DNA Was Designed By A Mind

So loony, since there is "lacking evidence" a giant turtle is carrying the world on its back, you must believe such a claim has merit.

you can claim anything.

the circumstances are derived from evidence?

when you look at the original question

What in your mind is 'Who'? or what do you expect 'Who' to be?

loony wrote:

you can claim anything.

What's your point, if any.

loony wrote:

the circumstances are derived from evidence?

What exactly are you trying to say?

loony wrote:

when you look at the original question

What exactly are you trying to say?

loony wrote:

What in your mind is 'Who'? or what do you expect 'Who' to be?

What exactly are you trying to say?

Quote:

So loony, since there is "lacking evidence" a giant turtle is carrying the world on its back, you must believe such a claim has merit.

my answer: No, its a pidgeon not a turtle. Any claim can be made about anything. i trust what i know from trusted sources and i dont believe the claim has merit.

what i am trying to say is from the original question what in your mind is the 'who' in it.

i'm not trolling here chumlym, the original poster is trying to say that GOD designed DNA. What fascinates me is the reason why he should think that.

what i am trying to say is from the original question what in your mind is the 'who' in it.

i'm not trolling here chumlym, the original poster is trying to say that GOD designed DNA. What fascinates me is the reason why he should think that.

Scientists Say They've Found a Code Beyond Genetics in DNA

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: July 25, 2006

Researchers believe they have found a second code in DNA in addition to the genetic code.

The genetic code specifies all the proteins that a cell makes. The second code, superimposed on the first, sets the placement of the nucleosomes, miniature protein spools around which the DNA is looped. The spools both protect and control access to the DNA itself.

The discovery, if confirmed, could open new insights into the higher order control of the genes, like the critical but still mysterious process by which each type of human cell is allowed to activate the genes it needs but cannot access the genes used by other types of cell.

The new code is described in the current issue of Nature by Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute in Israel and Jonathan Widom of Northwestern University in Illinois and their colleagues.

There are about 30 million nucleosomes in each human cell. So many are needed because the DNA strand wraps around each one only 1.65 times, in a twist containing 147 of its units, and the DNA molecule in a single chromosome can be up to 225 million units in length.

Biologists have suspected for years that some positions on the DNA, notably those where it bends most easily, might be more favorable for nucleosomes than others, but no overall pattern was apparent. Drs. Segal and Widom analyzed the sequence at some 200 sites in the yeast genome where nucleosomes are known to bind, and discovered that there is indeed a hidden pattern.

Knowing the pattern, they were able to predict the placement of about 50 percent of the nucleosomes in other organisms.

The pattern is a combination of sequences that makes it easier for the DNA to bend itself and wrap tightly around a nucleosome. But the pattern requires only some of the sequences to be present in each nucleosome binding site, so it is not obvious. The looseness of its requirements is presumably the reason it does not conflict with the genetic code, which also has a little bit of redundancy or wiggle room built into it.

Having the sequence of units in DNA determine the placement of nucleosomes would explain a puzzling feature of transcription factors, the proteins that activate genes. The transcription factors recognize short sequences of DNA, about six to eight units in length, which lie just in front of the gene to be transcribed.

But these short sequences occur so often in the DNA that the transcription factors, it seemed, must often bind to the wrong ones. Dr. Segal, a computational biologist, believes that the wrong sites are in fact inaccessible because they lie in the part of the DNA wrapped around a nucleosome. The transcription factors can only see sites in the naked DNA that lies between two nucleosomes.

The nucleosomes frequently move around, letting the DNA float free when a gene has to be transcribed. Given this constant flux, Dr. Segal said he was surprised they could predict as many as half of the preferred nucleosome positions. But having broken the code, "We think that for the first time we have a real quantitative handle" on exploring how the nucleosomes and other proteins interact to control the DNA, he said.

The other 50 percent of the positions may be determined by competition between the nucleosomes and other proteins, Dr. Segal suggested.

Several experts said the new result was plausible because it generalized the longstanding idea that DNA is more bendable at certain sequences, which should therefore favor nucleosome positioning.

"I think it's really interesting," said Bradley Bernstein, a biologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Jerry Workman of the Stowers Institute in Kansas City said the detection of the nucleosome code was "a profound insight if true," because it would explain many aspects of how the DNA is controlled.

The nucleosome is made up of proteins known as histones, which are among the most highly conserved in evolution, meaning that they change very little from one species to another. A histone of peas and cows differs in just 2 of its 102 amino acid units. The conservation is usually attributed to the precise fit required between the histones and the DNA wound around them. But another reason, Dr. Segal suggested, could be that any change would interfere with the nucleosomes' ability to find their assigned positions on the DNA.

In the genetic code, sets of three DNA units specify various kinds of amino acid, the units of proteins. A curious feature of the code is that it is redundant, meaning that a given amino acid can be defined by any of several different triplets. Biologists have long speculated that the redundancy may have been designed so as to coexist with some other kind of code, and this, Dr. Segal said, could be the nucleosome code.

His explanation is that it was designed by a mind I would guess.

That is a good explanation if you can make it stick. It saves all the botheration, for the taxpayers I mean, of the scratching around in a possibly infinite hierarchy of codes.

This leads to a suspicion that it is hardest to make it stick in those who are on easy street with the scratching around or who find the revealed wisdom of the years unconducive to the lifestyle they wish to lead.

And it's well known that street-cred, and thus status, is assigned to those in adolescent peer-groups who are the first to see through the word spells the adults are weaving. The reward from that speaks for itself.

Being objective, as I try to be, the same considerations apply to the devout but in a slightly different way. One might get rewards from the approval of adults.

Arguing about it tends to higher levels of polarisation. You can get arguing merely to save previously held positions as a matter of pride.

A rap concert v. a Christmas Carol Singing gig in the Cathedral.

My first post in this particular thread was to take issue with the idea of 'junk DNA'.

Many folks have considered large sections of DNA to be 'junk' based solely on their ignorance of it's function. 'if we don't know what it does, it must be useless'.

This second code not only puts to shame (again) the idea that 'DNA of unknown function MUST be junk', but also poses huge problems for the 'evolution of DNA'.

With more than one code in DNA, if you tinker with one you potentially have code conflicts with the other(s).

How did more than one code 'evolve' in dna AT THE SAME TIME?

Or if you want to provide some humor, tell me that they could have evolved separately.

I like the fact that if i don't believe the claims in the video i'm not going to spend eternity in unimaginable discomfort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

As codes do not occur without a designer - who do you think designed DNA?

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive -- what we could not discover in the stone -- that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…-- the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker-that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use...

Natural Theology, published in 1800

I have read a number of pages of the thread but by no means all comments, so please excuse me if I recover any previously visited ground.

Quote:

My first post in this particular thread was to take issue with the idea of 'junk DNA'.

Many folks have considered large sections of DNA to be 'junk' based solely on their ignorance of it's function. 'if we don't know what it does, it must be useless'.

This second code not only puts to shame (again) the idea that 'DNA of unknown function MUST be junk', but also poses huge problems for the 'evolution of DNA'.

With more than one code in DNA, if you tinker with one you potentially have code conflicts with the other(s).

How did more than one code 'evolve' in dna AT THE SAME TIME?

Or if you want to provide some humor, tell me that they could have evolved separately.

what I am discovering from reading about the theorys surrounding DNA etc is that Life seems to be very efficient but not completely inflexible.

however the junk DNA would make sense to me as Life saying 'better have and not want, than to want and not have'