﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Central Dogma revisited</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/</link>
	<description>Serving The Intelligent Design Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:04:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Frost122585</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338370</link>
		<dc:creator>Frost122585</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338370</guid>
		<description>Excuse me- the video I was referring to about the ontogentic information is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU&amp;feature=related</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excuse me- the video I was referring to about the ontogentic information is here</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU&#038;feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frost122585</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338369</link>
		<dc:creator>Frost122585</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338369</guid>
		<description>And my point that you referred to as the &quot;mind matter interface&quot; was regarding the &quot;philosophical&quot; realization that &quot;if&quot; the information in DNA cannot account for the total design of these super complex specified body plans and structures, then we must leave open the door to the possbility that the information may not reside within the systems at all but perhaps somewhere else. And really this is what Steve Meyer is saying about the origin of DNA in gernal- that the information we find there must come from somewhere else- and ultimately we cannot appeal to the system to explain it&#039;s own origin simply due to what we obviously know about its super complexity and the high cost of resources needed to purchase it&#039;s evolutionary origin.  

So my point is that the fundamental question at the higher ontogentic levels as well as the micro protein levels is essentially the same mystery which is &quot;where does the information come from that structures the material coding that facilitates the development of these systems?&quot; 

Obviously, it is certainly reasonable and important to continue research into how these systems operate and arise but the information problem seems, at least at current, to escape any material explanation of their origin- and this conclusion or thesis is one that needs to be heard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And my point that you referred to as the &#8220;mind matter interface&#8221; was regarding the &#8220;philosophical&#8221; realization that &#8220;if&#8221; the information in DNA cannot account for the total design of these super complex specified body plans and structures, then we must leave open the door to the possbility that the information may not reside within the systems at all but perhaps somewhere else. And really this is what Steve Meyer is saying about the origin of DNA in gernal- that the information we find there must come from somewhere else- and ultimately we cannot appeal to the system to explain it&#8217;s own origin simply due to what we obviously know about its super complexity and the high cost of resources needed to purchase it&#8217;s evolutionary origin.  </p>
<p>So my point is that the fundamental question at the higher ontogentic levels as well as the micro protein levels is essentially the same mystery which is &#8220;where does the information come from that structures the material coding that facilitates the development of these systems?&#8221; </p>
<p>Obviously, it is certainly reasonable and important to continue research into how these systems operate and arise but the information problem seems, at least at current, to escape any material explanation of their origin- and this conclusion or thesis is one that needs to be heard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frost122585</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338368</link>
		<dc:creator>Frost122585</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338368</guid>
		<description>Tragic @ 41,

here is a clip talking about it a little more in depth-

The question is about &quot;ontogenetic&quot; information. And the point is that the coding information in DNA is understood to produce certain parts but how those parts are matched to each other to build the overall body plan is still a mystery and probably cannot reside in the DNA because the DNA does not code for the larger system but merely makes the parts which eventually unfold to build the larger body plan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tragic @ 41,</p>
<p>here is a clip talking about it a little more in depth-</p>
<p>The question is about &#8220;ontogenetic&#8221; information. And the point is that the coding information in DNA is understood to produce certain parts but how those parts are matched to each other to build the overall body plan is still a mystery and probably cannot reside in the DNA because the DNA does not code for the larger system but merely makes the parts which eventually unfold to build the larger body plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bornagain77</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338311</link>
		<dc:creator>bornagain77</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:57:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338311</guid>
		<description>TragicMishap, You may appreciate this article that came out recently on science daily:

&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;&quot;&gt;&#039;Moonlighting&#039; Molecules Discovered; Researchers Uncover New Kink In Gene Control:
Excerpt: Since the completion of the human genome sequence, a question has baffled researchers studying gene control: How is it that humans, being far more complex than the lowly yeast, do not proportionally contain in our genome significantly more gene-control proteins? Now, a collaborative effort at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine to examine protein-DNA interactions across the whole genome &lt;strong&gt;has uncovered more than 300 proteins that appear to control genes, a newly discovered function for all of these proteins previously known to play other roles in cells&lt;/strong&gt;.,,,The results, which appear in the October 30 issue of Cell, provide a partial explanation for human complexity over yeast but also throw a curve ball in what we previously understood about protein functions.

&quot;Everyone knows that transcription factors bind to DNA and everyone knows that they bind in a sequence-specific manner,&quot; says Heng Zhu, Ph.D., an assistant professor in pharmacology and molecular sciences and a member of the High Throughput Biology Center.&lt;strong&gt; &quot;But you only find what you look for, so we looked beyond and discovered proteins that essentially moonlight as transcription factors.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;

The team suspects that many more proteins encoded by the human genome might also be moonlighting to control genes, which brings researchers to the paradox that less complex organisms, such as plants, appear to have more transcription factors than humans. &quot;Maybe most of our genes are doing double, triple or quadruple the work,&quot; says Zhu. &lt;strong&gt;&quot;This may be a widespread phenomenon in humans and the key to how we can be so complex without significantly more genes than organisms like plants.&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;,,, 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029125536.htm&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TragicMishap, You may appreciate this article that came out recently on science daily:</p>
<blockquote cite=""><p>&#8216;Moonlighting&#8217; Molecules Discovered; Researchers Uncover New Kink In Gene Control:<br />
Excerpt: Since the completion of the human genome sequence, a question has baffled researchers studying gene control: How is it that humans, being far more complex than the lowly yeast, do not proportionally contain in our genome significantly more gene-control proteins? Now, a collaborative effort at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine to examine protein-DNA interactions across the whole genome <strong>has uncovered more than 300 proteins that appear to control genes, a newly discovered function for all of these proteins previously known to play other roles in cells</strong>.,,,The results, which appear in the October 30 issue of Cell, provide a partial explanation for human complexity over yeast but also throw a curve ball in what we previously understood about protein functions.</p>
<p>&#8220;Everyone knows that transcription factors bind to DNA and everyone knows that they bind in a sequence-specific manner,&#8221; says Heng Zhu, Ph.D., an assistant professor in pharmacology and molecular sciences and a member of the High Throughput Biology Center.<strong> &#8220;But you only find what you look for, so we looked beyond and discovered proteins that essentially moonlight as transcription factors.&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>The team suspects that many more proteins encoded by the human genome might also be moonlighting to control genes, which brings researchers to the paradox that less complex organisms, such as plants, appear to have more transcription factors than humans. &#8220;Maybe most of our genes are doing double, triple or quadruple the work,&#8221; says Zhu. <strong>&#8220;This may be a widespread phenomenon in humans and the key to how we can be so complex without significantly more genes than organisms like plants.&#8221;</strong>,,,<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029125536.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....125536.htm</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nakashima</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338283</link>
		<dc:creator>Nakashima</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338283</guid>
		<description>Mr Mishap,

I had sever connectivity problems yesterday, and it appears a response of mine has gone missing.

The &#039;Phenotype&quot; that the Central Dogma includes is the tie into the variation/selection cycle. The Central Dogma tells you what goes on at the level of the cell in its workings. Variation/selection tells you which cells get to work in time t1, based on time t0.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Mishap,</p>
<p>I had sever connectivity problems yesterday, and it appears a response of mine has gone missing.</p>
<p>The &#8216;Phenotype&#8221; that the Central Dogma includes is the tie into the variation/selection cycle. The Central Dogma tells you what goes on at the level of the cell in its workings. Variation/selection tells you which cells get to work in time t1, based on time t0.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: magnan</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338160</link>
		<dc:creator>magnan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338160</guid>
		<description>Rupert Sheldrake&#039;s theory of morphic resonance closely relates to this. He believes an inherited field phenomenon transmits the data of form and development from generation to generation, in addition to the information in the genes. He also links this to the mystery of the origin of inherited instinctual behavior (inherited beneficial &quot;habits&quot; which can mysteriously spread in a population). Darwinism has major problems in explaining this, as discussed in another thread. Interestingly, Sheldrake so outraged mainstream biologists the editor of Nature deemed his first book a prime candidate for burning. This sounds a little like the reaction to ID.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rupert Sheldrake&#8217;s theory of morphic resonance closely relates to this. He believes an inherited field phenomenon transmits the data of form and development from generation to generation, in addition to the information in the genes. He also links this to the mystery of the origin of inherited instinctual behavior (inherited beneficial &#8220;habits&#8221; which can mysteriously spread in a population). Darwinism has major problems in explaining this, as discussed in another thread. Interestingly, Sheldrake so outraged mainstream biologists the editor of Nature deemed his first book a prime candidate for burning. This sounds a little like the reaction to ID.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tragic mishap</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338158</link>
		<dc:creator>tragic mishap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338158</guid>
		<description>Right, so the DNA as database analogy fits.  Since proteins come from DNA, anything a protein does can be seen as ultimately a query to the DNA database.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right, so the DNA as database analogy fits.  Since proteins come from DNA, anything a protein does can be seen as ultimately a query to the DNA database.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex73</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338151</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex73</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338151</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that almost everything in a cell carries some sort of specific information that is used in one way or the other.

The trivial example is the nucleotid order of the DNA, however the various states of proteins themselves contain plenty of information about the stages of the processes they participate in which affect what other parts of the cell do. I could continue with the concentration of certain organic molecules, hormones, the pH etc.

Now to me a cell looks much like an multitasking computer, where the hard disk is the DNA, but the RAM and the registers of the processors are the actual states of the various structural, enzymatic and messenger molecules. The processes can directly or indirecty query the information on the hard disk sometimes even modify a few files on the hard disk, but also get plenty of data from the environment.

In this sense there is no hierarchy of the information in the cell, just different types of information performing different types of tasks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that almost everything in a cell carries some sort of specific information that is used in one way or the other.</p>
<p>The trivial example is the nucleotid order of the DNA, however the various states of proteins themselves contain plenty of information about the stages of the processes they participate in which affect what other parts of the cell do. I could continue with the concentration of certain organic molecules, hormones, the pH etc.</p>
<p>Now to me a cell looks much like an multitasking computer, where the hard disk is the DNA, but the RAM and the registers of the processors are the actual states of the various structural, enzymatic and messenger molecules. The processes can directly or indirecty query the information on the hard disk sometimes even modify a few files on the hard disk, but also get plenty of data from the environment.</p>
<p>In this sense there is no hierarchy of the information in the cell, just different types of information performing different types of tasks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tragic mishap</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338147</link>
		<dc:creator>tragic mishap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:20:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338147</guid>
		<description>And I particularly don&#039;t like the argument, &quot;Well this organ is shaped like this in this animal but shaped like that in that animal, so God must have done it.&quot;  One of Meyer&#039;s recurring themes is that his design argument is not an argument from ignorance nor is it a God-of-the-gaps argument.  It&#039;s an argument from what we do know, not what we don&#039;t.  

When I was a kid, everyone and their mom told me I was the spitting image of my dad.  Seeing as how the only thing I ever got from my dad physically is a single sperm, why do you think I look like him?  lol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And I particularly don&#8217;t like the argument, &#8220;Well this organ is shaped like this in this animal but shaped like that in that animal, so God must have done it.&#8221;  One of Meyer&#8217;s recurring themes is that his design argument is not an argument from ignorance nor is it a God-of-the-gaps argument.  It&#8217;s an argument from what we do know, not what we don&#8217;t.  </p>
<p>When I was a kid, everyone and their mom told me I was the spitting image of my dad.  Seeing as how the only thing I ever got from my dad physically is a single sperm, why do you think I look like him?  lol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tragic mishap</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/central-dogma-revisited/comment-page-2/#comment-338145</link>
		<dc:creator>tragic mishap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:55:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=9206#comment-338145</guid>
		<description>Frost:

&lt;blockquote&gt;IN other words we have a physical system that allows and helps us to facilitate our thoughts but the origin of our minds does not come from within our physical systems- and hence our power to enact that will upon nature – that is use our intelligence- does not originate from within the system either. So the mystery of how intelligence influences matter and reality is a fundamental mystery.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Well I certainly agree with that.  But right now we are talking about body plans, not the mind/body problem.  I own and have read Meyer&#039;s book and I seem to remember him discussing that in the book, but I don&#039;t remember any evidence for it.  I could have missed it.  

Look, the point is that when you have proteins doing almost everything in the cell, and we know that DNA codes for all proteins, then we know that the information for everything required for life is in the DNA.  And I don&#039;t think Meyer would dispute that.  Now if you want to start talking about some &quot;hierarchical&quot; information that determines body plans, well why not start talking about car accidents helping to determine body plans and qualifying as &quot;hierarchical information&quot;?  lol.  I just don&#039;t see that there&#039;s really any justification for saying something like that at this point, especially when our knowledge about how the information in DNA works is so incomplete.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frost:</p>
<blockquote><p>IN other words we have a physical system that allows and helps us to facilitate our thoughts but the origin of our minds does not come from within our physical systems- and hence our power to enact that will upon nature – that is use our intelligence- does not originate from within the system either. So the mystery of how intelligence influences matter and reality is a fundamental mystery.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well I certainly agree with that.  But right now we are talking about body plans, not the mind/body problem.  I own and have read Meyer&#8217;s book and I seem to remember him discussing that in the book, but I don&#8217;t remember any evidence for it.  I could have missed it.  </p>
<p>Look, the point is that when you have proteins doing almost everything in the cell, and we know that DNA codes for all proteins, then we know that the information for everything required for life is in the DNA.  And I don&#8217;t think Meyer would dispute that.  Now if you want to start talking about some &#8220;hierarchical&#8221; information that determines body plans, well why not start talking about car accidents helping to determine body plans and qualifying as &#8220;hierarchical information&#8221;?  lol.  I just don&#8217;t see that there&#8217;s really any justification for saying something like that at this point, especially when our knowledge about how the information in DNA works is so incomplete.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

