Protein deniers defy consensus;
Open any introductory biology textbook and one of the first things you’ll learn is that our DNA spells out the instructions for making proteins, tiny machines that do much of the work in our body’s cells. Results from a study published on Jan. 2 in Science defy textbook science, showing for the first time that the building blocks of a protein, called amino acids, can be assembled without blueprints — DNA and an intermediate template called messenger RNA (mRNA). A team of researchers has observed a case in which another protein specifies which amino acids are added.
“This surprising discovery reflects how incomplete our understanding of biology is,” says first author Peter Shen, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow in biochemistry at the University of Utah. “Nature is capable of more than we realize.”
DNA is like a university library. It is essential to store information over time and distance, but advancements in the university come out of the college of professors and studies, in advance of publication. Similarly, the real work and advancement of cellular complexity originates in protein dynamics in the cytoplasm. This stands to reason, as proteins obviously evolved before DNA. DNA enables huge advances in cellular and organism complexity, and a lot of insight can be gained from a “selfish gene” perspective, but ultimately it is a misleading reductionism that has become an ideological dogma. The interesting work in molecular biology is now in protein dynamics.
Something as complicated as this and Evolutionists still want all of us to believe it all happened without the benefit of a designer? Gimmie a break!
The Last Tradition
Now if (mRNA)’s were able to be instructed, controlled, OR MANIPULATED, WILLFULLY or DELIBERATELY!
GEEZ, consider the possibilities, eh?
Thanks, Murray. Would you be able to recommend some reading for the layman on this topic?
I figure the discovery of prions upset past notions of evolution and genetics.
Google prion disease……that’s scarier than ISIS….
MIitchdentrial desease is end point for autosim that they have several degree from low medium to maxiumum severity degree of illness. By eat glotmin free bread can help their digestion witth low sugar for diabetess low protein for prevent high blood pressure cholstrol or even seizer amenetia etc make life time of people short. Or early cancer from neurological in long term they do nott know what should not eat if not supervised well can lead them with short life only few who ha weak chromosm can show some smartiness if they reach adult age.
“This surprising discovery reflects how incomplete our understanding of biology is,”
Incomplete? No shit Sherlock.
“This stands to reason, as proteins obviously evolved before DNA.”
Evolved? Here is someone who pretends that they have complete knowledge when what they’re really touting is a philosophical bias.
Well, of course the textbooks are wrong. Most of them are wrong, or at least incomplete, before they get to the print shop. So what? The whole point of textbooks is to allow students to learn the fundamentals they need to learn before going on to find that new new knowledge that renders the textbooks obsolete.
This whole meme about “overturning the textbooks” being some kind of surprise in science is faulty. It’s supposed to be the norm, not a surprise.
Expressing astonishment at the fact that some new knowledge in science goes beyond what is taught in textbooks is like expressing astonishment at the fact that the Sun came up this morning.
And this slam is directed not at Kate, but at the media, which does a uniformly atrocious job of reporting science.
“which does a uniformly atrocious job of reporting science”
this applies to all reporting, and to many, if not most publications. The human EGO usually rules the day. But there are many who refuse to see this when it applies to the books of their dogmatic beliefs.
and Ooz and sasquatch carry the ball I just threw out. What a bunch of putzes!!
Nick, you might start here.
http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2014/03/20/challenge-supremacy-dna-genetic-material/
From the perspective of chaos theory (nonlinear dynamics) and development in complex dissipative systems, I have long had trouble with the Central Dogma in the genetic explanation of evolution and phenotype development (genes => RNA => proteins). Mary-Jane West-Eberhard about 15 years ago developed the concept that genetic change is lead by developmental plasticity of the phenotype. (See Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, 2003) At last, with nanotechnology, physicists are looking critically at genetics (which was based on population studies) and are suggesting genetic theory has been misguided for the last 100 years. They propose it is attractor states of protein interaction and folding that primarily drive evolution and phenotype development, with genes as secondary.
I really liked Life’s Ratchet: How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos (2012) by Peter M. Hoffmann. I am looking forward to Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology (release postponed from this year to Jul 28 2015)
by Johnjoe Mcfadden and Jim Al-Khalili.
Nick, another important book(albeit quirky in presentation) in the mix is The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor (2013) by Gerald H. Pollack. It is not directly on topic, but the gel state of water is being seen as increasing important for protein folding and interaction. Pollack got into some of this in his earlier book Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life: A New, Unifying Approach to Cell Function (2001), which built on the controversial work of Gilbert Ling on ion gradients in cells. Pollack has advanced the science on water gel states, which was too simplistic in his earlier book. Interestingly, I have seen papers recently that simply assume gel-state water is an important aspect of the cell environment for proteins without even citing Pollack or Ling. There seems to have been a paradigm shift under the radar, or perhaps in the protein field there were not the vested interests that Ling encountered regarding ion pumps.
Ion pumps turn out to be big money. Zantac etc. are proton pump inhibitors.
Our resident yellow journalist is at it again. Now hear this: the demonstration of the structure of DNA was a breakthrough. One small breakthrough. Maybe mRNA and mitochondrial DNA were two more. HOWever, to understand life, it will be necessary to determine the three-fold structure of hundreds of proteins, and then their functions. A friend of mine, who lectures in virology in the medical faculty at TU Dresden, estimates that this will take a good 100 years.
So at any time in the next 100 years, our resident yellow journalist will be able to crow about the non-sound of settled science. Any time that there aren’t any stories about sex on college campuses. The implied comparison with “climagte” “science” is utterly loathsome.
The science is settled. Shut up.
Thanks, Murray. Cheers
Perhaps it is the write up or perhaps it’s just poor understanding on my part but…..
“….the Rqc2/ribosome complex had the potential to add amino acids to stalled proteins because it also bound tRNAs, structures that bring amino acids to the protein assembly line. The specific tRNAs they saw only carry the amino acids alanine and threonine.”
So, how does the above translate to “A team of researchers has observed a case in which another protein specifies which amino acids are added.” ???
To me, this says that the protein binds to the ribosome and to the specific tRNA for alanine and threonine. In other words, it may “facilitate” (by binding to the specific tRNA) but it does NOT DIRECTLY specify which amino acids are added.
And I don’t think this is a matter of semantics, i.e., specify vs facilitate. Until I hear more, I remain skeptical of the statement “another protein specifies which amino acids are added”.