Mysteries of DNA - Page 2

Dharmaatmaa · 10-17-2008, 10:52 AM

Of cause we should stop that long struggling. Yes, maybe my sententions looked quite misty, but never mystical. No mystics, OK? It's just one more misunderstanding. I bring a white flag. Don't be so angry, s'il vouz plair. It's not a scientifical discussion when people are angry. Ears can't hear when anger reigns, can they? I'll try to ask straight off what I am meaning all the time:

1) I think it isn't correct to take with open arms anything genetics says. There must be the healthy criticism, right? I know there are many experiments, and I've never said or even meant "gene switching is not responsible for the forms that arise from the DNA code". It really is. But it explains only a little bit of possible phenomena. And in Scientific American very often appear many anti-theoretical facts (for ex, paramutation - unexplained fact - was if I'm not mistaken published at May 25, 2006. I'm sorry I can't give English address, so just in case: Çàêîíû ãåíåòèêè äàþò òðåùèíó - ÆÓÐÍÀË Â ÌÈÐÅ ÍÀÓÊÈ). And we can't stay blind for them, looking after our favorite old hypoteses. Maybe I'm not an expert, but I think people like you just have to pay their attention to that strange facts.
And since that light day when genetical dark-questions are in past didn't still come, we can't say - this is certainly true, and that isn't. Right?

2) And if in here people discussed namely problems of contemporary genetical science - it would be bis useful. The theory's unlimited. It can be discussed untill we all are old! New proposals, new thoughts, and new decisions - that's the purpose of that thread, is it not?

I laughed a lot when read you think I've got a "new and secret" lore. What secret I said? I just say I can ground my viewpoint. And I think genoms aren't just a piece of protein. Why not? What's criminal if I say that genoms have their own cause? I just wanted to know someone's opinion. And about "new" knowledge. It isn't new, but in such a strict science it may look new.

Anyway, thanks for your time you lost reading that mystical (hehe) posts...

Tao_Equus · 10-17-2008, 12:09 PM

Ok, so what are you trying to say?
And I "am not" angry, its just my style of writing.

tao

Dharmaatmaa · 10-17-2008, 12:55 PM

I want to say you're very stubborn, pighead!

Tao_Equus · 10-17-2008, 01:09 PM

Yup thats me, a pigheaded, self-opinionated to55er

tao

Dogbrain · 10-19-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Yup thats me, a pigheaded, self-opinionated to55er

tao

Darn it, now you've got to go and get me to respect you.

Dharmaatmaa · 10-20-2008, 11:05 AM

Ok, Dogbrain's right. We must stop arguing, yes? Although I'm very unsure you're "self-opinionated", dear Tao, but I'll abstain from comments this time. I would say you're more thick-headed, than "self-opinionated".

But we can't forget our theme's name is "Mysteries of DNA". It's the theme of top interest. Why should we discuss the genetical theory everyone may find in books? Everyone can read! And if we would really discuss MISTERIES, secrets of genom the thread will definitely change in better side.

I propose to try to explain things in genetics which the latter can't decide. Problems of genetix are widespread, no doubt. My knowledge is too "out of date", but such smart people as Tao could find thousands of cases when genetics can not explain.

Tao_Equus · 10-20-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dharmaatmaa

Ok, Dogbrain's right. We must stop arguing, yes? Although I'm very unsure you're "self-opinionated", dear Tao, but I'll abstain from comments this time. I would say you're more thick-headed, than "self-opinionated".

But we can't forget our theme's name is "Mysteries of DNA". It's the theme of top interest. Why should we discuss the genetical theory everyone may find in books? Everyone can read! And if we would really discuss MISTERIES, secrets of genom the thread will definitely change in better side.

I propose to try to explain things in genetics which the latter can't decide. Problems of genetix are widespread, no doubt. My knowledge is too "out of date", but such smart people as Tao could find thousands of cases when genetics can not explain.

lol, nice try, but I am not going to do the hard work for you

Dharmaatmaa · 10-22-2008, 12:36 PM

Why? It's YOURS, dear gentleman. You opened this theme, "Mysteries of DNA". Help us to discuss mysteries, well.

Tao_Equus · 10-22-2008, 09:40 PM

Actually if you read the OP I said " I start this thread to start collecting bits and pieces of breaking news in this research field." I am interested in discussing and cross-referencing the information that is published and discussing that. But I present no thesis of my own....for once

tao

mee · 10-24-2008, 04:55 PM

i thought this was interesting to read , it is taken from a 2005 AWAKE mag

JUNK DNA?

MANY researchers approach the study of biology, genetics, and related fields from the standpoint of the theory of evolution.

Often, this view has led them to false conclusions.

For example, early Darwinists classified certain organs, such as the appendix, the pituitary gland, and the tonsils, as vestigial. They considered them to be evolutionary leftovers because these organs seemed no longer to have any function.

In time, however, the important role of these organs came to light.

Evolutionists, therefore, had to discard their earlier views.

A similar development recently occurred in the field of genetics.

Early research suggested that about 98 percent of the DNA in humans and other organisms had no function. Hence, many who were influenced

by the theory of evolution assumed that this DNA was "evolutionary junk"—a view that quickly became orthodox.

Once again, however, an assumption rooted in Darwinism proved to be false.

Recently, scientists have discovered that "junk" DNA plays a vital role in the body by yielding special forms of RNA (ribonucleic acid) that are vital for life.

John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Australia, feels that the hasty acceptance of the "junk" DNA theory is "a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century." This failure, he adds, "may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

Is it not much wiser to view DNA as having an intelligent Designer?

People with such a viewpoint realize that in time the reasons for puzzling aspects of God’s handiwork usually come to light.

And instead of disillusioning them, such findings fill them with even greater awe.—Proverbs 1:7; Ecclesiastes 3:11.

Tao_Equus · 10-24-2008, 06:55 PM

I would say that presuming that DNA is primarily junk is as foolish as presuming intelligent design. And the wording of the piece is so full of leading the gullible down only one (false) logical route that it is laughable. People who write such tosh need slapped. Well maybe not.....but certainly they should be ashamed of themselves.

tao

juantoo3 · 10-25-2008, 02:48 PM

Hey Tao, got a little something that might interest you. Dr. Collins is giving a keynote address at the University of Florida Oct 29, there will be a live webcast at 5PM Eastern time US, which is probably about 10PM your time. I'm going to try to arrange my schedule to sit in on this, I think it would be a great lecture to listen in on.

Check this site for more info: UFGI Home Page

juantoo3 · 10-26-2008, 07:06 PM

bump so I won't lose sight of this...

juantoo3 · 10-30-2008, 12:10 AM

I just came from Dr. Collins' lecture, had a blast to say the least. (simple toys for simple minds; easily amused; yeah, I know

) Even stood in line at the end to shake his hand and ask a question. Since it seems a common comment in discussions involving genetics and behavioral implications, I asked Dr. Collins outright what he felt was the role of genetics in behavior.

His response was that as of now we don't know much. He pointed to a few studies; one concerning the tendency of some males to stray; another concerning those who thrive on risk as opposed to those who are more risk averse; and to a questionable study about the tendency to religion, what he noted was called the "G-d gene" by Time magazine. He also noted that we will probably know a great deal more in another five years or so.

I pointed out that it was a common argument by some that our genes tend to dictate our behavior, such that we cannot help what we do. He replied that was simply not so, and that free will (his choice of term) holds a great deal of influence over our behavior.

I'm still giddy, walking down the hall here about three feet off the ground, getting to meet this man. I even got his autograph...

juantoo3 · 11-01-2008, 09:31 PM

I hope you won't mind Tao, but I would like to post a few notes I took from Dr. Collins' lecture, and a few websites he pointed to for future reference. That way we all have access to the same body of information, as close to the trenches as we could ask for.

First up:

genome.gov | A Catalog of Published Genome-Wide Association Studies

I think you will find this is a thorough resource noting a long list of genes that have been linked to mostly disease processes, although I did see some hereditary stuff (hair color, height) listed as well.

NIH Roadmap - Recent Research Advances

This is a lengthy list of the researches going on in the field related to human health. I linked to the "research advances" page rather than the home page.

http://www.genome.gov/10001292

I found this searching for a transcript of Dr. Collins' lecture. Looks like a comprehensive timeline of breakthroughs in genomics.

Dr. Collins' lecture is titled: Genomics, Medicine and Society

Some notes I took away from the lecture:

DNA sequencing has made vast improvements...Dr. Collins noted that a comprehensive breakdown of a single genome costs in excess of a million dollars US until recently, and at present I think the figure was something like 70 thousand US dollars. In the foreseeable future there is equipment coming on line expected to reduced the cost to 5 thousand US dollars, with the hope that soon the cost can be reduced to 1 thousand dollars at which point it could feasibly become a diagnostic tool.

An important point he brought up was the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007-2008:

http://www.genome.gov/24519851

Important because it curtails what limits the business sector can place on revealed genetic information. Worth taking a look at if you hadn't considered the impact of having your genetic code deciphered, and how it would apply to things like life and health insurance and employment.

Some buzz words I heard and haven't had time to research:
-microbiome (this may be up your alley, Tao, with the virus and phage stuff)
-Knockout mouse
-mammalian gene sequence
-HAPMAP project
-Genotype Tissue Expression Resource (GTEx)
-NIH Roadmap Small Molecule Initiative

Some other brief notes:
-The Human mutation rate is greater than expected
-There is on the order of *20* thousand genes (less than the 50k I heard as little as a few years ago)
-GWAS (Genome-Wide Association Studies) does *not* explain heritability, 1.3-1.4% variations are normal
-GWAS does point to novel drug targets, which lends itself to personalized medicine in the future

There's my report from my field trip, Enjoy!