As cited by their Nobel Prize, it is DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Please do not confuse scientific facts with google searches you've done.
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/
Please review this up to date article with how DNA turns into protein, in case you are still needing more reference http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to-...
That's not the central dogma; it's the misinterpretation of what the central dogma states, which I pointed out in my above comment.
Please follow the link I gave in my earlier comment. I'll quote the pertinent section here for you:
The Central Dogma: "Once information has got into protein it can't get out again".
Here's a follow-up article by Crick, from 1970 (which he wrote in response to repeated misinterpretations of what he'd originally stated):
http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/CrickCe...
I do not believe that you have reviewed my second link which takes you through how DNA goes to RNA then to protein. Yes it's mRNA, but mRNA is RNA.
The inheritable material from DNA is in the nucleotides on the inside of the double helix. Please review the Nature link to understand how DNA goes to RNA and then protein.
In your original post, you state:
Central dogma reminder: DNA -> RNA -> Protein
and what I'm actually arguing with is your description of what the central dogma is stating. Because it actually states
Nucleic Acid --> Protein
My criticism was a technical one regarding information flow, and I wasn't trying to argue against the importance of developmental factors downstream of genes to the production of complexity.
Sorry if I seem pedantic, but we have to be careful with our terminology, because otherwise as soon as someone learns about reverse transcription they write an article saying how the central dogma is dead.
I believe that we both wanted the same thing (accurate information) and I was willing to be simplistic in how the central dogma was presented bc it's straightforward to grasp without talking about mRNA/tRNA/nucleic acids/helicase/etc
I felt like you were initially distracting from the simplistic view that everyone who hasn't studied genetics could understand.
Solid sidebar and I apologize for my tone and thank you for talking about your side with me!!
Have a great day internet friend that loves genetics as well!!