Re: Central Dogma HELP
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 03/08/05
- Next message: IRR: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- Previous message: William Morse: "Re: A hearing or a reading"
- Maybe in reply to: mystical_mullet_hunter_at_hotmail.com: "Central Dogma HELP"
- Next in thread: IRR: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:41:44 -0500 (EST)
> <mystical_mullet_hunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> A:
> HEy everyone my name is alex and i am a freshman in college. i have
> been assigned a to do a report on: "What is the central dogma of
> biology and what is the newest branch to the flowchart?" and i am
> having a terrible time finding information on it any help would be
> largely appreciated:).
JE:-
Hi Alex,
You/they probably meant the central dogma of biochemistry.
the original dogma provided a critical point of non reversibility
between DNA --> polypeptides disallowing acquired characters
to be inherited. This was revised to be a non reversible
link between DNA <--> RNA ---> polypeptide. In almost
all cases more than one gene is required to code
for one protein because a protein is mostly composed of more
than one polypeptide. This means than the information from
more than just one gene is mostly always required to
form one protein. The next point in the "flowchart"
from this is the next non reversible point. This
happens to be epistatic genetic information, with
a particular reference to gene fitness epistasis.
Population genetics never makes it to here.
Epistatic information is any non additive genetic
information. Within population genetics this was deleted
by R. A. Fisher a population genetics founding father
who unfortunately, happened to be a right wing racist
as was Muller, the discoverer of mutation. Fisher
argued that a bad gene (which is mostly one of Muller's
mutations) always remains a bad gene because the context of
that gene stands for nothing. This was because context is
epistatic. The deletion of epistasis by Fisher was just a
dictate because not one single non epistatic gene fitness
has ever been documented within nature. Fisher's dogma
that only non additive genetic information is heritable
and thus selectable preserves for all time his and Muller's
belief in racism because a race simply becomes the simple
sum of all genes within one population where all the
"bad" genes can be compared to all the "good" genes
thus allowing a spurious conclusion as to which group
is racially "superior". The fact that things like hox
genes have enormous non lineal leverage was just deleted
along with all empirical gene fitnesses which remain
epistatic.
The next non reversible node on the flowchart is
any polypeptide/protein that carries heritable information.
An "on the face of it" case has existed for its
existence for many years. The work of Sonniborn who
reversed patches of cilia on protists surgically
so they could easily be seen to swim in circles
proved that this pattern can be passed on over countless
generations, i.e. represented an "acquired character".
Of course, this sent paroxysms of denial within the Neo
Darwinism establishment which quite irrationally, will
have nothing to do with any "acquired characters" even
if they have nothing at all to do with the refutation
of the revised dogma of biochemistry! The war between
developmental biologists and geneticists persists.
C. H. Waddington attempted many years ago to bridge
these two disciplines and remains the pivotal but
unrecognised figure for this movement. Felsenstein, who
was one of his students never even mentions Waddington
in his publication:
http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/gs453/2004/section1bw.pdf
It was Waddington who attempted to introduce
a modicum of sanity within Haldane's basic population
genetics equations by adding the extra variable:
"developed in x" which of course allowed at least one
variable to exist for epistasis. Felsenstein can provide
you with the reference and why Waddington's revision
remains to this very day, soundly ignored.
Note also that prion research can prove that the
folding information of some proteins can be
passed on by one protein just touching another
causing the sickness "mad cow disease".
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: IRR: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- Previous message: William Morse: "Re: A hearing or a reading"
- Maybe in reply to: mystical_mullet_hunter_at_hotmail.com: "Central Dogma HELP"
- Next in thread: IRR: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
