Central Dogma of Genetics May Not Be So Central 196
Amorymeltzer writes "RNA molecules aren't always faithful reproductions of the genetic instructions contained within DNA, a new study shows (abstract). The finding seems to violate a tenet of genetics so fundamental that scientists call it the central dogma: DNA letters encode information, and RNA is made in DNA's likeness. The RNA then serves as a template to build proteins. But a study of RNA in white blood cells from 27 different people shows that, on average, each person has nearly 4,000 genes in which the RNA copies contain misspellings not found in DNA."
NEWS FLASH (Score:1, Funny)
Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
News for nerds who never took a biology course and are deeply suspicious of the so-called "sciences"
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly! If geneticists aren't even reading their own bloody papers, maybe the government grants should be issued to those Slashdot readers who do.
Tell us how you feel. Don't hold anything back. You are in a SAFE environment here... Now, show me on the dolly where the geneticist touched you...
:)
Side note: Totally agree with the comment
Wind DNA gradyooate? (Score:4, Funny)
Thanck God! (Score:4, Funny)
nearly 4,000 genes in which the RNA copies contain misspellings
I new my bad speling wasnt my falt- its just genetic. Finaly I can prove it to my teacher! I hope scientists next fined genes with bad grammar,
Re:Central Dogma? (Score:2, Funny)
Also, science holds no dogma.
Is that a dogma that science holds?
Re:Central Dogma? (Score:4, Funny)
The use of the term "dogma" in "Central Dogma" was incorrect from the get-go. Frankly, Francis Crick either chose to misunderstand the word or simply didn't fully grasp its connotations.
He was just looking for a more dramatic word for "hypothesis".
"Central Hypothesis" would be the more accurate name for it. It isn't a proper theory, but it does provide a framework for understanding molecular biological functions.
It's basically this (from WP): 'once information gets into protein, it can't flow back to nucleic acid.'
Re:RTFA, the errors weren't random. (Score:4, Funny)
If strikes by 'stray' cosmic rays are a non-random phenominon, then you've just proved an intelligent super-powerful being deliberately interferes in evolution.
True, and if cosmic rays are green, then I've just proven that breakfast cereal is made of oats.
Or to put it another way: If a cosmic ray could strike an RNA molecule and sometimes it would cause a change in the molecule and sometimes it wouldn't, and no observable phenomenon could be used to determine when it would and when it wouldn't, then that would appear to be a random phenomenon. If every single time a cosmic ray strikes the molecule it causes a change, then that is a non-random, cause and effect phenomenon.
Maybe you should have stayed in bed this morning.