6 ms·

You repeat a popular misinterpretation of the central dogma. The term was coined by Crick^, and actually says that once the information in nucleic acid goes int

You repeat a popular misinterpretation of the central dogma. The term was coined by Crick^, and actually says that once the information in nucleic acid goes into protein, you can't get it back out again. So if you want to diagram it, it would be DNA/RNA --> Protein, where the arrow represents information flow. Note that (rather ironically!) it was actually Watson who popularized the misinterpretation, in his college textbook. The reason I point this out is that there are many known violations of the Watson version of the central dogma, but none of the Crick version. Also, I'd take issue with your claim that genes are like a blueprint. I'd say they're more like a recipe, as stated in the article (and I think your comment implies this anyway). The larger point (that the article mostly ignores) centers around human vanity: we're actually not really much more complicated than many other species, especially our close relatives like the apes. Most of the differences between us and them are developmental, and you don't need many genes to produce such changes. ^ Crick 1956, 'Ideas on Protein Synthesis'. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/F/T/_/scbbft.pdf http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/F/T/_/scbbft.pdf

TheBiv 10y ago
The concept of messenger RNA (mRNA) is the source of your confusion. As cited by their Nobel Prize, it is DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Please do not confuse scientific facts with google searches you've done. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ Please review this up to date article with how DNA turns into protein, in case you are still needing more reference http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-mrna-to-protein-393 http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-...
- jonathansizz 10y ago
  I'm not confused. Your link shows how DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein. That's not the central dogma; it's the misinterpretation of what the central dogma states, which I pointed out in my above comment. Please follow the link I gave in my earlier comment. I'll quote the pertinent section here for you: The Central Dogma: "Once information has got into protein it can't get out again". Here's a follow-up article by Crick, from 1970 (which he wrote in response to repeated misinterpretations of what he'd originally stated): http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCentralDogma1970.pdf http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCe...
  - TheBiv 10y ago
    I understand, in general what you are saying, yet the links you're citing but you have yet to talk about mRNA. All of your links are from 1960/1970 concerning scientific politics before we established scientific fact like we have now. I do not believe that you have reviewed my second link which takes you through how DNA goes to RNA then to protein. Yes it's mRNA, but mRNA is RNA. The inheritable material from DNA is in the nucleotides on the inside of the double helix. Please review the Nature link to understand how DNA goes to RNA and then protein.
    - jonathansizz 10y ago
      I really don't need a lesson on how transcription and translation work. I have a PhD in genetics. I am of course not disputing that DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into protein. In your original post, you state: Central dogma reminder: DNA -> RNA -> Protein and what I'm actually arguing with is your description of what the central dogma is stating. Because it actually states Nucleic Acid --> Protein My criticism was a technical one regarding information flow, and I wasn't trying to argue against the importance of developmental factors downstream of genes to the production of complexity. Sorry if I seem pedantic, but we have to be careful with our terminology, because otherwise as soon as someone learns about reverse transcription they write an article saying how the central dogma is dead.
      - TheBiv 10y ago
        Ahhhhhh man, I apologize bc we definitely got our wires crossed. I believe that we both wanted the same thing (accurate information) and I was willing to be simplistic in how the central dogma was presented bc it's straightforward to grasp without talking about mRNA/tRNA/nucleic acids/helicase/etc I felt like you were initially distracting from the simplistic view that everyone who hasn't studied genetics could understand. Solid sidebar and I apologize for my tone and thank you for talking about your side with me!! Have a great day internet friend that loves genetics as well!!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

TheBiv 10y ago

The concept of messenger RNA (mRNA) is the source of your confusion. As cited by their Nobel Prize, it is DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Please do not confuse scientific facts with google searches you've done. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/ Please review this up to date article with how DNA turns into protein, in case you are still needing more reference http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-mrna-to-protein-393 http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-...

jonathansizz 10y ago
I'm not confused. Your link shows how DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein. That's not the central dogma; it's the misinterpretation of what the central dogma states, which I pointed out in my above comment. Please follow the link I gave in my earlier comment. I'll quote the pertinent section here for you: The Central Dogma: "Once information has got into protein it can't get out again". Here's a follow-up article by Crick, from 1970 (which he wrote in response to repeated misinterpretations of what he'd originally stated): http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCentralDogma1970.pdf http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCe...
- TheBiv 10y ago
  I understand, in general what you are saying, yet the links you're citing but you have yet to talk about mRNA. All of your links are from 1960/1970 concerning scientific politics before we established scientific fact like we have now. I do not believe that you have reviewed my second link which takes you through how DNA goes to RNA then to protein. Yes it's mRNA, but mRNA is RNA. The inheritable material from DNA is in the nucleotides on the inside of the double helix. Please review the Nature link to understand how DNA goes to RNA and then protein.
  - jonathansizz 10y ago
    I really don't need a lesson on how transcription and translation work. I have a PhD in genetics. I am of course not disputing that DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into protein. In your original post, you state: Central dogma reminder: DNA -> RNA -> Protein and what I'm actually arguing with is your description of what the central dogma is stating. Because it actually states Nucleic Acid --> Protein My criticism was a technical one regarding information flow, and I wasn't trying to argue against the importance of developmental factors downstream of genes to the production of complexity. Sorry if I seem pedantic, but we have to be careful with our terminology, because otherwise as soon as someone learns about reverse transcription they write an article saying how the central dogma is dead.
    - TheBiv 10y ago
      Ahhhhhh man, I apologize bc we definitely got our wires crossed. I believe that we both wanted the same thing (accurate information) and I was willing to be simplistic in how the central dogma was presented bc it's straightforward to grasp without talking about mRNA/tRNA/nucleic acids/helicase/etc I felt like you were initially distracting from the simplistic view that everyone who hasn't studied genetics could understand. Solid sidebar and I apologize for my tone and thank you for talking about your side with me!! Have a great day internet friend that loves genetics as well!!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]