A Bio Genesis

@wildgrass said
Indeed. You point out that you don't have a point.

I have one but apparently you don’t have eyes that can see it.

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/08/the-genius-of-alternative-reading-frames/?fbclid=IwAR2K3VmPyfVqhaR1tEG6Vxjklvqu8a3VeUuLSJx4hesyBYgYMBxvh5_-dAA

Something to read, short and sweet.

@kellyjay said
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/08/the-genius-of-alternative-reading-frames/?fbclid=IwAR2K3VmPyfVqhaR1tEG6Vxjklvqu8a3VeUuLSJx4hesyBYgYMBxvh5_-dAA

Something to read, short and sweet.

The questions asked in the link are first;

" In protein production in an organism having a diploidal genome, do both strands contribute to protein production?"

and the answer to that is yes, although "both strands" is an odd way of wording it making me suspicious he has misunderstood something here.

Then he asks the question;

"In particular, does the complementary segment of a translated gene also get translated? "

and the answer to that is no and I get the clear impression that the person asking this question has just confused the meaning of "diploid" (meaning copies of chromosomes) with "complementary segment of a translated gene" (meaning the single strand of DNA bases that are base-paired onto the other single strand of DNA bases withoin within the double strand that makes up a single DNA strand) which are totally different things.

Then he asks;

"It seems to me that it would be a real miracle if that were to be the case, since the chances of a sequence being useful and its complement being useful in the reversed direction would be quite small."

And, yes, it would be a real miracle if that was true. But it is NOT true, thus, no miracle involved. The fact he thought it might be true further convinces me he has massively misunderstood something here but I cannot figure out exactly what.

I would say the person asking the questions is just very confused.

@humy said
The questions asked in the link are first;

" In protein production in an organism having a diploidal genome, do both strands contribute to protein production?"

and the answer to that is yes, although "both strands" is an odd way of wording it making me suspicious he has misunderstood something here.

Then he asks the question;

"In particular, does the complementary se ...[text shortened]... annot figure out exactly what.

I would say the person asking the questions is just very confused.

"But as techniques for detecting transcripts have gotten better, and scientists have begun to scan for “alternative reading frames,” they are finding them."

I was more interested in this.

@KellyJay
That sounds very unscientific as phrase, it sounds more like a philosophical reference, like 'maybe we can find an alternative to the spiral ladder of DNA' or something? Do YOU have any idea what he meant?

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
That sounds very unscientific as phrase, it sounds more like a philosophical reference, like 'maybe we can find an alternative to the spiral ladder of DNA' or something? Do YOU have any idea what he meant?

DNA is much more complex than we first thought.

@kellyjay said
DNA is much more complex than we first thought.

Not really. Perhaps to you it is.

@KellyJay
And by alternates is he talking about what I mentioned, say a square frame instead of a spiral ladder structure of DNA? Or maybe a triangle, like how we make antenna towers? Is that what he meant? If so that would be just conjecture.

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
And by alternates is he talking about what I mentioned, say a square frame instead of a spiral ladder structure of DNA? Or maybe a triangle, like how we make antenna towers? Is that what he meant? If so that would be just conjecture.

Don't you think a lot of what is as science is conjecture?

@KellyJay
Perhaps but that is just a distraction from my question.

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
Perhaps but that is just a distraction from my question.

I don't think so, when we look at data we can draw conclusions and running the numbers we can be spot on, does this mean we know we are flawless in our conclusions? If we fail to take things into account all that can play a part in what we are studying, our math will not help. It could even generate a false sense we are on a solid foundation.

A simple example for the points sake would be monitoring a car moving down the highway at 70 mph. If we can measure the rate of travel flawlessly does that mean it was 140 miles away 2 hours ago, or 70 miles away an hour ago? It could, but if we fail to take into account stops, or that the car may only have been on the road for 14 minutes our math might be spot on, but our conclusions would be in error.

There is always the risk of the unknown, which is why science has to be self correcting. The issue with theory of evolution for some, science isn't self correcting when it comes to evolution, instead it acts more like a yardstick to measure distance, a compass for direction, or a scale for weight. Evolution as become something to beyond validation it is what is used to validate other things.

Even to question it in part or as a whole practically heretical to some, they simply will not entertain the notion at all. They are fine with almost everything else being questioned, just not that theory!

@KellyJay
But like the case of the Grand Canyon, you look at it and can't believe what you are seeing, you keep doubting it could possibly be extremely old yet you have to ask yourself how did the canyon get so deep.
Why would you not think the river did it?
And when you look down a couple thousand feet deep to get to that river, why can't you just accept the river itself did the digging, slow bit of dust by slow bit of dust when going backwards in time there is a time when it is mostly right on the surface and running the clock forward from there shows it cutting deeper and deeper.
You simply cannot accept that possibility for as much as you say you don't care whether Earth is young or old you are just paying lip service to the old part, you really believe it is only a few thousand years old and that is that.

@kellyjay said
Don't you think a lot of what is as science is conjecture?

Nearly all if not all scientific theories are formed by conjecture.
If there was something wrong with basing something on conjecture then all science wrong and your computer wouldn't work.
Of course, when it comes to real science, what we are taking about here is intelligent educated conjecture based on observation and at least an attempt at reason, not stupid conjecture such as "Goddidit!".

@humy said
Nearly all if not all scientific theories are formed by conjecture.
If there was something wrong with basing something on conjecture then all science wrong and your computer wouldn't work.
Of course, when it comes to real science, what we are taking about here is intelligent educated conjecture based on observation and at least an attempt at reason, not stupid conjecture such as "Goddidit!".

"intelligent educated conjecture based on observation"

"not stupid conjecture such as "Goddidit!""

LOL

@KellyJay
Godidit is not a science, it is totally faith based and not disprovable or provable so it is in the eyes of the beholder only. Only your god or SOME god coming down to Earth and telling us, look folks, this is how it is:
Only then would there be real credibility in that 'conjecture'