Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonathansizz | Hacker News Reader

I'm not confused. Your link shows how DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into protein.

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...

View on HN

I understand, in general what you are saying, yet the links you're citing but you have yet to talk about mRNA. All of your links are from 1960/1970 concerning scientific politics before we established scientific fact like we have now.

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.

I really don't need a lesson on how transcription and translation work. I have a PhD in genetics. I am of course not disputing that DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into 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.

Ahhhhhh man, I apologize bc we definitely got our wires crossed.

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!!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com