Don't forget. I get to wear the watch on Thanksgiving.
Posted on 02/18/2009 8:49:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The genetic puppeteer
by David White
Back in 2005 a group of researchers published a landmark study on a question that has long puzzled geneticists: why aren’t identical twins … identical? Considering that they have the same DNA sequence in each of their cells, it seems a bit strange that they often possess a number of physical differences, such as different fingerprints, and different susceptibilities to disease. This raises the question: if two people can have identical DNA sequences and yet be so different, is there more to our genetic blueprint than just DNA?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Vista and Explorer.
Hmmm, don’t know why it won’t stream...but can you download it then play it? (it’s really awesome, BTW)
It just started playing. Boy did that thing take a long time to load. Thanks for the link!
I wouldn't describe identical twins as "so different."
It's lost on me why the author thinks it is news that a variety of factors affect gene expression.
You might be onto something there. My brother and I shared the same womb. I weighed one pound more at birth and through life I've always been 10+ pounds heavier.
Another thing, while in the womb, we decided to be just adorable... some things never change. :)
Read the third one. So much misinformation or misunderstanding. Do the author and editors of that “journal” know the definition of references, because it has footnotes AND references in it.
Funny thing, with epigenetics, maybe Lamarckianism looks to be vindicated in a very limited, highly qualified way, after all.
And another funny thing, there was a lot of tasty scientific goodness in that article without much fundamentalist preaching! I sure hope the good people at CMI are feeling well.
It’s not just some generic factor. The epigenetic code actually controls the genetic code. And, as it turns out, they are finding additional codes that make the genetic code perhaps the simplest code of them all.
Fire away. I’m all ears.
Most of this stuff in this article has been known for years. The UTRs he mentioned are called introns. They were discovered over 30 years ago. The people who found them won a Nobel in 1993 or 1994. Where I worked then was lucky enough to had booked one of the winners for a lecture that was scheduled the week after he won. The entire genome is not transcribed. A lot of stuff like that from someone without a firm grasp of the field. The author is a botanist that spent a lot of time doing missionary work, not someone with a molecular biology background.
About the DNA replication, I actually developed a method (about 20 years ago) to map which regions had replication origins and in which directions the DNA replicated. Other labs used my method soon after to show that DNA replication occurred in nonspecific regions in human DNA. Again, what is your background or his in molecular biology???
Wow, wrong right out of the box. You are obviously an expert. LOL
PS Could it be that you don’t know the difference between transcription and translation? I think I’ll stick with the botanist/missionary.
The way the author describes UTRs in the article, he makes no distinction between the 5’ and 3’ UTRs and introns. Both were known even before introns. It was known that there had to be regions 5’ (upstream) where the translation machinery (ribosomes and associated proteins) had to bind to start synthesizing proteins. More recently it was found that the 3’ end contains sequence motifs (not necessarily specific bases) to tell the cell to stop transcription . These are likely the 3D structure the mRNA makes and not specifically the sequence. You have this idea that this “ancient” history is somehow new. None of this repudiattes evolution at all.
Wrong again. Williams’ paper is covering recent and groundbreaking discoveries by project ENCODE. Next time you say you have read something, you might want to consider actually reading it. The “ancient history” (the only part you apparently read) is covered at the beginning of the paper. Williams then goes on to demonstrate how our antiquated notions with respect to the genome have been RADICALLY changed by project ENCODE.
PS Way to NOT admit your error.
`What is my error snoogums?
Introns are also UTRs. They are transcribed, but not translated. UTR in the field means UnTranslated Regions. DNA is transcribed to RNA and then the RNA is translated to protein. He said that.
It seems that you don’t know what transcription and translation are.
Again, what is your biology background snoogums??
PSS What do you suppose the discovery that the genome is 93%+ functional will do to all those phylogenetic trees that the Darwinists have constructed based on a neutral rate of mutation?
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.