DNA to RNA

 

How gene transcription works. DNA to RNA:
pic.twitter.com/R04ROq5H1B

— Interesting STEM (@InterestingSTEM) November 25, 2025

Albert Penny is a key to Human Origin

 

pic.twitter.com/EWCnpgyWEl

— Minister Of Information (@RAISRAEL2) February 17, 2025

Data Science - Using R to do Gene Expression Matrix

 

1. Gene expression matrix: pic.twitter.com/oFMUnNP5Xn

— 🔥 Matt Dancho (Business Science) 🔥 (@mdancho84) December 2, 2024

DNA: Not Just for Life Anymore!

Should you donate your DNA to help cure diseases? - Greg Foot

The Jewish "Race"?

What can DNA tests really tell us about our ancestry? - Prosanta Chakrab...

18 Things You Should Know about Genetics [Video]

This video is really cool. It sums up what Genetics is and what we know so far. The only pet peeve I have about it is the "fact" given about "junk" DNA. Current research shows that "junk" DNA may not be as superfluous as scientists once thought. You can read three great blog posts on junk DNA on Luke Nix's blog. The articles are the work of Dr. Patricia Fanning of Reasons to Believe

Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 1
Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 2
Article: Junk DNA: An Outdated Concept- Part 3


 18 Things You Should Know About Genetics from David Murawsky on Vimeo.

18 Things You Should Know about Genetics [Video]

Related articles

• Surprising Siblings: Black and White Brothers Are Actually Twins (newsfeed.time.com)
• Steampunk Genetics (sandwalk.blogspot.com)
• Meet the Participants: Roger Kolbu (Norway) and Magdalene Beverari (France) (winebloggersconference.org)

Must Watch: Welcome to the Genomic Revolution [Video]

In this accessible talk from TEDxBoston, Richard Resnick shows how cheap and fast genome sequencing is about to turn health care (and insurance, and politics) upside down.

Must Watch: Welcome to the Genomic Revolution [Video]

Related articles

• The Genomic Revolution - Richard Resnick Talks About Sequencing and How It Is Helping Win the Battle With Treating Disease (Video) (ducknetweb.blogspot.com)
• Cheap Genome Sequencing and You (bigthink.com)
• Genetic Risk Assessment Improved By Introduction Of Ethnicity-Specific Reference Genome Sequencing (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Genome Revolution Is Skipping Nonwhites (wired.com)

Reasons To Believe - Does human genetic evidence support Noah's flood?

Image via Wikipedia
Dr Fazale Rana gives an answer as to if there is any human genetic evidence for the Flood. It's an interesting answer.



Does human genetic evidence support Noah's flood? (4:08)




Video Question and Answers | Reasons To Believe

Slutty DNA Study Provides New Way To Guilt Parents « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

Here is a tongue-in-cheek article of some serious significance. A gene has been identified as making people more prone to infidelity and other behaviors

According to Live Science:

“A particular version of a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4 is linked to people’s tendency toward both infidelity and uncommitted one-night stands, the researchers reported Nov. 30 in the online open-access journal PloS One.

The same gene has already been linked to alcoholism and gambling addiction, as well as less destructive thrills like a love of horror films. One study linked the gene to an openness to new social situations, which in turn correlated with political liberalism.”

Hmmm. A gene that leads people into debauchery, fornication, adultery, and lust? In Biblical terms: Sin. Some people would look at this and assume that means that people who struggle with these things are programmed to do them and can't help themselves. They are trapped - victims of their own natures. The Bible agrees. And any of us are a hair's breath from falling into any one of these things, unless you are in those things already, so we can't judge ourselves better than anyone else. Fortunately, the Bible not only defines a problem - one that DNA and genetics - confirms, but also points out that our Creator has also provided a solution. The solution is Jesus Christ. If want to be made whole - you can be.

Slutty DNA Study Provides New Way To Guilt Parents « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

On Reading the Cell’s Signature | The BioLogos Forum

I've been commenting back and forth with Chuck O'Connor on John Loftus' blog. Unfortunately, Chuck denies the Bible and Christianity and see no value in them or those of us who believe in them. During the course of the exchange, I challenged him to provide a rebuttal to Stephen C. Meyer's book Signature in the Cell. He graciously provided an article to which I have linked to, written by Dr. Francisco Ayala, University Professor at the University of California, Irvine.

On Reading the Cell’s Signature | The BioLogos Forum

I thought it good to make comment on this essay. I have to admit to being profoundly disappointed. I expected to see a good argument that Meyer is wrong and that there no reason to think that our genetic structure was designed - scientifically. Instead, I see a bunch of philosophical drivel combined with bad theology.

How should a person of faith respond to Signature of the Cell? I am an evolutionary scientist who would suggest the following considerations.

The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume.

The article starts off well. I mean it sets me up for thinking that it will advance an alternate explanation for where the genetic information came from over time. Did he offer one? No, not here. He then says something very interesting to me:

Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point? It is as if in a book about New York, the author would tell us that New York is not in Europe, and then dedicate most of the book to advancing evidence that, indeed, truly, New York is not in Europe.

Signature of the Cell offers Intelligent Design (ID) as the alternative explanation to chance in order to account for genetic information. This suggestion turns out to be no more convincing than a proposal by the author of the book about New York, who having exhausted all possible ways of telling us that New York is not in Europe, would now offer Peoria as the alternative city to visit. We would rather read about New York’s architecture, splendid avenues, and great parks; about the rich culture and ethnic diversity of the city; about its restaurants, concert venues, theatres, and wonderful sights in and around the city. But regarding natural selection, genetics, ecology, development, physiology, and behavior in the evolution of genetic information, there is nothing substantive in Signature of the Cell.

Now I have not read all of Dr. Ayala's work, but in this essay he agrees that chance does not explain where genetic information comes from but never say where it does comes from but instead spends his time talking about how intelligent design is not the answer. Arguing that New york is not in Europe. We all agree. But he never says where New York is located. So where did the extra genetic information that had to be added to the first common ancestor come from if evolution is true? Ayala is silent in this article, but I believe that this is one of the points that Meyer is speaking of in his book.

Ayala wrote:

The human genome includes about twenty-five thousand genes and lots of other (mostly short) switch sequences, which turn on and off genes in different tissues and at different times and play other functional roles. There are also lots and lots of DNA sequences that are nonsensical. For example, there are about one million virtually identical Alu sequences that are each three-hundred letters (nucleotides) long and are spread throughout the human genome. Think about it: there are in the human genome about twenty-five thousand genes, but one million interspersed Alu sequences; forty times more Alu sequences than genes. It is as if the editor of Signature of the Cell would have inserted between every two pages of Meyer’s book, forty additional pages, each containing the same three hundred letters. Likely, Meyer would not think of his editor as being “intelligent.” Would a function ever be found for these one million nearly identical Alu sequences? It seems most unlikely. In fact, we know how these sequences come about: one new Alu sequence appears in the genome for every ten newborns, generation after generation. The Designer at work? Unlikely: many of these sequences damage the genome causing abortion of the fetus during the early weeks of life.

Perhaps one could attribute the obnoxious presence of the Alu sequences to degenerative biological processes that are not the result of ID. But was the Designer incompetent or malevolent in not avoiding the eventuality of this degeneration? Come to think of it: why is it that most species become extinct? More than two million species of organisms now live on Earth. But the fossil record shows that more than ninety-nine percent of all species that ever lived became extinct. That is more than one billion extinct species. How come? Is this dreadful waste an outcome intended by the Designer? Or is extinction an outcome of degeneration of genetic information and biological processes? If so, was the Designer not intelligent enough or benevolent enough to avoid the enormity of this waste?

Ayala then tries to use things like the alu sequences to say that we aren't designed because it's poor design. This is a mumbo jumbo philosophical argument. something like what Hitchens, Dennet, or Harris uses. How can you assume that it's a poor design or a bug if you don't know what the original specs were? how do you know it's not "feature"? You don't. I'm an engineer and when I write code myself, what sense would it make for someone to look at my code and nitpick if they don't know what the design criteria and functions were supposed to be? Or even without knowing what all the limiting factors are, you are ill equipped to evaluate a design!

Then Ayala goes all theological:

I do think that people of faith may find in the world many reasons that support their belief in God. But I don’t think that intelligent design is one of them. Quite the contrary. Indeed, there are good reasons to reject ID on religious grounds, in addition to scientific grounds. The biological information encased in the genome determines the traits that the developing organism will have, in humans as well as in other organisms. But humans are chock-full of design defects. We have a jaw that is not sufficiently large to accommodate all of our teeth, so that wisdom teeth have to be removed and other teeth straightened by an orthodontist. Our backbone is less than well designed for our bipedal gait, resulting in back pain and other problems in late life. The birth canal is too narrow for the head of the newborn to pass easily through it, so that millions of innocent babies—and their mothers—have died in childbirth throughout human history.

I could go on about human features that betray a design that certainly is not intelligent. I will add only one more consideration. More that twenty percent of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion during the first two months of pregnancy. That is because the human genome, the human reproductive system, is so poorly designed. Do I want to attribute this egregiously defective design to God, to the omnipotent and benevolent God of the Christian faith? No, I don’t. It would not do to say that God designed intelligently the human genome and that it then decayed owing to natural processes. If God would have designed the human genome, surely He would have done it so that this enormous misfortune would not happen. Think of it: twenty percent of all human pregnancies amount to twenty million abortions every year. I shudder at the thought of this calamity being attributed to God’s specific design of the human genome. To me, this attribution would amount to blasphemy.

Who are you or I to judge the design defective. Does the pot have the right to tell the potter that it is defective? Efficiency can't be measured with the information that we have and we don't know what all the purposes are that are being met by the design being like it is. It's blasphemous to call what God has done as being poorly designed or executed. You can say you don;t understand. you can say it makes no sense to you, but who died and made you, me, or Ayala the standard of what benevolence is or what as good design for the human body is. This is poor and short-sited theology where man is the standard and God is held accountable to that standard instead of the other way around.In case you are unfamiliar with the imagery in Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9, we are the pots and God is the potter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Human Genome (singularityblog.singularitysymposium.com)
• Blog - The Genome Pioneers (technologyreview.com)
• Scientist's Paper Refutes 'Intelligent Design' Theory With Facts (dvorak.org)

Cell Size and Scale

My good friend and brother-in-Christ. Mariano has e-mailed me the this link. It's awesome. It's from a teaching aid from the University of Utah that explains the size and scale of living human cells. I love this stuff. Move the slider at the bottom of the image to see how small things really are relative to each other. Look at the notes at the bottom of the link to see notes on how to put all of this into context.



Cell Size and Scale

The Information Challenge | Australian Skeptics

Richard Dawkins via last.fm

I recently came across the following video on YouTube




Of course when I saw this I immediately thought that maybe there was a response.




The rebuttal video links to an article written by Dawkins himself to explain how he was blindsided and that the interview was edited to make him look bad. The link to that article is below.

The Information Challenge | Australian Skeptics

I think that Richard Dawkins' response is plausible but I think that the question was a valid question and in that video he did not answer it. His written response is more substantive but it still does not answer the question.

Dawkins wrote:

This idea of information fed from ancestral generations into descendant gene pools is one of the themes of my new book, Unweaving the Rainbow. It takes a whole chapter, “The Genetic Book of the Dead”, to develop the notion, so I won’t repeat it here except to say two things. First, it is the whole gene pool of the species as a whole, not the genome of any particular individual, which is best seen as the recipient of the ancestral information about how to survive. The genomes of particular individuals are random samples of the current gene pool, randomised by sexual recombination. Second, we are privileged to “intercept” the information if we wish, and “read” an animal’s body, or even its genes, as a coded description of ancestral worlds. To quote from Unweaving the Rainbow: “And isn’t it an arresting thought? We are digital archives of the African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas; walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days. You could spend a lifetime reading in this ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it.”

I don't think he answered the question.What I still want to know how does one species' gene pool get infused with more genetic information to turn it into another? During the article he likened our genomes to hard drives and DNA as computer code. I agree. However if he is right  that all higher organisms contain code from past generations then where does this code comes from. Random mutations don't explain it and as a computer programmer I can tell you that I don't want my code mutating.

Human Evolution? - Exploding The 99% Similar Myth - posted by bornagain 7777777 (bornagain7777777) - tangle.com

Image via Wikipedia

I found this video monsths ago, but I'm not sure if i ever got around to blogging it. It addresses the question as to how similar really are apes and humanity. I also like the description that goes with the video so i have included it.

Chimpanzee?
10-10-2008 17:12 | Dr Richard Buggs

http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html

From 1964 to 2004, it was believed that humans are almost identical to apes at the genetic level. Ten years ago, we thought that the information coded in our DNA is 98.5% the same as that coded in chimpanzee DNA. This led some scientists to claim that humans are simply another species of chimpanzee. They argued that humans did not have a special place in the world, and that chimpanzees should have the same 'rights' as humans.

Other scientists took a different view. They said that it is obvious that we are very different from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as chimpanzees in our DNA sequence, this simply means that DNA sequence is the wrong place to look in trying to understand what makes humans different. By this view, the 98.5% figure does not undermine the special place of humans. Instead it undermines the importance of genetics in thinking about what it means to be a human.

Fortunately (for both the status of human beings and the status of genetics) we now know that the 98.5% figure is very misleading. In 2005 scientists published a draft reading of the complete DNA sequence (genome) of a chimpanzee. When this is compared with the genome of a human, we find major differences.

To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless 'junk DNA'. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This 'copy number variation' causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or 'scaffold') when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled.

Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98% chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.

The author is a research geneticist at the University of Florida.

======================================================

Human and chimp genomes differ by more than one percent

http://www.creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Human_and_chimp_genomes_differ_by_more_than_one_percent

excerpt:

If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are (only) 29 percent identical.

=======================================================================

Chimp genome sequence very different from man

by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp

excerpt:

However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations' a problem referred to as 'Haldane's dilemma.' This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

========================================================

To dramatically underscore the fantasy land Darwinists live in, even evolutionists agree that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial (They say that most mutations are neutral, which is of no use to a Natural selection scenario, whereas Sanford, Spetner, Behe and others hold that all mutations studies at least have a "slightly negative effect)!!! (Genetic Entropy; Sanford 2005). Thus how in the world can you get from ape to man if you have no scientific demonstrated mechanism in which to do so? It is incredible that crushing facts as these are simply brushed aside as if they do not matter by evolutionists. To put it mildly this is not rigorous science, but rampant psuedo-science supported by your tax dollars!

Genesis 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Human Evolution? - Exploding The 99% Similar Myth - posted by bornagain 7777777 (bornagain7777777) - tangle.com

Another Look at Genetic "Evidence" for Human Evolution

I found a great video in which a scientist is lecturing on the merits of the conclusion that humans and chimpanzees are 99.5% the same. He draws different conclusions based on the available data, and considering that number in percentage of simularity in human and chimp DNA is not being confirmed in other more current studies I think that it's not tenable to base the "reality" of macro evolution in general or human evolution in particular on this evidence. Listen to what Dr. Dr Richard Buggs said:




Philip Cunningham, who posted the video, wrote are really good summary point. I will paste it below:

From 1964 to 2004, it was believed that humans are almost identical to apes at the genetic level. Ten years ago, we thought that the information coded in our DNA is 98.5% the same as that coded in chimpanzee DNA. This led some scientists to claim that humans are simply another species of chimpanzee. They argued that humans did not have a special place in the world, and that chimpanzees should have the same 'rights' as humans.

Other scientists took a different view. They said that it is obvious that we are very different from chimpanzees in our appearance and way of life: if we are almost the same as chimpanzees in our DNA sequence, this simply means that DNA sequence is the wrong place to look in trying to understand what makes humans different. By this view, the 98.5% figure does not undermine the special place of humans. Instead it undermines the importance of genetics in thinking about what it means to be a human.

Fortunately (for both the status of human beings and the status of genetics) we now know that the 98.5% figure is very misleading. In 2005 scientists published a draft reading of the complete DNA sequence (genome) of a chimpanzee. When this is compared with the genome of a human, we find major differences.

To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless 'junk DNA'. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This 'copy number variation' causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or 'scaffold') when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled.

Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98% chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.

The author is a research geneticist at the University of Florida.

======================================================

Human and chimp genomes differ by more than one percent

http://www.creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Human_and_chimp_genomes_differ_by_more_than_one_percent

excerpt:

If you measure the number of proteins for which the entire protein is identical in the two species, humans and chimpanzees are (only) 29 percent identical.

=======================================================================

Chimp genome sequence very different from man

by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0905chimp.asp

excerpt:

However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations' a problem referred to as 'Haldane's dilemma.' This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

========================================================

To dramatically underscore the fantasy land Darwinists live in, even evolutionists agree that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial (They say that most mutations are neutral, which is of no use to a Natural selection scenario, whereas Sanford, Spetner, Behe and others hold that all mutations studies at least have a "slightly negative effect)!!! (Genetic Entropy; Sanford 2005). Thus how in the world can you get from ape to man if you have no scientific demonstrated mechanism in which to do so? It is incredible that crushing facts as these are simply brushed aside as if they do not matter by evolutionists. To put it mildly this is not rigorous science, but rampant psuedo-science supported by your tax dollars!

Genesis 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I agree with Phillip. Putting this together with my post on the Dover Trial, I've got to ask how can evolution account for insertions, deletions, or in the case or Dr Miller's testimony during the Dover fiasco - chromosomes joining into one? Mutations are one thing. But stable mutations that bring on beneficial traits to an organism, that can be passed on to succeeding generations is quite another. Even if you grant that its possible, then you have to prove that is what happened and that it explains the differences between chimps and people. The other thing I found in Phillip's posts of great interest is that the 99.5% simularity of Chimps and Human DNA was first published in 1964, but none of the other teams' findings on the same subject have seen wide publication, nor what their data bodes for the theory of Evolution. Sounds like fear to me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I agree with the title of that book: I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.