[Thank you to Elizabeth Liddle, the admins and the mods for hosting this discussion.]
I’ve long suspected the 3.1 to 3.5 gigabases of human DNA (which equates to roughly 750 to 875 megabytes) is woefully insufficient to create something as complex as a human being. The problem is there is only limited transgenerational epigenetic inheritance so it’s hard to assert large amounts of information are stored outside the DNA.
Further, the question arises how is this non-DNA information stored since it’s not easy to localize, in fact, if there is a large amount of information outside the DNA, it is in a form that is NOT localizable, but distributed and so deeply redundant that it provides the ability to self-heal and self-correct for injury and error. If so, in a sense, damage and changes to this information bearing system is not very heritable since bad variation in the non-DNA information source can get repaired and reset, otherwise the organism just dies. In that sense the organism is fundamentally immutable as a form, suggestive of a created kind rather than something that can evolve in the macro-evolutionary sense.
We often hear of genomics, but there are other -omics. There is proteomics, transcritonomics, lectinomics, and who knows what else which fall under the vague heading of epiginomics. If there is an immutable epigenetic kernel for each created kind, then this kernel will resist macro evolvability (like say from bacteria to a eukarya).
There are about 215 cell types in the human, and even supposing an average of a mere 5 developmental stages for each cell type, that’s over a thousand different transcriptomes in the human. The ENCODE consortium tracks only 150 or so transriptomes, and most are for cell in the cancerous stage. Where is the information stored to decide how to dice, splice, rna-edit RNAs, and postranslationally change proteins? ENCODE tracks some of this epiginomic data, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, it could be argued each of the 200 trillion cells in an adult human has a slightly different transcriptome and proteome.
What other information storage mechanisms are there aside from DNA? It would have to be fairly fault tolerant so that you can’t knock out large portions of the system, and the information can be re-covered, much like having 100 backup hard-drives. One, and likely not the only information storage device, is implemented by the sugar code.
This link describes how the pharmaceutical industry has invested already 300 million dollars related to the sugar code, and how a mere 3 hexoes has the specificity of about 30 bits ( log2( 10^9) ).
Information carrying capacity of the sugar code
Only God knows how all the information could be stored outside of the DNA complex, but we have hints that for sure there is lots of memory storage capacity outside the DNA. The memory stored through the sugar code might only be one of the many mechanisms through which information is stored in the cell.
Here is another paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12223267
Abstract
Analysis of the genome and proteome assumes the focus of attention in efforts to relate biochemical coding with cell functionality. Among other chores in energy metabolism, the talents of carbohydrates to establish a high-density coding system give reason for a paradigmatic shift. The sequence complexity of glycans and glycan-processing enzymes (glycosyltransferases, glycosidases and enzymes introducing substituents such as sulfotransferases), the growing evidence for the importance of glycans from transgenic and knock-out animal models and the correlation of defects in glycosylation with diseases are substantial assets to portray oligosaccharides as code words in their own right. Matching the pace of progress in the work on glycoconjugates, the increasing level of refinement of our knowledge about lectins (definition of this term: carbohydrate-binding proteins, excluding sugar-specific antibodies, receptors of free mono- or disaccharides for transport or chemotaxis and enzymes modifying the bound carbohydrate) epitomizes the sphere of action of the sugar code (functional lectinomics). It encompasses, among other activities, intra- and intercellular transport processes, sensor branches of innate immunity, regulation of cell-cell (matrix) adhesion or migration and positive/negative growth control with implications for differentiation and malignancy. The Q & A approach taken in this review lists a series of arguments in a stepwise manner to make the reader wonder why it is only a rather recent process that the concept of the sugar code has taken root in deciphering the mechanistic versatility of biological information storage and transfer.
Remind me, what’s your point? How does any of this support ID? Even if some people are wrong about some things and you are right, does that support ID somehow? If so, how?
Refer to the OP, what I’ve posted supports it.
Increased complexity and information richness is an embarrassment to evolutionists like Dan Graur, Ken Miller, Nick Matzke, Larry Moran, etc.
Scientific discoveries that embarrass evolutionists helps the ID movement. I’ve pointed out the scientific discovery of the sugar code because it may even be more information rich than DNA. If so, we’ve only scratch the surface of what functional designs exist in biology.
There is a paper coming out in Septemeber, 2015. Can’t wait to read it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304416515001750
Mathgrrl where are you? Bueller, Bueller?
The following link has a lot of material cut and paste in a nice format from various sources. Many of the sources are not cited and it’s never clear when one paragraph is written by one author and the next by another (short of googling individual phrases).
But it is an outstanding introduction into my hypothesis that DNA doesn’t contain all the information and technology to build a human which likely lies in the 3rd alphabet of life. If the hypothesis is correct, DNA is not central in importance but must share its significance with the Sugar Code.
DNA contains information on how parts are built, but not all the information on how parts are to be put together.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2071-carbohydrates-and-glycobiology-the-3rd-alphabet-of-life-after-dna-and-proteins
Some highlights:
Do you have a reference to this revelation from somewhere a bit more mainstream?
heavenforum.org?
Also, Sal, the phrase “body plan” is used many times in that quote. What do you understand by “body plan”? Can you name a specific body plan that you are sure could not be the product of an evolutionary process?
To answer Kantian Naturalists objections to immutability of form, I have some additional scientific data. I wrote in the OP:
I just found a paper supporting this through evolutionnews and views!
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/a_revolutionary065521.html
First, Richard Dawkins gets something right:
[I wonder if Richard ever gets called by the nickname for Richard?]
But anyway that claim by Richard gets reiterated in a recent paper in Protein Science
and the paper even repeats Jonathan Wells Humpty Dumpty reference, before unwittingly pointing out the immutability of form, bwahaha!
SEE! The mother cell as a whole, not just the DNA has heritable features that if sufficiently damaged, will not allow cellular replication. That means the interactomes of various species also have to evolve in ways that are functional at each step, but since there are only islands of functionality surrounded by oceans of non-functionality and death in the change of the interactome, transitionals are prevented, and there are basic immutable forms just like there are immutable forms for proteins — i.e.
The forms are immutatble.