More Information Found in DNA: The Shape Code

[Anguspure]

We may have yet another code to add to Jonathan Wells’s growing list of information systems in the cell that challenge the Central Dogma. A new discovery hints at a “shape code” in the double helix.....

....Recognition of this new source of epigenetic information suggests a “new way of practicing biology,” they say.

"The discovery of the mechanisms involved of DNA binding by Polycomb is one of the first concrete examples in which the shape of DNA plays a more important role for the protein’s functioning than the code contained in the DNA. It turns out that the protein can only bind to the DNA helix if the latter is relatively unwound. Veenstra: “Because the DNA-binding protein does not bind to a specific sequence in the DNA, it was difficult to find the working mechanism of the protein using regular research methods.” This mechanism had been actively sought by many people in the field for the past twenty years."

What a surprise, they don’t have much to say about evolution. The only mention in the paper concerned pressure against it. The caption in Figure 2 says:

"The lysine rich region (K-rich) of MTF2 is well conserved among vertebrates compared to the other PCL proteins in mouse (a), suggesting an evolutionary pressure against mutation in this area. "

What we appear to be observing in this case is another layer of information riding on top of the sequence, governing how the genetic sequences are regulated epigenetically. A design-oriented approach may yet uncover additional instances where the shape of the double helix governs how it is read.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/more-information-found-in-dna-the-shape-code/

 

[Landon Caeli]

We may have yet another code to add to Jonathan Wells’s growing list of information systems in the cell that challenge the Central Dogma. A new discovery hints at a “shape code” in the double helix.....

....Recognition of this new source of epigenetic information suggests a “new way of practicing biology,” they say.

"The discovery of the mechanisms involved of DNA binding by Polycomb is one of the first concrete examples in which the shape of DNA plays a more important role for the protein’s functioning than the code contained in the DNA. It turns out that the protein can only bind to the DNA helix if the latter is relatively unwound. Veenstra: “Because the DNA-binding protein does not bind to a specific sequence in the DNA, it was difficult to find the working mechanism of the protein using regular research methods.” This mechanism had been actively sought by many people in the field for the past twenty years."

What a surprise, they don’t have much to say about evolution. The only mention in the paper concerned pressure against it. The caption in Figure 2 says:

"The lysine rich region (K-rich) of MTF2 is well conserved among vertebrates compared to the other PCL proteins in mouse (a), suggesting an evolutionary pressure against mutation in this area. "

What we appear to be observing in this case is another layer of information riding on top of the sequence, governing how the genetic sequences are regulated epigenetically. A design-oriented approach may yet uncover additional instances where the shape of the double helix governs how it is read.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/more-information-found-in-dna-the-shape-code/

Wow, that adds a whole new dimension then. Information wise. Weird.

 

[Ophiolite]

You have made a number of assertions, but left all them without justification or a meaningful evidential foundation. The material you have offered fits neatly into the pattern of ever more detailed understanding of the mechanisms of cell mchanics and evolution. It does not seem to support your assertions in any way. Would you like to spell out, in detail, the justification for your assertions?

 

[Jimmy D]

We may have yet another code to add to Jonathan Wells’s growing list of information systems in the cell that challenge the Central Dogma. A new discovery hints at a “shape code” in the double helix.....

....Recognition of this new source of epigenetic information suggests a “new way of practicing biology,” they say.

"The discovery of the mechanisms involved of DNA binding by Polycomb is one of the first concrete examples in which the shape of DNA plays a more important role for the protein’s functioning than the code contained in the DNA. It turns out that the protein can only bind to the DNA helix if the latter is relatively unwound. Veenstra: “Because the DNA-binding protein does not bind to a specific sequence in the DNA, it was difficult to find the working mechanism of the protein using regular research methods.” This mechanism had been actively sought by many people in the field for the past twenty years."

What a surprise, they don’t have much to say about evolution. The only mention in the paper concerned pressure against it. The caption in Figure 2 says:

"The lysine rich region (K-rich) of MTF2 is well conserved among vertebrates compared to the other PCL proteins in mouse (a), suggesting an evolutionary pressure against mutation in this area. "

What we appear to be observing in this case is another layer of information riding on top of the sequence, governing how the genetic sequences are regulated epigenetically. A design-oriented approach may yet uncover additional instances where the shape of the double helix governs how it is read.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/more-information-found-in-dna-the-shape-code/

Hmmmm, are you Jonathon Wells in disguise?

 

[tas8831]

We may have yet another code to add to Jonathan Wells’s growing list of information systems in the cell that challenge the Central Dogma. A new discovery hints at a “shape code” in the double helix.....

....Recognition of this new source of epigenetic information suggests a “new way of practicing biology,” they say.

"The discovery of the mechanisms involved of DNA binding by Polycomb is one of the first concrete examples in which the shape of DNA plays a more important role for the protein’s functioning than the code contained in the DNA. It turns out that the protein can only bind to the DNA helix if the latter is relatively unwound. Veenstra: “Because the DNA-binding protein does not bind to a specific sequence in the DNA, it was difficult to find the working mechanism of the protein using regular research methods.” This mechanism had been actively sought by many people in the field for the past twenty years."

What a surprise, they don’t have much to say about evolution. The only mention in the paper concerned pressure against it. The caption in Figure 2 says:

"The lysine rich region (K-rich) of MTF2 is well conserved among vertebrates compared to the other PCL proteins in mouse (a), suggesting an evolutionary pressure against mutation in this area. "

What we appear to be observing in this case is another layer of information riding on top of the sequence, governing how the genetic sequences are regulated epigenetically. A design-oriented approach may yet uncover additional instances where the shape of the double helix governs how it is read.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/more-information-found-in-dna-the-shape-code/

Your threads reek of spam. It seems that all you are doing is paraphrasing ENV essays.

 

[AV1611VET]

It turns out that the protein can only bind to the DNA helix if the latter is relatively unwound.

Someone here once asked me how a created Adam would differ from an evolved Adam, and I answered that created Adam's DNA could have been flat prior to the Fall.

 

[HitchSlap]

We may have yet another code to add to Jonathan Wells’s growing list of information systems in the cell that challenge the Central Dogma. A new discovery hints at a “shape code” in the double helix.....

....Recognition of this new source of epigenetic information suggests a “new way of practicing biology,” they say.

"The discovery of the mechanisms involved of DNA binding by Polycomb is one of the first concrete examples in which the shape of DNA plays a more important role for the protein’s functioning than the code contained in the DNA. It turns out that the protein can only bind to the DNA helix if the latter is relatively unwound. Veenstra: “Because the DNA-binding protein does not bind to a specific sequence in the DNA, it was difficult to find the working mechanism of the protein using regular research methods.” This mechanism had been actively sought by many people in the field for the past twenty years."

What a surprise, they don’t have much to say about evolution. The only mention in the paper concerned pressure against it. The caption in Figure 2 says:

"The lysine rich region (K-rich) of MTF2 is well conserved among vertebrates compared to the other PCL proteins in mouse (a), suggesting an evolutionary pressure against mutation in this area. "

What we appear to be observing in this case is another layer of information riding on top of the sequence, governing how the genetic sequences are regulated epigenetically. A design-oriented approach may yet uncover additional instances where the shape of the double helix governs how it is read.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/more-information-found-in-dna-the-shape-code/

 

[Tanj]

Yet another IDer whinging about other people's data without adding any at all of their own. Typical.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Anguspure On the 15th of June I invited you to justify the conclusions you had reached from your reading of the linked research. [See quote below.]

Perhaps you missed my request. Perhaps you are unable to offer any justification. Perhaps there is some other reason for your silence. I would like to hear from you to know which it is (while politely reminding you that this is a discussion forum, not a personal blog site.)

You have made a number of assertions, but left all them without justification or a meaningful evidential foundation. The material you have offered fits neatly into the pattern of ever more detailed understanding of the mechanisms of cell mchanics and evolution. It does not seem to support your assertions in any way. Would you like to spell out, in detail, the justification for your assertions?

 

[PsychoSarah]

@Anguspure On the 15th of June I invited you to justify the conclusions you had reached from your reading of the linked research. [See quote below.]

Perhaps you missed my request. Perhaps you are unable to offer any justification. Perhaps there is some other reason for your silence. I would like to hear from you to know which it is (while politely reminding you that this is a discussion forum, not a personal blog site.)

Most people have concluded at this point that the account is run by a bot.

 

[Ophiolite]

Most people have concluded at this point that the account is run by a bot.

You are probably right, but as somone who will argue with computer cables for becoming hopelessly entangled, then just because Anguspure is an inanimate piece of software it won't stop me demanding satisfaction!

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are probably right, but as somone who will argue with computer cables for becoming hopelessly entangled, then just because Anguspure is an inanimate piece of software it won't stop me demanding satisfaction!

If they are a bot, the mods will eventually shut down the account, right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

@Anguspure , prove you are real by responding with what words are in the image in the purplish blue letters

 

[AV1611VET]

...prove you are real by responding with what words are in the image in the purplish blue letters.

Sure:

Christopher Walken

 

[Anguspure]

@Anguspure , prove you are real by responding with what words are in the image in the purplish blue letters

LOL I did not post in order to engage the endless circular arguments of those who reject the Evidence that attests to our wonderful Creator, and at the moment I really don't have the time of the day anyway. Somebody has to do the work/family thing I guess.
But even if I did have the time and the inclination (as I have had in the past) I would expect that it would be the argurment presented that was engaged and not any individual, myself included.

 

[PsychoSarah]

LOL I did not post in order to engage the endless circular arguments of those who reject the Evidence that attests to our wonderful Creator, and at the moment I really don't have the time of the day anyway. Somebody has to do the work/family thing I guess.
But even if I did have the time and the inclination (as I have had in the past) I would expect that it would be the argurment presented that was engaged and not any individual, myself included.

I noticed that you failed to actually type what the captcha said, you robot

 

[sfs]

LOL I did not post in order to engage the endless circular arguments of those who reject the Evidence

Then why are you posting in a "discussion and debate" forum?

 

[Ophiolite]

LOL I did not post in order to engage the endless circular arguments of those who reject the Evidence that attests to our wonderful Creator, and at the moment I really don't have the time of the day anyway.

So you are preaching, which on a discussion forum is a form of trolling. Thank you for letting us know we may safely ignore all of your posts from this point forward. Perhaps in the time you have saved by not responding you can reflect on how rude such behaviour is. I wish you success in adopting a more polite, friendly, open stance in future. You may even find it helps your message get listened to.

 

[tas8831]

LOL I did not post in order to engage the endless circular arguments of those who reject the Evidence that attests to our wonderful Creator, and at the moment I really don't have the time of the day anyway. Somebody has to do the work/family thing I guess.
But even if I did have the time and the inclination (as I have had in the past) I would expect that it would be the argurment presented that was engaged and not any individual, myself included.

Translation from creationese:

I don't understand any of this stuff, I just plagiarize and spam-troll as a Witnessing tool.​

He can't engage because he can't understand.