Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

DNA - the central axiom?

  1. Mar 21, 2004 #1
    In my less than deep undestanding of the biological sciences I understand there is an Axiom that say that the mechainsim of DNA goes in one direction. The DNA will evolve and change and impose itself on the organism, but the process does not work in reverse. Of course thee was the retrovirus calamity years ago, and some even talk about retro visruses doing the evil thing, reverse evolution, to the DNA.

    What is the status of the Central Axiom?

    I do not intend to be provocative, but the AIDS questions just will not go away. I have researched the from the point of view of a believer,that HIV causes AID, but I must say that as of now I see no scientific evidence that 1. HIV exists, and/or that 2. HIV causes AIDS.

    When I hear the passion and convincing tones of Athony Fauci, for instance, declaring that there is no "quesiton" of the HIV and AIDS causal connection; that it is a "scientific fact that HIV causes AIDS" and that "AIDS is the most reserached disease in the history of human kind", then it should be a trivial matter to point to a dozen or so published papers to prove it to us, especially when the vast bulk of us "believes the prevailing view."

    http://www.healsd.org/lies.htm [Broken]
    This is sufficient to get one started.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 21, 2004 #2
    Are you referring to the so-called "Central Dogma" per chance? This is the scheme that gives rise to the simple, elegant, but not entirely correct flow chart below:

    DNA --> RNA ---> Protein.

    It is now known, of course, that functional RNA and DNA exist, as well as reverse transcriptases which go from RNA to DNA. So if you were to try to draw a new version, you'd need a couple of more arrows.
  4. Mar 21, 2004 #3
    You have been reading to many articles, without a basic understanding of science.

    "reverse evolution" no such thing evolution is only a change in allele frequency within a population - no matter which way it goes.

    "retro viruses" No evil just different, they you reverse transcriptase to synthesis from RNA.

    As far as the HIV-AIDS connection - once again, refer to my first sentence.

  5. Mar 21, 2004 #4
    Yes, "Central Dogma", thank you. My understanding of this is that the formulators of the"DNA theory" imposed the CD at the get go. Do you have any historical clarification here?

    Just off the top of the noggin, does it not seem a bit strange that those early researchers were so dogmatically insistent on such a key concept? This had to be, so I surmise, a pure mental imposition. I would aslo surmise that evolution theorists had (has?) their work cut out for themselves - re-evaluation comes to mind. Also, assuming the ever functioning RT processes, there is a certain satisfaction that this two way process, RNA -> DNA -> RNA, is in general a "healthy" and natural process, thay some have postulated as placing everyone on an edge of imminent instability.

    There are some, Strephan Lanka for one, who insist that RT is an inherent and essential function of the bioprocesses. This is extremely important in AIDS theory, among ohers, where earlier researchers, Luc Montaignier et al, postulated reverse trnascriptases as evidence "retroviruses" in building an "HIV causes AIDS model".
  6. Mar 21, 2004 #5
    Central Dogma

    Yes, "Central Dogma", thank you. My understanding of this is that the formulators of the"DNA theory" imposed the CD at the get got. Do you have any historical clarification here?

    There are some, Strephan Lanka for one, who insist that RT are an is an inherent and essential function of the bioprocesses. This is extremely important in AIDS theory, among ohers, where earlier researchers, Luc Montaignier, postulated reverse trnascriptases as evidence of a "retroviruses", in building an "HIV causes AIDS model".
  7. Mar 22, 2004 #6
    Basic Understandings.

    mhernan originally stated that:
    mhernan replies to nautica, thus:

    I was referring to the literature where "reverse evolution" was discussed, in terms of reverse transscriptases being 'harmful' , hence "evi". You misread the statement, I am not claiming what I was merely observing others talking about.

    However, your condescending references to my AIDS statement shows a carelessness on your part. Sure, I read scientific articles, starting with Luc Motaignier's seminal paper in 1981 "Science" where he claimed he "might" have found the 'virus' causing all the trouble. Luc, in his paper, included an electron micrograph of an entity that one assumes was a micrograph of an HIV. Luc was asked years later if his team had observed any "viruses". He denied that any were found and stated that "they looked and looked ", but just couldn't find any. The micropraph, it seems, was inserted for "instructional purposes". I followed Luc's paper with a reading of Robert Gallo's four papers the following year (also printed in 'Science') where Gallo was not so timid as Luc. Bob said it dogmatically that 'the virus had been found'.

    Margaret Heckler, then Secretary of Health and Human Services, made an announcement on the steps of the H&HS building, declaring that the "virus that causes AIDS had been found" and she predicted a vaccine would be found in "two years" (as an aside, Clinton predicted a vaccine in "ten years", and this in the final days in office). Bob was standing at Hecklar's side duringh her announcement. Bob Gallo's paper had not been peer reviewed at this time, and before the close of business that day, Gallo filed a patent application for "testing for the presence of HIV".

    The story, goes on. Luc eventually complained that Bob misused the samples he had sent to Gallo, contrary to their agreement. To shorten the tale, Ronald Reagan and the president of France, settled the issue to keep the "bad publicity" at workable levels. Bob and Luc shared in the spoils. Bob was later found in violation of "scientific integrity" for his part in the charade.

    What did you mean exactly in your statement of me being "without a basic understanding of science."? Did you ever read Luc and/or Bob's papers?

    I suggest that the little aphorism after my signature might just be functionally appropriate in your case.
  8. Mar 22, 2004 #7
    Re: Basic Understandings.

    I meant exactly what I said. Instead of spending your time reading articles and formulating an onpion based on those articles, you should take some time an understand basic science.

  9. Mar 22, 2004 #8
    And as far as the vaccines. That is not the problem, the problem is the rapid mutaion of the virus would render the vaccines useless.

    This is no different than the virus that causes the common cold or flu. Therefore, we have to create a new flu vaccine every year. The problem with HIV is that it does not run seasonally and one person could have 10 different strains in his body.

  10. Mar 22, 2004 #9
    Re: Re: Basic Understandings.

    And how, pray tell, does one go about understanding "basic science" without reading the literaturwe? If I claimed undersanding of "basic science" and you criticize this with the implication that I don't take time and understand and this is all you say are you suggesting that i guess at your meaning?. How do you arrive at your conclusion? Are you an expert in voodoo?
  11. Mar 22, 2004 #10

    You have said a lot in the words above, but I have a scientific understanding there are unsubstantiated inferences in your statement that 'vaccines are not the problem it is the mutation of the virus' that is the problem.
    A detailed literature search for credible scientific support for the the claim that:1. HIV actually exists and , 2 that HIV actually causes ANY pathogenic condition, in any organism produced nothing. We all know of the massive public relations effort to keep the HIV/AIDS question in our collective and individual consciences, ergo "we" effectively "believe" the HIV/AIDS story. The problem is, however, a lack of proof.

    Beside the fact that not you, nor any other person, has actually isolated "HIV", what is the source of your idea that the virus is so rapidly mutating that NO vaccine can neutrailze it? Do you have a crystal ball at your disposal? I am familiar with the "mutating virus hypothesis", though am not aware of any rational justification for the claim. It sounds like the little bugger can mutate and escape detection and death, but that the pathological implications of the virus remains keenly and invariantly fatal.

    What is the source of the idea that one person can have "10 different stains in his body?"

    I am not asking these questions for the sheer sake of provocation, though for some it certainly is provocative, [the implication that HIV has no history of ever being isolated to the exclusion of all other organisms is potentially VERY provocative].

    click here for some interesting scientific information regarding AIDS and HIV.
  12. Mar 22, 2004 #11
    Re: Re: Re: Basic Understandings.

    How can you fully understand what you are reading without a basic understanding of science. Go to you local high school and buy a biology book and go from there. At the present time, you could not differentiate between the work of a true scientist and a whack.

    You are trying to provoke a debate about a subject, which you clearly do not understand. There have been more studies done on HIV/AIDS than any other disease in the last 15 years (with the exception of maybe cancer). To go back and do the studies, which you speak of, would be like doing a study to prove that the sun will come up tommorrow.

    Stop trying to prove your intelligence by citing articles and start proving it by showing us your understanding of the subject in which you speak.

    You are clearly an intelligent person and I think your love of reading and science is great, but it appears as though you have put the cart before the horse.

  13. Mar 22, 2004 #12
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Basic Understandings.


    I've read more biology books than those counted by the years of your age. You keep insisting on discussing my scientific understanding. I am not provking anything, I am responding to you in this thread

    Mr. Hurkyl, take a good look at what you just put down in your post. You are making the claim that 15 years of scientific study proves something to you. Is this wha you call scientific undestanding: "mass hysteria and propagandized medical pronouncements"? The AIDS thing began circa 1980, hence it has been 24 years existing with AIDS/HIV and the National Institute of Health. It is certainly your perogative to adjust your mind any way you see fit. You see I have gone from "believing" the prvailing view to the position that I know of no scientific study that proves the ecxistence of HIV nor the causal realtionship to AIDS. Certainly I am not the only dissident in this matter. There are Nobel laureates in Molecular and Cellular Biology that have made the same claim. I once made a survey of a number of medical doctors that were treating at lest one AIDS partient. The discuussions were cordial they were openly helpful in educating me, until I asked the simple question ,"what scientific proof do you use to prove HIV exists and that HIV causes AIDS?" This signalled the end of approximately 12 interviews. angrily ended the interviews.

    With 25 years of AIDS research it should be a simple matter to point to the published scientific literature and allow the public to verify the massive public state of mind on this subject. At least because of the massive governmemtal inertia ought not the people be given the courtesy of having scientific claims verified? Is this uan nreasonable request. When considering reasons for NIH reticent's to divulge their rationaling, the possibilities for the failure are all frightening.

    Finally, Mr. Hurkyl, I do not have to prove my intelligence to you or to anyone else. What you see is what yopu get.
  14. Mar 22, 2004 #13
    I believe it was Francis Crick who made the "Central Dogma" hypothesis based upon the rapid and incredible succeses of molecular biology that took place in the 1950s and 1960s, which of course built off some groundbreaking work in the 1940s and earlier. The data that had been accumulated did support this idea, that genetic material was stored in the DNA, transcribed into RNA, and then translated into a polypeptide. I'd say it was less an imposition than an operational concept that was incredibly useful. All these variations from the Central Dogma were discovered in the 1970s and 1980s as I recall - if someone were to have proposed them in the '50s or '60s, I suspect the first thing they'd have been asked is: "In what organism/virus did you observe this phenomenon?" I wouldn't be surprised if someone did suggest it, but it was neglected in favor of things that actually could be studied at the time.

    I'm not sure if it was dogmatism rather than excitement - the 1950s and '60s were heady times in biology, and the research that was going on tended to confirm the validity of the Central Dogma. People found genes, they expressed proteins, the different RNAs were elucidated...Crick's proposal held up rather well. The other part to always remember is the inherent difficulty and complexity of biological processes. For example, it's been known for decades that the ribosome is the apparatus used for protein synthesis. However, it wasn't until a few years ago that high resolution structural studies came out of the ribosome that confirmed the idea that it was in fact a ribozyme.

    I don't see any problems for evolutionary theory - natural variation arises in the RNA, natural selection will filter things out, and other well known factors (genetic drift, isolation, and all the rest that evolutionary biologists like to talk about) will contribute as well. I can't see that the medium of genetic information happens to be RNA rather DNA makes much of a difference.

    I'm not really sure what to make of your comment that "Also, assuming the ever functioning RT processes, there is a certain satisfaction that this two way process, RNA -> DNA -> RNA, is in general a "healthy" and natural process, thay some have postulated as placing everyone on an edge of imminent instability." The role of RNA as a genome has only been found for retroviruses that I am aware of, although I don't keep all that up to date with the latest in genetics.
  15. Mar 22, 2004 #14
    Who the hell is "Mr. Hurkyl" [?]

  16. Mar 22, 2004 #15
    Back to your "central axiom"

    View the following studies:

    1) The 1928 Transformation experiments by Griffith

    2) The 1930's and 40's experiments by Avery et al... identifying that nuclaic acids and in certain cases DNA were responsible for transformation.

    3) The Hershery-Chase experiment of 1953 which provide more evidence that DNA - not proteins were the genetic materials.

    While extremely simple these, very well known studies, provide good evidence to support Watson's theories.

  17. Mar 23, 2004 #16
    Mike H replied to mhernan
    mhernan responds

    The "reverse transcriptase process" appeared to some as a "threat" to the organism from outside the 'closed genome development process'.The threat proved nonexistent. There are some areas where the RT processes are currently debated in the context of RT being basically a pathologic imposition on an otherwise healthy organism. The discussion is localized in a political environment, govermental/political environment, that is, where the stakes are high.

    You might check Stefan Lanka, a molecular biologist, (and AIDS dissident)at Stefan Lanka., who make the case for RT as an intrinsic element in DNA/RNA activities.

    Thank you for the history.

  18. Mar 23, 2004 #17
    Well, I'm sure that the discovery of reverse transcriptase in 1970 by Baltimore and Temin caused everyone to take a moment to think about what had been going on in the molecular biology community and the direction of research. After all, it did net them (and Delbucco) a Nobel Prize a few years later. (Way before my time, so I can't speak from personal experience.) I would not be surprised to hear that many did a careful reaccessment of their work as well as the general thrust of many lines of inquiry in the field. As I mentioned earlier, in terms of the fundamentals, I can't imagine that the medium of genetic information flow would actually undercut the essential crux of evolutionary biology - natural selection operating upon a variable population in response to the environment and all that.

    I know reverse transcriptase has been found to play a role with respect to telomerase activity, although I can't quite recall the details. Trying to pick apart the in vivo function of a protein or macromolecular assembly is never a trivial task, so I'm sure there is much healthy debate in the community. I work with an enzyme that, two decades after first being isolated and characterized, is still a mystery as to its natural physiological function (although there are some very good ideas, some of which are probably pretty close). So I empathize quite well with trying to deal with a system that is still on the elusive side.
  19. Mar 24, 2004 #18
    Question on "evolutionary biology"

    Mike H said
    This is a bit out of context of the thread, but in the general area of "evoltionary biology" I understand that all bio-organisms originated from a single organism of the utmost simplicity. Besides being anti-dogmatic, what is wrong with a model that many simple organisms were created under a gradient of environmental conditions, to the extent that evolution follows a parallel model of growth, formation, branching etc? This would imply that the small differences in various genetic structures does not imply close kinship, necessarily. Monkeys and humans appear similar, in all the modes that are observed, but only because their original structure was similar.

    One surviving organism seems statistically unlikely compared to survivors from many, a huge number, of a variety of structures.
  20. Mar 24, 2004 #19
    The idea that we are in fact descended from a pool of common ancestors and not just a single common ancestor has been discussed, most notably by http://www.life.uiuc.edu/micro/faculty/faculty_woese.htm [Broken] that you may be interested in reading on this topic.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  21. Mar 26, 2004 #20
    Evolution does follow a model of "growth, formation, branching, ect.... " If you are applying that evolutionary theory impleis that monkeys are our ancestors, it does not. They are on a different branch then humans.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook