Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Second, separate language found in DNA code

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yikes, even the Dead Tree News Wire (UPI) has now noticed:

SCIENTISTS FIND SECOND, ‘HIDDEN’ LANGUAGE IN HUMAN GENETIC CODE

UPI 12/12/2013 11:12:42 PM

SEATTLE, Dec. 12 (UPI) — U.S. geneticists say a second code hiding within DNA changes how scientists read its instructions and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease.

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed it was used exclusively to write information about proteins, but University of Washington scientists say they’ve discovered genomes use the genetic code to write two separate “languages.”

One, long understood, describes how proteins are made, while the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long, a university release said Thursday.

So we are now expected to believe that not only can a language get started by natural selection acting on purely random mutation, with no intelligence, but that a second language (somewhat like a hidden code) inside the first language can also get started the same way with no intelligence. All purely by chance.

Commenters at one news site:

why oh why do people still think there is no intelligent design behind things is beyond me…

Because, you know, languages just ‘appear’ via evolution.

Then Darwin’s mob arrives and drags the discussion south, demanding that we “define” “language.”

Comments
Why remain a bystander when you have done your research? So there is a genetic and a regulatory code. And codons can take part in both functions. Does it say anything about the other 10 codes of DNA? No? Hmm, weird.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Good one Q! You are just so good at seeming intelligent! It must be tough, but keep up the good work!AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
The paper by Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos et al talks about Duons in exons. It was thought that genetic code and regulatory code worked independently. Now what has been discovered is that about 14% of codons in exons (which code for proteins) are duons -they specify both regulatory and amino acid information. They also show that human coding variants which are within duons directly affect overlaying transcription factor binding. How each of you interpret the paper is up to you all. I will remain a bystander :-)selvaRajan
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Q.E.D.Querius
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Yeah, definitely don't waste anytime on people with actual knowledge of biology. Good point Q!AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Mapou, TSErik, and bornagain77 . . . Thanks for your information and links. I'm always interested in learning more (I've recently been reading about the discordant data exposed by miRNA), and I'm amazed at some of the research going on. I wouldn't waste any time on AVS, who seems only to be able to offer pointless and irrational vituperation. Thanks for your contributions. -QQuerius
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Oh yeah, rally the troops Poo! Come find me when BA proves me wrong. I won't hold my breath.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
bornagain77, AVS is just an insufferably pompous ass. Why continue to engage the asteroid orifice, huh? Stop being a wussy Christian and stop turning the other cheek. You are not Jesus and believe me, when Jesus comes back, he will not turn the other cheek. There is a time for everything. There is a time for cheek turning and there is a time for butt kicking. Soon, it will be butt-kicking time. Be a David or a Samson for a change.Mapou
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
So you copy/paste your favorite quotes and then hit the road when actually asked for details and original arguments? Yup, sounds like you.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
AVS, I'm REALLY not all that concerned with what you believe anymore. If you want to watch the video watch it, if you don't don't. I don't care! I have much better things to do with my time than engage in childish argumentation.bornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
That's it BA? Couldn't find a code that proves me wrong? Nothing but a Time article saying that there is now 2 codes? Something we've known for a while now, anyway. You have no idea what you are talking about. What a joke. Guess I'm not surprised though.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Time mag: (Another) Second Code Uncovered Inside the DNA -- Scientists have discovered a second code hidden within the DNA, written on top of the other. To get a sense of the breath-taking complexity this represents, watch this video of J.S. Bach's "Crab canon." It was composed to be played backwards and forwards at the same time, and then with one part flipped upside down on the music stand. http://www.openculture.com/2013/02/the_genius_of_js_bachs_crab_canon_visualized_on_a_mobius_strip.htmlbornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Well since you've watched the video, why not name one of the codes that doesn't fit into expression regulation? Prove me wrong and I will admit that I am wrong. Or maybe even you haven't watched the video?AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Actually AVS, if you would watch the video instead of trying to condescendingly tell us what you think he is saying, you would see that you are wrong. But then again I strongly suspect that you don't have enough humility to admit when you are wrong.bornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Yeah, that functionally important thing that they do is called regulation of gene expression. Go ahead, try to name one of his codes within the DNA sequence that doesn't function in regulation of expression besides the protein code.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Actually each code in a given sequence conveys its own distinct 'meaning' as to doing something functionally important in the genome. To say that it is all part of the regulation code is to miss the very important point of the poly-functional elegance inherent in any given sequence.bornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
And as I said, you can get as many codes as you want out of the genome, depending on how you define the function of your code. All Trifinov is doing is breaking the regulation code down into it's individual functions. It is still all a part of the regulation code.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
At the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed, although the writing is too small to readbornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Concluding powerpoint of the lecture:
"Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages." Edward N. Trifonov - 2010
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov also states that the concept of the selfish gene, 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years:bornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
No, I am saying that all Trifonov is doing is taking the regulation code and splitting it up into its constituents. They are the same thing, and yet people here tout his results as multiple (12+) separate codes.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
So your definition of "codes" is better than Trifonov's?TSErik
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Oh Erik, nice of you to rejoin the conversation. Of course trifonov is a competent scientist, but his code-centric analysis of the genome is about as useful as a poopy-flavored lollipop. Like I said, of course a bioinformatics guy is going to see codes everywhere, he biased towards finding codes. Also as I said, anyone can go into the genome and pull out different codes, depending on how they define their code. Is this new code really useful in any way? Probably not. Like I've been saying, there is the protein code and their is the code-controlled regulation of gene expression. What Trifonov does is split the regulation code into finer and finer codes, all more useless than the last. You can either look at the big picture of gene expression or you can break it into smaller clumps, but it's all the same thing.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
LMAO! And what is your point, AVS? Are you saying there isn't many codes within DNA? That Trifonov is incompetent in his analysis? Then you go and cite him as an expert in the realm of abiogenesis? Is he a reliable source of information or not?
That’s 8, and some of them don’t even deal with the DNA sequence itself, rather histone modifications, or protein folding. Trifonov is a bioinformatics guy, of course he sees codes everywhere because that is what he is looking for. You can pull hundreds of different codes out of the DNA sequence depending on how you define the function of your code.
How, exactly, does this illustrate your point that there aren't many codes within DNA? Your response appears as one big genetic fallacy. So you say Trifonov claims there are codes, yet you contend they are not? Let's add moving the goalposts fallacy to your list. First you cry for supported claims of many codes being wrapped in DNA. Then when sources are given to show the claim, you then state they aren't REALLY codes so it doesn't count. You engage in a cliched tactic of redefining the vocabulary when your argument is revealed to be total BS. You don't make any valid arguments as to why Trifonov is wrong and why you should be considered more reputable than he, nor do you give an argument that Trifonov's work is being misunderstood by those in the thread. Go back to your Yahoo! Answers profile, where the "science" is more your speed.TSErik
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Oh please, what trifonov does is split hairs within the DNA sequence. He takes the linear sequence and breaks it down into codes based on whatever he wants. Anyways, here's the list of codes from your link: chromatin code (Trifonov 1980) RNA-to-protein translation code (triplet code) framing code (Trifonov 1987) translation pausing code (Makhoul & Trifonov 2002) protein folding code (Berezovsky, Grosberg & Trifonov 2000) fast adaptation codes (Trifonov 1989) binary code (Trifonov 2006) genome segmentation code (Kolker & Trifonov 1995) That's 8, and some of them don't even deal with the DNA sequence itself, rather histone modifications, or protein folding. Trifonov is a bioinformatics guy, of course he sees codes everywhere because that is what he is looking for. You can pull hundreds of different codes out of the DNA sequence depending on how you define the function of your code. Are you guys aware of Trifonov's other work on an abiogenic theory of the origin of life, and molecular evolution from single nucleotides and amino acids to present-day DNA and protein sequences? Oh right, you only pay attention to what you can twist into an argument for ID.AVS
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
bornagin77 @81, If so many different genetic codes have been found and they are all called "second genetic code", it appears that there is a faction within the field of biology who does not like the idea of there being more than two genetic codes. How could the researchers not be aware of the previous findings? Any idea as to why?Mapou
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video https://vimeo.com/81930637bornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - 2010 Lecture http://bio.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/ctvrtky/audio/2010Z_01a_Trifonov.mp3 Q&A http://bio.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/ctvrtky/audio/2010Z_01b_Trifonov.mp3bornagain77
December 15, 2013
December
12
Dec
15
15
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Good chat. Next time learn a little about the topic you plan to run your mouth about.AVS
December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
You can kiss miss my asteroid, AVS.Mapou
December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Then your phrase about "controlling gene expression in many places" makes no sense. In fact none of your example really makes any sense. Some genes are repeated hundreds of times actually. What exactly is your point? That the cell needs a high level of regulation of gene expression? No shit, and it has this. Hundreds of proteins take part in transcriptional regulation. Proteins that are needed at a specific time are upregulated and those that are not needed are downregulated. I'm glad you're so confident in your predictions about cell biology without having any knowledge of cell biology. Adios.AVS
December 14, 2013
December
12
Dec
14
14
2013
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply