Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dagl1 last won the day on June 23

Dagl1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Nice

About Dagl1

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sendai, Japan (currently)
  • Interests
    Science; molecular biology (RNA and neuroscience (synaptic plasticity)), (quantum) physics, programming, behavioral psychology.
  • College Major/Degree
    2-MSc biomedical sciences (molecular biology) Maastricht University --- Tohoku University
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Molecular biology
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

955 profile views
  1. The third X chromosome carries all of the DNA any X chromosome carries, this isn't much of a problem as X-inactivation leads to inactivation of most genes on the X chromosome (although not all of them potentially leading to some minor deviations from a person with only 2 X chromosomes). Surgically remove it? like when someone is just a fertilized egg cell? I suppose it's way too difficult to find an entangled X chromosome and remove it without destroying anything or changing some important nuclear topology. If it would be possible, then... most likely you just get a person with 2 X chromosomes. I feel like either I have misunderstood your question or you may have been able to come up with these answers yourself, didn't you say you have a PhD in genetics? What do you imagine the third X to carry or what extra function would it have? -Dagl
  2. Dagl1

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    While the regulation of the genes, alternative splicing and possibly even the folding and post-translational functions of some proteins may be affected, eventually the dinosaurs DNA will produce a cell which is like that of the original dinosaur. DNA on its own doesn't really do much as you said, and of course if you take a human egg cell with dinosaur DNA you will most likely not get a dinosaur (or a human for that matter). However if you manage to keep said cell alive, then eventually the DNA that is transcribed will most likely replace all the proteins of a human with those of a dinosaur, the issue here being that I am not sure if such a cell could be kept alive at all, seeing as many transcription factors may not have much conservation in there binding motifs. But as new cells are produced continuously, wouldn't you say that the apparatus to make new cells is build into the DNA, thereby containing all the information to build or even identify an organism? I feel like my point isn't very... clear right now so I hope its at least clear enough; DNA on its own doesn't do much and requires a functional cell to be interpreted, but within the DNA code is the information to build such a functional cell with which to interpret the DNA, therefor the DNA does contain all the information of an organism. Now to be fair though, saying "all the information" may be a bit of a fallacy, we should speak of the chromatin including epigenetic marks and even then there will be some exceptions (there was a paper released a few weeks back showing that microRNA led to transgenerational responses in worms I think, but even then those microRNA's are encoded by the genome). -Dagl
  3. Dagl1

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    I suppose after this comment I'll leave it at it or we may need a separate thread for this, but; A I would always ask my doctor why, and expect him/her to be able to explain why its good for me, B as someone in the field I would then possibly even be able to disagree with my doctor but C this forum isn't the doctor, someone has a (possibly wrong) idea and wants to discuss it. Saying they are wrong without giving any reason is just not helpful. Yes after many reason have been given and all of them are ignored (as is the case in some other threads where someone has an "theory" and subsequently keeps ignoring everyone or picking only the few things they can counter to respond to), we could say "go learn [insert field] as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about". But if we just do that to everyone we disagree with, there's not going to be many interesting discussions and people won't learn anything. Let's say I have some fringe idea based on my knowledge of RNA dynamics, and you think its not likely or just plain wrong; how far will we get if I present you the reasons for why I believe said fringe idea, and you just say "welp you got no idea what you are talking about". If it is so obvious, why not respond at least with some amount of detail and use said authority to up lift other people at least a little bit to your level of knowledge. On a side note, I do definitely get, with the amount of crackpot theories, ideas and ignorant people on these forums, that some people don't feel like answering in detail as its not worth the time, but I just think that everyone should try to be above that, especially when its a new member (assuming this isn't a secondary account of someone) and his points have not been addressed properly and in detail yet. Anyway if you disagree or if we continue this discussion we should ask the mods if it can be separate thing as otherwise the thread is overtaken (@ mods, no need if this is the end of our discussion or we both agree to (dis)agree). -Dagl
  4. Dagl1

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    Pretty sure that is what I said;p I understand that authority can be used, but its also kinda cheap and even among experts of certain topics people can disagree, thus it is, in my opinion, pretty pointless to just shout out: SEE WHAT I HAVE ACCOMPLISHED, YOU ARE WRONG.
  5. Dagl1

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    True, but at least later you added some arguments, regardless though I think that if we can't bother to answer at least somewhat in detail, we should rather not say anything. At first I was like; "Ugh this guy... is just wrong, but its soo much effort to go over everything" but then I realized that it doesn't help anyone if I do that and also kind of defeats the purpose of a forum on which things are debated. -Dagl
  6. Dagl1

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    While I presume it is pointed towards the OP, this kind of response is extremely unhelpful. He will obviously retort with; "well what part of what I said is wrong & you are just using your authority to say something without even bothering to state any arguments". I agree that the OP should do a lot more research before stating something, but I feel like this just invites him to go on a tangent how people won't actually debate his arguments.
  7. Dagl1

    The inconvenient truth about genetics

    Allright I'll bite a little, but from what I have seen it is mostly a misunderstanding of how DNA works that makes you make these "assumptions". While I do think you have SOME understanding of biology, you seem to not know enough and thus say certain things are impossible. Reason 1: the genome does contain enough information. Well do you have any evidence for this; cell type specific transcription factors, cryptic transcription start sites, alternative polyadenylation, alternative splicing, post-transcriptional modifications, RNA secondary structures and post-translational modifications lead to a whole lot of diversity, can you give some actual evidence that there is not enough information within the genome or is this just what you believe? Reason 2: The genome only says how to build parts. If we don't have said fats, or essential vitamins or whatever, then the end products cannot be made, so you can definitely produce blueprints and use things which are not within the blueprints but come from somewhere else. I would like to say that a better analogy is that the genome encodes for tools with specific use-limitations which, when combined with the genome, lead to the production of both the factory and the end products. Reason 3: The genome does not determine which of its genes are used and when. Yes it does... epigenetic regulation is a result of the tools encoded by the genome, so indirectly the genome contains information for when parts of the genome are to be used. I don't get why you don't think this is the case, for instance CpG islands are encoded by the genome and DNA methylation enzymes, when guided by cell type specific adaptors and/or by lack of transcriptional activity, will methylate these CpG islands which leads to reduced transcription. All of these things are encoded by the genome, right? Reason 4: The genome cannot guide its products. There's plenty of signals both within the RNA and amino acids (look up nuclear localization signal) which direct proteins, alternatively see the Golgi (which is encoded by the genome) and there's evidence that parts of the DNA codes and/or binding factors/histones lead to chromatin localization within the nucleus (see CTCF and Lamina associated domains, and see super enhancers and transcription factories). Reason 5: No way of reaching the next level. Take a course in genetic embryology, look up hox genes. I don't want to go and explain all of of biological development but for instance, go look at sonic hedgehog and its influence in the formation of your hands and then tell us why this is not encoded by the genome. Reason 6: The limited role of developmental proteins. DamID now I have to explain developmental biology anyway; so lets say the genome has a developmental program to turn cell A into cells that proliferate outwards. This program is activated by a signalling protein and the cells will proliferate away from the source of the signalling protein, the further away they are, the less they proliferate. This is how your fingers can grow. Now you may think, why is it only in 1 direction, and there are other gradients with signals coming from closer to your body which signal the cells not to proliferate, and in between each source of the first developmental signal source are inhibitory sources, thereby the cells will only proliferate in the shape of a finger. This is a super simplified example, but just shows that this can all be done by the genome. Reason 7: Lack of construction endpoint. Don't get what you mean, the genome encodes for both a functional embryonic cell as well as functioning cells in adults, but we get a functional cell from our mother's egg cells. Just DNA alone would not produce anything, there needs to be a factory present already, which has been evolving for SOME time. Reason 8: Diversity from the same genome. Why don't you just learn about histone modifications, DNA modifications, post-transcriptional processing and cell-type specific transcription factors, or just take a course in epigenetics before saying this are impossible. Reason 9: Designed systems can’t repair themselves. Chaperone proteins can sometimes repair themselves, but regardless, your idea of cutting your finger and it"repairing itself" is just plain wrong. The cells die and new cells proliferate filling the gap. You seem very keen on explaining how things work but then you also fundamentally misunderstand certain things... Reason 10: Development is not construction. Construction of the plans to build things (and when to use them etc), construction of the tools and construction of the required materials is all done by the genome, but these tools then interact further with the genome to change things so that developmental progress is made. See all the other points for a more indepth explanation of this. Just learn some biology or at least give real reason why you believe what you believe. You just say "this isn't possible" but then there's soo much evidence that it is possible... -Dagl
  8. Yes but your process isn't entirely... problem solving. When we propose an idea, we then test this idea logically and try look at with a skeptical eye, in order to find any problems with said idea and if we find them, look for solutions. He means he has been working in a science-related field (academically, I think, but I could be mistaken). You are saying "Hey this is an interesting idea, go figure it out, btw I am going to win a nobel prize, people should take my ideas seriously" yet there is no reason to take your ideas seriously as you do not show WHY your idea would work. You then put the burden of proof on us scientists and say: "well I just provide the idea, you guys make it work". But if we would do this for every person who has some wild idea, do you think actual science would actually ever be performed? Don't you think that the people who spend most of their daily lives involved in and thinking about science will have a lot of ideas they may want to test, don't you think they have good and better ideas than someone without much scientific knowledge? Why not just learn about a specific field? I think it has been mentioned before and you may have just read over it or ignored it but I will say it again: Thinking outside the box is useful, but you need to know WHAT the box is and what the limits of said box are. Yes there have been leaps of knowledge, but most of the progress happens in tiny steps (think of the quote "we are standing on the shoulders of giants"), so while it could be possible that your idea is amazing, even then you will need to show it. And if your idea is SO amazing, at least have the decency to adress, immediately (and not later when people point it out) the flaws of your problem and how to fix them. As a future nobel prize winner this shouldn't be too difficult... So instead of going: Hey x is a great idea, figure it out! Go: Hey x is a great idea, now obviously y z and q are reasons why x doesn't work but we can use u and o method to make y and z go away, and while I am not 100% sure if I am interpreting this correctly but I think using method v would allow us to use x without q being a problem. Then there are of course some other things to look out for such as i and n but I think that this isn't a fundamental problem and maybe you see a way around these potential problems. Please learn from what people with a lot of science experience (I am just a beginner) tell you and explain to you... It would also help to get off your high horse.. -Dagl
  9. Ahh that makes sense, I can imagine that if its more important for bacterial infections and such things that those animals who do not have a stomache have other measures of reducing infections and bacterial colonization (or they encourage it more, using even more bacteria within their GI tract). Thanks!
  10. Ahh my bad for being unclear; I understand that there are other enzymes which work in a redundant or (additional) manner, but my question is; the acidity of the stomach seems to quite essential for digestion, so is it the specific diet that these egg laying mammals have, which doesn't require the stomache or did they evolve some other digestion-related mechanisms instead?
  11. Dagl1

    Well, my first day on this forum was very nice!

    Not a question but something more akin to advice; please realize that this is a science forum and while non-mainstream science is discussed, most discussions require cohesive, logical and rigorous testing of ideas and critical thinking skills. The few posts you have made so far are not super indicative of this and is represented in a score of -11 after 1 day on this forum. I have seen quite a lot of people get bummed out or angry because this forum doesn't just let them ramble whatever idea they and some get suspended. So I think it is important for you to try to be as rigorous as possible when presenting your ideas or discussing them. Welcome to the forum! -Dagl
  12. I currently don't have the time to look into that but I am curious; how do these species then digest peptides and a lot of the relatively hard to eat food? If you don't have any idea I'll look it up later. Cause otherwise the stomach acid will "burn"/destroy the cells in the intestinal tract. -Dagl
  13. It is a lot easier to make a system with compartmentalized functions. For instance, the stomach needs to both produce and be able to withstand large amounts of acidic material. The beginning of the small intestine subsequently neutralizes this acid and then starts to digest specific types of nutrients (proteins, fats and sugars) in an order (I can't remember what is taken up where, but each place is specialized to take up specific groups of nutrients). This then allows for specific groups of bacteria to sit in those niches helping the body even further. Lastly the water is taken up in the large intestine, something you wouldn't want to do before that as it would make it a lot more difficult to take up nutrients. Thus even if you would make 1 organ capable of doing all of these tasks, it would still follow the sequential nature of the current digestive track. Food needs to first be made into pieces that are easily taken up. Every nutrient type should be taken up as efficiently as possible. Lastly water needs to be taken up. Hope that helps -Dagl
  14. Dagl1

    replacing someone's entire DNA

    For science. (feel like this could become a cult slogan "for the greater good" becomes "for science.".) Your way should most likely leave the person alive, also since we have changed ALL the DNA, the radiation shouldn't be causing too many problems on the cancer-front. -Dagl for science.
  15. Dagl1

    replacing someone's entire DNA

    Oh that's a good one I didn't think about... But even when you do it quick enough, your T/B cells and macrophages will attack the body. Changing their DNA won't make them not attack the body, except if we would go over every B-cell individually and change each one to a different genetic code.