DNA Theory is Incomplete

[Satsujin]

Most scientists and atheists would say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life. But this is untrue. What science currently knows about DNA is that it is the molecular blueprint for the production of proteins. There were also a lot of new discoveries with what was considered Junk DNA. As far as I know, there is nothing indicating how those proteins get organized into the body structure for life. This info not in the fertilized egg either. Maybe it is something that will be discovered later. But the point is that is not what science currently teaches. As far as I know, it DOES say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life.

 

[psychoslice]

So what are you trying to get at ?.

 

[Satsujin]

Basically why is this lie being propagated if it is known to be untrue? Isn't it kind of like religious dogma being preached? They are not saying we don't know, they are saying it is the complete blueprint. Would be more honest to say we don't know if it is but maybe we'll find the answer later.
Sort of like religious fundamentalists saying God exists as the only truth when the real truth is nobody knows but we may find out in the future.

 

[FearGod]

Basically why is this lie being propagated if it is known to be untrue? Isn't it kind of like religious dogma being preached? They are not saying we don't know, they are saying it is the complete blueprint. Would be more honest to say we don't know if it is but maybe we'll find the answer later.
Sort of like religious fundamentalists saying God exists as the only truth when the real truth is nobody knows but we may find out in the future.

Atheists never say we don't know but they used to say one day we'll know.

 

[Satsujin]

Actually I think the current claim by science is that Hox genes specify body plan but I don't think this is accepted by others. Others say Hox genes simply affect gene expression in already existing parts and have nothing to do with geometry. Ofcourse if science was willing to lie before they wont have a problem again.
I'll believe the hox gene theory when science proves it by making a tooth grow on some creatures back.

 

[philbo]

Most scientists and atheists would say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life

Speaking as an atheist and someone trained as a scientist, I don't think you're right with that assertion.

If it were, things like fingerprints wouldn't vary between identical twins - I don't think anyone has thought that DNA was a complete blueprint for all life for quite a while now. As with all living, evolutionary systems, it's a bit more complicated than that - investigating epigenetics, and one starts to realize just how complex it all is.

 

[Satsujin]

I admit I dont know much about epigenetics but isn't it the study of how cell receptors respond to their environment? Not much to do with body geometry.
And you are pushing the "will know" aspect which is noble.

My point is is Science saying it does know when it doesn't? But maybe I should ask this on a research forum.

Ofcourse Sheldrake is a scientist with a morphic resonance theory which will never be accepted by the dogmatists of material science. I dont know much. Reading first page of his book Science Set Free. So maybe my question is maybe there is an aspect of dogma instead of only truth in both science and religion? A willingness to preach something that is untrue to stop harm to your worldview? Or perhaps to be more accurate preach what you believe even when there is evidence there isn't? Like Catholic church preaching idea of hell which would not make sense if God was loving......

 

[philbo]

I admit I dont know much about genetics but isn't it the study of how cell receptors respond to their environment? Not much to do with body geometry.

Genetics is the study of genes/DNA/heredity etc. Epigenetics is pretty much the blanket term used to cover those things that look like they're inherited but don't appear to be linked to DNA: it's a term come up with for those bits where (as the thread title suggests) DNA theory is incomplete.

There was a point some decades ago, soon after the discovery of DNA, that people did think it was a complete blueprint; by the time I was doing the genetics part of my degree, back in the 80s, people already new that it wasn't enough to explain everything. Nowadays it's its own discipline.

 

[Satsujin]

Oh cool you have a background in genetics? Then you may be the one to answer this question: Are Hox genes the ones claimed by science to be responsible for complete body plan geometry? Are you aware of papers disagreeing with this?

 

[philbo]

Sorry to say that the concept of Hox genes came well after my time at university - my knowledge of that part of genetics is strictly wikipedian. I've had a couple of presentations recently which included some bits of developmental physiology, and the whole "what makes cells express these bits of DNA here, but those bits there" is fantastically tortuous.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Most scientists and atheists would say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life. But this is untrue. What science currently knows about DNA is that it is the molecular blueprint for the production of proteins. There were also a lot of new discoveries with what was considered Junk DNA. As far as I know, there is nothing indicating how those proteins get organized into the body structure for life. This info not in the fertilized egg either. Maybe it is something that will be discovered later. But the point is that is not what science currently teaches. As far as I know, it DOES say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life.

DNA contains the blueprint of an organism, the junk dna contains representations of the environment like the sun and moon sketches of trees and whatnot. You should consider the DNA in terms of a 3D computersimulation. There is a representation of the adult organism in there, guiding the development of the organism to adulthood, and lots of other representations of things besides.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hey Satsujin, this video about epigenetics is pretty good I think. Why are women stripey? (epigenetics)

The same producer has some other good ones about various science subjects: Veritasium - YouTube

 

[Satsujin]

thanks brick i may check out the videos. but my question was about material plan for body not epigenetics
Mohammad the Junk DNA may be fully mapped by now but it contains nothing representing the complete body plan

 

[Quintessence]

We do realize that all subjects, when they are taught to children, are simplified? There are all sorts of "lies" about what the sciences actually say that are taught to children in public education. But to call them "lies" is misleading. It's more that the subject material is simplified than that children are being lied to about the scientific consensus. Granted, there are also cases where instructors are genuinely misinformed about the topic, but I think what's going on here is far more an issue of how we convey complex information in our education system than "lying."

 

[Satsujin]

Well perhaps lying is too strong a word. Perhaps they genuinely believe it is true despite the existence of other evidence that doesnt match their worldview. I think Catholic priests genuinely want to save their followers from a Hell. I guess I'm saying evidence of this is just another piece in the puzzle that is the dogma of material science.
And for your info, this is not just at the hischool education level. See the wiki page on Hox genes if you wish.

 

[philbo]

We do realize that all subjects, when they are taught to children, are simplified? There are all sorts of "lies" about what the sciences actually say that are taught to children in public education. But to call them "lies" is misleading. It's more that the subject material is simplified than that children are being lied to about the scientific consensus. Granted, there are also cases where instructors are genuinely misinformed about the topic, but I think what's going on here is far more an issue of how we convey complex information in our education system than "lying."

^there is a lot of truth in this: almost everything in basic science courses is oversimplified to the point of not being exactly true, but makes a useful, essential even, step in creating understanding. Unless you can get your head around the simplified version, there's little chance of understanding the "well, it's a bit more complicated.. have a look at this" that you do later on in the sciences.

My favourite book that covers this is the "Science of the Discworld" series - actually one of the best "how science works" books I've read, with a sprinkling of a Discworld story in parallel.

 

[Brickjectivity]

thanks brick i may check out the videos. but my question was about material plan for body not epigenetics
Mohammad the Junk DNA may be fully mapped by now but it contains nothing representing the complete body plan

Sorry I was not able to follow that. I don't understand the reference to Mohammad? I have heard the term 'Junk DNA' somewhere, probably in a news article?

 

[Satsujin]

Well I dont want to antagonize anybody. I'm not here to fight, just share my beliefs. And I love Discworld. I have all the books except science, maps, nanny ogg recipes and tiffany Aching series.

Brick initially most of the dna science discovered was called junk that seemed to serve no purpose but later was mapped to functions like turning on genes and stuff i think. not sure. anyway they found it encoded for something when they initially thought it did nothing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

thanks brick i may check out the videos. but my question was about material plan for body not epigenetics
Mohammad the Junk DNA may be fully mapped by now but it contains nothing representing the complete body plan

I disagree with that, although sure it is not evidenced. I can see from the development of an organism that the development is directed toward adulthood. Meaning there must somehow be a representation of the adult organism. I am talking about an actual representation of the adult organism, so as that in the future we will be able to directly look into the dna world on a computerscreen with a 3d simulation. Just by hooking up the signal from dna to the computer and transforming the signal to the signal of the graphics card. It was shown that dna has the properties of a send and receive radio, so it all fits, makes sense, but is not exhaustively evidenced.

 

[George-ananda]

I believe complex life is so mind-boggling that current science understands so little because life also involves levels above the physical plane. As to your question of why this lie is propagated? I wouldn't call it a lie, but an insistence on materialism by many; an attempt by many to understand this mind-boggling universe by the little within our current scientific reach. For many science types, they don't like this opening the door to God/Spiritual sounding things that they have a distaste for; their scientific sense of superiority over the 'superstitious' is challenged when it appears these 'religious/superstitious' types may be on to something they (the science minded) don't know about.