is translated via the GENETIC CODE into the amino acid sequence of a protein before you realize what it is I am talking about.
DNA to mRNA isn’t a “code” in the same way that mRNA to an Amino Acid sequence is a code. The only code to transcribe DNA into mRNA is that A = A, C = C, G = G, and T = U. That is not the genetic code.
Moreover, not all DNA is transcribed into mRNA. Thus this does nothing to back up your idiotic assertion that all DNA contains the genetic code.
Please tell me what functions short repeat DNA has been shown to have. You insist that it has a function, what is it?
Do you consider a philips head screwdriver fitting into a philips head screw to be the enactment of some sort of “code”?
If you do it would go a long way towards explaining your delusion that anything having to do with DNA must be some sort of code (even if it is not specifically the genetic code).
The genetic code is something specific. Not all DNA contains information translatable via the genetic code any more than every string of letters and numbers conveys an intelligible message when fed into an enigma machine. The promoter region of a gene is no more in genetic code than the introduction to a coded message is part of the code.
“Ok, we have a special message for all our little orphan Annie fan club members.” is NOT in code, not part of the code, and doesn’t contain code.
The alphanumerics that needed to be deciphered into BESURETODRINKYOUROVALTINE was what was in code, the code key being the little decoder ring.
The “decoder ring” for the genetic code is that chart I posted. Unless the DNA sequence can be transcribed into mRNA that is translated into a functional amino acid sequence via the “decoder” of a ribosome; it simply cannot be said to contain the genetic code.
Unless of course you want to sound like a complete ignoramus.
Oh good grief. Your posts get more ridiculus with each attempt. Short repeat DNA is just an observed *pattern* in existing DNA. Sheesh.
Contrary to your machinations, all DNA is code or data. Some of the code is digital (base 4). Other parts of the code are analog (e.g. signaling inputs for replication).
Honestly, you’ve gone too far with your denials and blather. Your mind is made up regardless of facts presented, though no doubt you’ll continue to deny that axiom, too.
Only a small percent of the genome is actually made up of DNA that is part of the genetic code or regulatory sequences that control the transcription of that code.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discovery Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
