Scientists Discovered A Code Within The Code

Nature has published a paper which declares a second genetic code has been found! Molecular biologists and computer scientists uncovered what is now known as a splicing code. It is interesting to note, evolutionary theory was not used in discovering this code rather they used information technology.

The splicing code resides within DNA, directing the primary code in a very complex but predicable way. For the last 20 years scientists have been trying to find answers to such questions like; why there are only 20,000 genes in a very complex human being as they expected to find much more. Why are genes turned on in some cells and tissues, but not in others?

This discovery has been huge in terms of trying to understand this very specialize complex system in genetics. However, it doesn’t answer all the questions but demonstrates another code exists. Different gene elements known as “exons” can be assembled together in different ways.  “For example, three neurexin genes can generate over 3,000 genetic messages that help control the wiring of the brain,” Frey said.

This abstract from the paper displays the important role…

“Here we describe the assembly of a ‘splicing code’, which uses combinations of hundreds of RNA features to predict tissue-dependent changes in alternative splicing for thousands of exons.  The code determines new classes of splicing patterns, identifies distinct regulatory programs in different tissues, and identifies mutation-verified regulatory sequences.”

“Widespread regulatory strategies are revealed, including the use of unexpectedly large combinations of features, the establishment of low exon inclusion levels that are overcome by features in specific tissues, the appearance of features deeper into introns than previously appreciated, and the modulation of splice variant levels by transcript structure characteristics.”

“The code detected a class of exons whose inclusion silences expression in adult tissues by activating nonsense-mediated messenger RNA decay, but whose exclusion promotes expression during embryogenesis.  The code facilitates the discovery and detailed characterization of regulated alternative splicing events on a genome-wide scale.”

The splicing code is going to be one of the major breakthroughs (if not thee breakthrough) in science for 2011! This could well be the tip of the ice berg in the genetic world. Using information technology in science is something compatible with creationism not only that but  it’s also demonstrates the ridiculous notion that evolutionary theory has to be used in science!

Now evolutionary scientists have tried to experiment with the code by mutating it and got cancer and other mistakes. A question comes to mind, how can fitness be directed if one has to tamper with all these intertwined codes? Observations continue to be painting a picture of highly specified and complex, engineered, optimized informatics system that point to a design by a creator rather than some sort of a random arrangement of parts that can be endlessly tinkered with!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Scientists Discovered A Code Within The Code

  1. Michael ! You still owe us an answer to these questions:

    – what are your scientific credentials ?

    – where do you work ?

    – what do you do ?

    Come on, Michael, you know the answers ! Just tell us.

  2. Also readership statistics and substantive review of Signature in the Cell.

    .

    Dare we ask for more? The source from which Michael plagiarizes some of his posts?

    I’m beginning to think that Michael is not a biblical literalist after all. He seems to have lost two of the Ten Commandments along the way—the ones about lying and stealing.

  3. Poor Michael. His ignorance leads him to tout “alternative splicing codes” as evidence of creationism, while failing to see an obvious implication—well, obvious to anyone with a shred of biological knowledge..

    Forever, creationists have blathered that evolution’s gradual changes or simple mutations cannot produce “novel proteins.”

    But alternative splicing “enables a single gene to produce more than one distinct protein.”[1] So a simple mutation in splicing of a gene that produces ordinary old protein X may suddenly produce an entirely different protein Y–perhaps one that had never existed before. [2]

    Imagine that.

    =============

    [1] From the Editors’ Summary to the cited Nature paper.

    [2] Of course, we already knew that a single protein usually has more than one function, so “novel functions” don’t even require a mutation. For example, the opsins that bacteria use for telephoning each other serve also as the photoreceptors of animal eyes.

  4. Michael’s coded message in this post is a contention that new complexities have been found, and that complexity betokens design. Therefore more complexity is more evidence of design.

    Yet this discovery makes the human genome simpler, not more complex. The discovery shows how a smaller number of genes can produce a larger number of functions in the body. That is, Barash et al. have discovered a new simplicity, not a new complexity. A very small number of different pieces can, with the mathematical power of combinatorics, can form a vast multitude of patterns from a few pieces.[1]

    Seems ironic, doesn’t it? The discovery of a simple, evolutionarily more probable feature is hawked as evidence of design.

    ==============

    [1] Another example of the same principle can be found in the vertebrate immune system—there also, a very simple process produces a multitude of different functions.

  5. Olorin, thanks for your explanation !
    I certainly has helped me, at least.

  6. Speaking of Nature, a news item on May 3 issued a challenge to ID/creationists to explain a number of bad designs of the human body.

    How about it Michael? Do you wish to duck this one too?

  7. What is a “code”?

    code (k½d) n. 1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws. 2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code. 3.a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages. b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity. 4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer.

    American Heritage Dictionary, 3d Ed.

    Every one of those definitions implicitly requires that a human being arranged the laws, the alphabetic correspondences, the computer instructions.

    Therefore, Michael argues that, since DNA is a code, a human being designed it. Yet we know that no human being designed DNA.

    Bu hold! Michael says, it could also be a code if some other form of intelligence created it. But still, this other intelligence is outside the definition, isn’t it?

    Now suppose we stretch the definition a little more—ur use it metaphorically, if you prefer—and say that a code really denotes a correspondence between one kind of thing and another kind of thing, without any need for an intelligence.

    Whoa! Michael says. This is outside the definition.

    Sorry, Michael; you started it. The definition all imply of human derivation, and you broadened it to include any intelligence. We’re broadening the meaning to include correspondences without any intelligence at all.

    Arrant sophistry, Michael would sputter (if he knew what ‘arrant’ meant, or ‘sophistry’). Perhaps—but, again, you’re the one who initiated the definition inflation.

    .

    Fortunately, we don’t have to depend upon this argument, because the 5th meaning of “code” in AHD is “Genetics. The genetic code.” If Michael wishes to say that DNA requires an intelligence, then he can’t demonstrate it merely by calling it a ‘code.’

    This creationist fallacy here is called equivocation. In some senses, a code does imply intelligence; in the genetic sense, it does not. By using the same word interchangeably in both senses, Michael and his creationist coven manage to mislead the milling masses by contending that an alternative-splice code is designed because we use the word ‘code’ to describe it.’

    Sorry, Michael. FAIL.

  8. Formatting glitches. Try again.

    ===============================

    What is a “code”?

    code (k½d) n. 1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws. 2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code. 3.a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages. b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity. 4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer.

    American Heritage Dictionary, 3d Ed.

    Every one of those definitions implicitly requires that a human being arranged the laws, the alphabetic correspondences, the computer instructions.

    Therefore, Michael argues that, since DNA is a code, a human being designed it. Yet we know that no human being designed DNA.

    Bu hold! Michael says, it could also be a code if some other form of intelligence created it. But still, this other intelligence is outside the definition, isn’t it?

    Now suppose we stretch the definition a little more—ur use it metaphorically, if you prefer—and say that a code really denotes a correspondence between one kind of thing and another kind of thing, without any need for an intelligence.

    Whoa! Michael says. This is outside the definition.

    Sorry, Michael; you started it. The definition all imply of human derivation, and you broadened it to include any intelligence. We’re broadening the meaning to include correspondences without any intelligence at all.

    Arrant sophistry, Michael would sputter (if he knew what ‘arrant’ meant, or ‘sophistry’). Perhaps—but, again, you’re the one who initiated the definition inflation.

    .

    Fortunately, we don’t have to depend upon this argument, because the 5th meaning of “code” in AHD is “Genetics. The genetic code.” If Michael wishes to say that DNA requires an intelligence, then he can’t demonstrate it merely by calling it a ‘code.’

    This creationist fallacy here is called equivocation. In some senses, a code does imply intelligence; in the genetic sense, it does not. By using the same word interchangeably in both senses, Michael and his creationist coven manage to mislead the milling masses by contending that an alternative-splice code is designed because we use the word ‘code’ to describe it.’

    Sorry, Michael. FAIL.

  9. I believe Michael’s reasoning is somewhat simpler.

    Like prehistoric peoples, he believes that words possess magical powers. If one can call spirits from the vasty deep by their true names, then perforce they must come. If one assigns an object to a certain category, then it is constrained to assume all of the characteristics of that category.

    Thus Michael believes that DNA and splicing codes are designed because we call them codes. Assigning the name is enough to magically imbue these physical objects with all the attributes of the category that we assign them to.

    Perhaps we should not be too hard on Michael for this. After all, Stephen Meyer spent 511 pages in Signature in the Cell to make the same argument.

    (How about it, Michael? Where is the review?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s