DNA Coding Multiplies in Complexity
As if the discovery that DNA is a language translation system was not enough to challenge evolutionary theories, it is becoming increasing clear that DNA is a code operated by another code. Science on Oct. 221 had a feature on gene regulation, which writer Elizabeth Pennisi termed “Genome’s Second Code.” She began, “The genome has more than one code for specifying life. The hunt for the various types of noncoding DNA that control gene expression is heating up.” Her second article in the same issue2 describes the “fast and furious hunt for gene regulators.”
In a letter to Nature,3 a team found that some non-coding DNA is not essential to viability. They deleted megabases of genetic elements from the mouse genome and could not find anything wrong with the mice. “Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen,” they suggested; “nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially ‘disposable DNA’ in the genomes of mammals.” Yet how such DNA would arise if it is not vital for survival, or why it would persist if not essential, seems to contradict the principles of Darwinian natural selection.
In yet another paper in Science,4 Kosak and Groudine argue that genes are organized in a way to take advantage of space. Thus, the very spacing and placement of genes with respect to one another and to regulatory elements provide a function: “the clustering of coregulated, lineage-restricted genes indicates a functional organization of transcriptomes that define a given cell type.” (Transcriptome refers to the body of DNA, regulators and enzymes that work together to transcribe a gene into a protein.)
Yet another paper in Current Biology5 has complexified the story of telomeres, those end caps on DNA strands that keeps them from unraveling. Another protein regulator has been found to be essential, and it “adds even more complexity to telomere protein interactions,” a subject already more complex than initially thought.
In short, it is no longer possible to predict gene expression by just looking at the DNA. Much more is going on to control what genes get turned on and off and in what order. The controls are appearing more and more like a super-code behind the genetic code. Pennisi quotes one geneticist who sighs, “The complexity of the genome is much higher than we have defined for the past 20 years. We have to change our way of thinking.”
1Elizabeth Pennisi, “Searching for the Genome’s Second Code,” Science, Vol 306, Issue 5696, 632-635, 22 October 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.306.5696.632].
2Elizabeth Pennisi, “A Fast and Furious Hunt for Gene Regulators,” Science, Science, Vol 306, Issue 5696, 635 , 22 October 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.306.5696.635].
3Nobrega et al., “Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice,” Nature 431, 988 – 993 (21 October 2004); doi:10.1038/nature03022.
4Kosak and Groudine, “Gene Order and Dynamic Domains,” Science, Vol 306, Issue 5696, 644-647 , 22 October 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1103864].
5Lorel Colgin and Roger Reddel, “Telomere Biology: A New Player in the End Zone,” Current Biology, Vol 14, R901-R902, 26 October 2004.
Yes, Darwinites, change your way of thinking. Think intelligent design. Thinking itself is not even possible without it. As could be expected, this section is a treasure trove of juicy quotes and findings of design that leave the Darwinites squirming in their naturalistic straitjackets. They only have themselves to blame. They were the ones who said they had to be worn.