-
DNA- What does it do?
DNA is basically an inert macromolecule. DNA doesn't do anything, but fall apart, without an existing suite of specific, specialized proteins and a coded information processing system.
In that system and with those proteins, DNA acts as a template for replicating itself and for transcribing different RNAs. DNA doesn't even have a say in how the mRNA is processed. It's the processed mRNA that holds the source code for the polypeptide sequence.
DNA does not tell the protein how to fold. Chaperones do that. DNA doesn't tell the proteins where to go nor how to assemble. No one knows how the proteins "know" to for ATP synthase, for example. Evos baldly and falsely claim self-assembly. Too bad they don't have any evidence for that. And they can't seem to get it to work in a lab.
DNA to proteins is NOT the type of process that can determine biological form/ body plans. Genes influence TRAITs. A trait is eye color, hair/ fur color, skin color- the things that make individuals in the same population different. Genes determine the variation within a population. DNA does not determine the body plan of the species within the population. It can't. As Dr. Denton said:
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.
Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.
Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2
It's too funny that evos don't even understand basic biology. And their ignorance leads them to make nonsensical and untestable claims. And they ignore that, too.
