Every single event in every cell, including brain cells, is governed by DNA
Sounds like a dogma regurgitated by a non expert..
I rote learned this doing biochemistry 50 yrs ago
Of course there is an input from the environment..
and then there is RNA... which is much more than a DNA subservient messenger
especially when it is a Pfizer R*NA which hijacks the cell to make it a spike protein factory
the spike protein is part of the Pfizer genSome not the human genome..
I was really behind that idea until I watched this video...
Everyone knows that the exact same genome can be expressed in countless different ways. Identical twins do not look exactly alike. As they grow older, they sometimes look quite different. DNA responds to countless different environments and stimuli. I do not know if it responds to electricity, as this speaker says, but if it does that is not surprising, and in no way changes the fact the DNA is the sole mediator of all biological phenomena. If electricity affects the form or structure of an organism, it can only do that by affecting DNA outputs. (Not the DNA itself.)
Sounds like a dogma regurgitated by a non expert..
No, it is the "central dogma" of biology as described by experts. That's what they call it.
Saying it happens any other way is like saying a computer program might be executed by the ALU instead of the CPU. There is only one mechanism that controls cells. Nothing else has been discovered.
and then there is RNA... which is much more than a DNA subservient messenger
especially when it is a Pfizer R*NA which hijacks the cell to make it a spike protein factory
the spike protein is part of the Pfizer genSome not the human genome..
All viruses hijack cell mechanisms to produce different proteins. Everyone knows that. Obviously what the biologists mean by the central dogma is that DNA is the only source of control that the cell itself exerts. Other forces can disrupt that. The CPU is the only thing that can read and execute instructions, but a spark or other external stimulus can disrupt the CPU and cause a malfunction. That does not mean the ALU or the display card suddenly takes over and starts executing code.
The RNA produced by the organism is completely subservient to the DNA. That is in a healthy, uninfected cell. A cell that is infected by a virus (or an mRNA vaccine) is no longer under control of the organism that cell is part of. It is a different organism. It is a sort of parasite.
The CPU
equating DNA with a CPU???
perhaps a little simplistic
maybe IBM can make a cell
maybe not
Amelia Casamassimi,1 Alfredo Ciccodicola,2,3,* and Monica Rienzo4
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
Transcriptional regulation is a critical biological process that allows the cell or an organism to respond to a variety of intra- and extracellular signals, to define cell identity during development, to maintain it throughout its lifetime, and to coordinate cellular activity. This control involves multiple temporal and functional steps, as well as innumerable molecules, including transcription factors, cofactors, and chromatin regulators. It is well known that many human disorders are characterized by global transcriptional dysregulation, since most of the signaling pathways ultimately target transcription machinery. Indeed, many syndromes and genetic and complex diseases, including cancer, autoimmunity, neurological and developmental disorders, and metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, can be caused by mutations/alterations in regulatory sequences, transcription factors, splicing regulators, cofactors, chromatin regulators, ncRNAs, and other components of transcription apparatus. It is worth noting that advances in our understanding of molecules and mechanisms involved in the transcriptional circuitry and apparatus lead to new insights into the pathogenetic mechanisms of various human diseases and disorders. Thus, this Special Issue is focused on molecular genetics and genomics studies, exploring the effects of transcriptional misregulation on human diseases [
?
I hold that view. But it does not mean much. It is not profound. It is not even controversial from my point of view. It is like saying that a computer program is a long list of instructions recorded magnetically that are executed by the CPU. That does not tell you the purpose of the program, or whether it was written by someone with an evil intention. It just tells you what the program is in physical terms. That is all it is, on one level. A person or other living creature has only one fundamental purpose at the level of DNA -- to survive and reproduce. This causes all kinds of interesting meta-phenomena such as birdsongs, romantic poetry, and people making thermonuclear weapons. But at the atomic level, it is all DNA driven. DNA all the way down. (Of course life also involves metabolism, brain function, etc., but every aspect of living things is controlled by DNA.)
So: materialism (the bit I think is held by few) states specifically that the only purpose to human lives is to live and reproduce.
Based on what you write here (and elsewhere in fact) I think you have purpose to your life other than this, and therefore are not a materialist. Purpose is not the same as cause. You can believe in material-only causes (I do - no divine hand doing miracles for me) without saying there is no higher (than to live and reproduce) purpose.
Other than the purpose bit - I would be with you in agreeing with materialism. But - purpose is a big deal and encompasses all that stuff: morality, spirit, religion.
Display MoreSounds like a dogma regurgitated by a non expert..
I rote learned this doing biochemistry 50 yrs ago
Of course there is an input from the environment..
and then there is RNA... which is much more than a DNA subservient messenger
especially when it is a Pfizer R*NA which hijacks the cell to make it a spike protein factory
the spike protein is part of the Pfizer genSome not the human genome..
Agrees. During development cells are differentiated by chemical (non-DNA) signals. While in a foetus all of this is "programmed" by DNA, the data comes from environment only some of which comes from DNA.
What genetics has told us over that last 50 years is that the exquisitely complex ways that genes are switched on and off, and other cells processes occur, depends on both the cell DNA (nuclear and mitochondrial) and its environment.
The RNA produced by the organism is completely subservient to the DNA. That is in a healthy, uninfected cell. A cell that is infected by a virus (or an mRNA vaccine) is no longer under control of the organism that cell is part of. It is a different organism. It is a sort of parasite.
Foreign (to a cell) RNA can be used beneficially in signalling etc: so you might want to view it as a symbiont on those cases:
Everyone knows that the exact same genome can be expressed in countless different ways. Identical twins do not look exactly alike. As they grow older, they sometimes look quite different. DNA responds to countless different environments and stimuli. I do not know if it responds to electricity, as this speaker says, but if it does that is not surprising, and in no way changes the fact the DNA is the sole mediator of all biological phenomena. If electricity affects the form or structure of an organism, it can only do that by affecting DNA outputs. (Not the DNA itself.)
Scientists engineer new tools to electronically control gene eexpressio
Using electricity to control gene expression has opened a new field of research and while such electrogenetic systems have been previously identified they have lacked precision during the presence or absence of electrical signals, limiting their applications. The newly proposed system, with engineered promoters, allows such accuracy to be obtained for the first time using electrical stimulus in bacteria.
equating DNA with a CPU???
Actually, a ribosome resembles a CPU. The DNA is the code that converts to RNA, which is then read by the ribosome. (As I am sure you know.)
perhaps a little simplistic
I think they are conceptually similar to a remarkable extent.
So: materialism (the bit I think is held by few) states specifically that the only purpose to human lives is to live and reproduce.
I agree that is an oversimplification, held by only a few. Not by me. At the level of DNA, the only purpose of the cell is to live and reproduce, but evolution gave rise to countless metaphenomena such as vision, predation or intelligence, and these things have their own set of exigencies. I think all aspects of life when broken down to their "elementary particles" (underlying basics) do come out to be either preservation of life or reproduction. But the high level expressions of these aspects have their own logic and structure. Novels such as "Pride and Prejudice" are fundamentally about human reproduction -- about sex, that is. A man from Mars would see it that way. But sex is so complicated and so intertwined with culture, tradition and society that just saying "the book is about sex" tells you almost nothing about it. You would miss 99% of what it has to say. It is about many other aspects of society as well, but look carefully and I think you will see that at a fundamental biological level they are all rooted in either survival or reproduction. Those are the only two fundamental forces of life. Everything has to come down to them, because there isn't anything else to come down to.
A computer does "nothing but" execute instructions. Every single possible action of a computer boils down to op codes activating CPU components. Every action has that physical basis of control, and none other. But if all you do is watch the CPU functions on a monitor, you will have no idea what the program is doing, or why a program from Adobe is annoying. To understand that, you have to know about the personality of the guy who founded Adobe and the people he hired. It is a metaphenomenon far removed from the actions of the CPU. Yet every single expression of that annoying behavior is an action of the CPU. Every thought in your mind, every calorie metabolized by you, new cells developed, birth and death, evolutionary change, are all governed, shaped, and put in motion by DNA.
Scientists engineer new tools to electronically control gene eexpressio
This is a new way to hijack cellular functioning. It is the fourth method I know of: viral takeover of ribosomes; retroviral taking over the DNA itself; mRNA vaccine takeover of ribosomes; and now, electronic gadgets to reach into the nucleus and change gene expression. Gene expression is normally controlled by the environment and stimuli. Perhaps jolts of static electricity are among the stimuli that trigger gene expression, in which case nature has been doing what these scientists are up to. Probably, the scientists will get better at it and apply it in beneficial ways, similar to the way researchers learned to infect cells with mRNA encased in lipids, which is functionally similar to infecting cells with a virus. In this case the infection prevents or reduces COVID.
maybe IBM can make a cell
maybe not
Let the CPU mutate..sometimes
..there is no IF,THEN.ELSE program in the genome..
IBM might have a few more decades before they make a functioning human cell
Actually, a ribosome resembles a CPU.
Especially if there are 6-30 million "CPU -resembling ribosomes" per cell
Especially if there are 6 million "CPU -resembling ribosomes" per cell
That would be an MPP computer architecture. Seriously. We call them CPU (central processor units) in computers, but that term is becoming obsolete. All modern computers have multiple CPUs working in parallel, so they aren't exactly "central" any more, are they? There are 10.6 million processors in one of the Chinese supercomputers.
CPUs are no longer central but I think they still use von Neumann architecture. I read von Neumann's original papers years ago. It is astounding how well he defined a stored program computer even before there was such a thing. He was a superlative genius, with a talent for practical engineering applications, which is a rare thing. He later directed the construction of the world's second stored program computer at the IAS (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.) It was gigantic leap in technology.
Of course the comparison of CPUs to ribosomes is merely suggestive, not meant to be taken literally. Artificial neural networks (ANN) resemble natural neural networks in the brain. They were inspired by them. But there are vast differences between them.
There is one biological technology that might actually be incorporated in future computers: DNA storage. This would be many orders of magnitude smaller and faster than any storage now available. You could fit all of the data in the world into a 1-liter container. This has been done. Writing is slow, reading is faster, and reproduction is far faster than any human technology. Prof. George Church at Harvard is working on this. He encoded his own biology textbook in DNA, and then made 70 million copies. He said it was "the most widely reproduced biology textbook in history," which is true, in a sense.
I read von Neumann's original papers years ago. It is astounding how well he defined a stored program computer even before there was such a thing. He was a superlative genius, with a talent for practical engineering applications, which is a rare thing. He later directed the construction of the world's second stored program computer at the IAS (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.) It was gigantic leap in technology.
Ada Lovelace beat him to the first description and program for a stored memory computer in 1843. And wrote a programme for it to calculate Bernoulli's numbers. The program was intended for punched metal plates running on a Babbage steam-powered 'Difference Engine' that was never completed. The plates could store up to 50 digits each
"Lovelace observed a fundamental principle of the machine, that the operations, defined by the cards, are separate from the data and the results. She observed that the machine might act upon things other than number, if those things satisfied mathematical rules. “Supposing”, she wrote:
“that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent.”
She thought about how the engine might do algebra, how it “weaves algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard loom weaves flowers and leaves”, and how it might make new discoveries; “We might even invent laws for series or formulæ in an arbitrary manner, and set the engine to work upon them, and thus deduce numerical results which we might not otherwise have thought of obtaining.”
The only thing I dread more than reading about il dottore is reading someone using his story to deride LENR as a whole.
The only thing I dread more than reading about il dottore is reading someone using his story to deride LENR as a whole.
Since the article was all about “Rossi cold fusion reactor”s, you should not worry.
However, they did use an MFMP image rather than a real Rossi reactor image.
Rather than yet another article on a fraudster perhaps the Ukrainian astrophysicists can focus on cold fusion news someplace nearer to Ukraine..
there might be some options to replace Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
and the nearby fossil fuel one
The only thing I dread more than reading about il dottore is reading someone using his story to deride LENR as a whole.
Agreed.
You'd think it would make those commenting on LENR (in a supportive way) more inclined to be skeptical. I remember arguing here against very many for a long time convinced Rossi had working LENR (some still are) when the only evidence we had was that his demos were wrong and he resisted any attempt to do a non-fraudulent demo (it would have been easy).
I remember all the excuses made at the time.
LENR would be better served by a healthy dose of skepticism.
yet another article on a fraudster
u
r perhaps the Ukrainian astrophysicists can focus on cold fusion news someplace nearer to Ukraine.
maybe the astrophysicists can enliven their German sojourn
to cover ICCF25 in the same manner as ICCF24
That would be an MPP computer architecture.
That would be "wetware"?. Bray has espoused a book about
a rather extended metaphor.
I prefer Elliot's "The wasteland.".
"
The central argument of Wetware is that an individual cell contains thousands of enzymes, each performing reiterative, molecular processes. Enzymes act similarly to transistors, in which enzymatic allostery or competitive inhibition alters activity, much like a change in voltage over a transistor. Furthermore, these enzymes, like transistors, can be ordered in pathways, or electronic circuits, to perform logic operations. This design allows cells to sense a variety of environmental stimuli and take action necessary for survival. However, the similarities between the cell and electronics end there. Unlike electronic circuits, there are no wires connecting enzymes in a pathway. Instead, the cell relies on diffusion and compartmentalization in the form of organelles. Additionally, cellular circuitry is noisy due to its analog nature, and the outcome can be difficult to predict, even in the most well-characterized pathways.
Bray acknowledges the difficulties in comparing a cell to electronics. Specifically, his metaphor fails to represent the genetic component of a cell, which is vital and adds to the complexity of cellular function. Cells are not simply the sum of their protein components, or “hardware.” The number and type of enzymes available for molecular processes is the result of gene expression, which is also highly influenced by environmental stimuli and enzymatic pathways. Thus, the molecular circuits, or hardware, of a cell is malleable. Using Bray’s metaphor, this is akin to electronic devices adding and removing transistors depending on the environmental conditions. In this respect, no modern computer can compare to even the most basic of cells. Above all, the genetic material provides all necessary instructions to form another cell, thereby allowing cells to replicate, a unique property of life. Although Bray does touch on the idea of genetic circuits, he only examines them in isolation from all other cellular components.
