Sunday, August 21, 2011
There is probably more to genetic coding than DNA
Its nearly 40 years since I did my graduate studies in genetics, physiology, biochemistry and microbiology. I often wonder how much "we've" ( always a brighter spark on the block ) learned since then( I really liked how Plimer did that recently with geology and his version of cosmology - "Heaven and Earth" )
Went along to the world wide Evolution conference last year and got the distinct impression ( as you do with some doctors ) that the know alls weren't telling us all they didn't know. My impression has been for decades that, like veneration of CSIRO in Austraila, pathetic habits of veneration and political correctness hadn't died .
It was, as I had thought all through the thin research but highly practical career days when YOU would have to make decisions on limited info " that ,it was about time to recognise some new discoverers and not give Watson and Crick so much hindlight .
Clearly from that confernec came the mesage that cells interpret DNA in a way which suits themselves as cells --so stick that into somewhere into the storehouse of verified complexity that decides which reactions compose and which ones just decompose. Some allusions to cemetery jokes here. The one about Mozart and the noise eminating from a grave .
No, the reason for this posting is the recent discovery ( last ten years) that in our haste to state what DNA and RNA are, we've been cutting it up in our test tubes ( cite a reference here shortly) .In other words the real deal is often longer than we think it is. If these fractures occur in real cells, how does it repair itself without a guards van like they have deliberately inserted on computer packet trains?
Isn't it amazing that somehow the minutest of cells manages to thread these often metre long lengths in each cell division without messing it up like we have apparently done . Maybe you can add something here - I am from the bush remember and I freely admit to being a little out of touch .
Went along to the world wide Evolution conference last year and got the distinct impression ( as you do with some doctors ) that the know alls weren't telling us all they didn't know. My impression has been for decades that, like veneration of CSIRO in Austraila, pathetic habits of veneration and political correctness hadn't died .
It was, as I had thought all through the thin research but highly practical career days when YOU would have to make decisions on limited info " that ,it was about time to recognise some new discoverers and not give Watson and Crick so much hindlight .
Clearly from that confernec came the mesage that cells interpret DNA in a way which suits themselves as cells --so stick that into somewhere into the storehouse of verified complexity that decides which reactions compose and which ones just decompose. Some allusions to cemetery jokes here. The one about Mozart and the noise eminating from a grave .
No, the reason for this posting is the recent discovery ( last ten years) that in our haste to state what DNA and RNA are, we've been cutting it up in our test tubes ( cite a reference here shortly) .In other words the real deal is often longer than we think it is. If these fractures occur in real cells, how does it repair itself without a guards van like they have deliberately inserted on computer packet trains?
Isn't it amazing that somehow the minutest of cells manages to thread these often metre long lengths in each cell division without messing it up like we have apparently done . Maybe you can add something here - I am from the bush remember and I freely admit to being a little out of touch .
