Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Central Dogma

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Larry Moran: http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/125/135 The correct version of the Central Dogma is that once information is transferred
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 11 7:39 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry Moran: http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/125/135
      The correct version of the Central Dogma is that once information is
      transferred from nucleic acid to protein, it can’t flow back to nucleic
      acids. In other words, translation is unidirectional. The Central Dogma has
      never been overthrown or seriously challenged.

      Charles P: Shapiro disagrees with this part of the 20th Century version of
      The Theory of Evolution. Moran does not provide empirical and verifiable
      evidence for his interpretations that contradict with what Shapiro wrote.
      However, Shapiro always provides empirical and verifiable evidence in his

      Evolution: A View From The 21st Century. Revisiting the Central Dogma of
      Molecular Biology.

      1 Page 24: The selected cases just described are examples where molecular
      biology has identified specific components of cell sensing,
      information transfer, and decision-making processes. In other words, we
      have numerous precise molecular descriptions of cell cognition, which range
      all the way from bacterial nutrition to mammalian cell biology and

      2 Page 24: The cognitive, informatic view of how living cells operate and
      utilize their genomes is radically different from the genetic determinism
      perspective articulated most succinctly, in the last century, by Francis
      Crick’s famous “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.” So it is appropriate
      to direct our attention to evaluating the validity of Crick’s formulation
      in light of 21st Century knowledge.

      3 Reference #182: Crick first published the Central Dogma idea in 1958 to
      articulate the growing knowledge about the molecular basis of protein
      synthesis. The prevailing idea then was that DNA determined heredity by
      encoding protein structure, and it was assumed that proteins acted to
      determine the phenotype of the cell and organism.

      4 References #183, 184, 185: Crick postulated two linear information
      flows based on nucleotide sequence coding: DNA —> DNA during replication
      and DNA —> RNA —> protein during protein synthesis. In 1970, Crick revised
      his unidirectional formulation in light of Mizutani and Temin’s then recent
      discovery of reverse transcriptase activity that could copy RNA back into

      5 Reference #185: Crick allowed an extra arrow from RNA to DNA in his
      scheme, but he wrote that transfers of information from protein to nucleic
      acid or from protein to protein were unacceptable: “...sequence information
      cannot be transferred from protein to either protein or nucleic acid” and
      “the discovery of just one type of present day cell which could carry out
      any of the three unknown transfers (protein —> DNA, protein —> RNA, protein
      —> protein) would shake the whole intellectual basis of molecular

      6 Reference #186: Clearly, in 1970 Crick held a Cartesian dualist’s view
      of molecular information transfer, in which nucleic acids contained the
      coded information and proteins executed the encoded instructions. A
      contemporary version of this DNA-centric view can be seen in the
      article “Deciphering the Code of Life”.

      7 See Table I.1: Today, we know about many examples where proteins modify
      sequence information in DNA (such as SOS mutagenesis), in RNA (splicing and
      other types of posttranscriptional processing), and in other proteins
      (proteolytic cleavages, peptide excisions, and peptide attachments). We
      also have far deeper insight into the many ways that proteins and other
      cell molecules left out of Crick’s scheme (second messengers, membranes,
      and noncoding RNAs) influence the structure, expression, and modification
      of both DNA in the genome and RNA transcripts.

      8 Reference #187: From the kind of information transactions listed in
      Table I.1, it seems that “the intellectual foundations of molecular
      biology” have indeed been shaken—and shaken hard. The purpose of Part I of
      this book is to introduce you to a small number of the many cases
      where molecular biology has taken us into new conceptual territory. In
      particular, the first proposition of the contemporary view of cell
      information processing, DNA + 0 —> 0, makes the point that DNA cannot do
      anything or direct anything by itself; it must interact with other cell

      9 So all genome action is subject to the inputs and information-processing
      networks we know to operate in living cells.

      10 Part II describes how the new conceptual landscape leads us to
      think about a read-write (RW) genome, replacing the traditional
      evolutionists’ read-only memory (ROM) device subject to change by
      accidents and errors.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.