Thoughts?

>>8982001
I think this is pure bullshit. I'm entitled to my own opinion so don't try to argue with me.

>>8982001
>literally getting cucked by retroviruses

central dogma is for faggots

>>8982001
Central Dogma is high school-tier bullshit which helps freshmen understand how genetic material is transcribed, nothing more. It's worth shit more than simplifying a complex process for brain-dead bio majors.

>>8982001
Badly named, in my opinion. Science should have no dogmas.

>>8982001
It's only used to help people with no previous background in biology grasp a little bit of gene expression.

Does this actually bother people?

>>8982398
The guy who came up with the phrase literally did not know what the word Dogma meant. It's kept around because it's funny.

>>8982001
this is pretty much giving someone a nutrient pill and telling them it is food, it's not an entirely innacurate description but all the flavour is lost. As is so often the case in complex processes that are simplified for school.

I think a lot of the issue is down to making it easier for the teachers to understand and teach rather than school children to grasp. I think you can go into more detail earlier without leaving people behind if you (as a teacher) actually know your shit enough to explain it clearly.

Having said this, I am not a school teacher so I dunno how retarded school kids are nowdays, if you brainlet first years don't wanna listen to me in lectures then thats on you.

>>8982412
>Does this actually bother people?
the virgins here seem upset

>>8982001
Central dogma is pretty basic, its a good thing to remember for beginners learning about transcription and translation.

Obviously it doesn't apply to things like bacteria though and the entire concept is turned upside down. Still I don't have a problem with it, i'm sure there's basic shit like this that doesn't apply to higher level stuff in other scientific fields that high school teachers teach their students.

>>8983815
but it does happen in bacteria just without a nucleus and you're right it's more complicated than that most of the time (eg. introns and exons)

File: 1483697858549.jpg (287KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 768x576px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laR-GpSPTTU

>>8983822
I meant bacteria with the enzyme reverse transcriptase which contradicts the whole central dogma thing since RNA is converted back into DNA. I believe the enzyme is present in most bacteria as an energy conservation type thing. I mostly only know about it from its practices in PCR though.

Splicing is also pretty spoopy in eukaryotic protein synthesis.

>>8982398
scientists should be educated in humanities before speaking

>>8982175
Retrovirus don't cuck Central dogma. It's positive RNA virus like rubella that cucks it.

Retrovirus follows Central dogma

>>8983921
Not as spooky as mi RNA . Man those are one stealthy fuckers

>>8982098
You're an idiot who isn't even making an argument. I'm entitled to my own opinion so don't try arguing with me.

I recall in my first year they covered their bases by saying the arrow between RNA and DNA can go both ways.

They were adamant however in saying once it goes to amino acids, it cant go back to nucleic acids, and to my knowledge it has remained that way.

>>8987067
>They were adamant however in saying once it goes to amino acids, it cant go back to nucleic acids, and to my knowledge it has remained that way.

that would be revolutionary, to find a mechanism which can produce functional DNA coding for a protein where the input is just the mature, fully folded protein.
it seems unlikely but who knows

>>8983930
That's not a terrible idea. Lot of cocky assholes forming their own opinions about shit, then callin me a stupid fuck. Maybe everyone should study humanities and ethics.

>>8987081

Im highly doubtful. Most amino acids are encoded for by multiple codons, so even if an enzyme could generate RNA codons from their corresponding amino acids it would all over the place and completely unrecognisable from the original transcript used.

>>8987081
You already found the mechanism. You need to learn how to control it.

>>8987092
I don't see how that would be an issue at all. Similar to tRNA, you could have an identifier molecule with an attached codon corresponding to the tRNA codon required for that amino acid (or the anticodon? not thinking about that right now, but depends if it's producing RNA or DNA). If the organism it was discovered in had different codon codes though, that would be an issue for utilizing it in other species. but codon use is fairly conserved even in bacteria, if i remember correctly.
what i think is the issue is there would need to be a way to unfold the protein, create an environment able to do that, so they can all be individually recognized (the amino acids). but imagine a proteosome with a mechanism that also recognizes each individual amino acid as it is going through and records it according to an elongating RNA or DNA molecule. not outside the realm of possibility.
>>8987095
what?

>>8987095
oh i see what you're saying, no i have the theory, the actual mechanics of how that would work on a cellular level using proteins is another story

>>8983815
>Obviously it doesn't apply to things like bacteria though
bullshit

the core concept of the central dogma is that proteins are created by nucleic acids with RNA as intermediates

there's no mechanism known to go from proteins to RNA, and the fact that rna can be transcribed back into DNA doesn't disprove the fact that DNA is the information carrying content of life

>>8987121
and dont' come at me with "RNA carries information too", RNA isn't stable enough longterm to act as information storage

>>8987128
ssRNA isn't stable enough longterm to act as information storage*

>>8987132
wait fuck me what about ssRNA viruses.

>>8987136
RNA viruses are SHIT at survival outside a host.

>>8987142
eh it's still information storage, clearly stable enough for the purpose. but really im just being argumentative, i agree with what you're saying

>>8987143
I view it more as an exception that proves the rule - yes, there's viruses that use RNA as their primary information storage, but they require near constant replication to maintain genomic integrity. besides, if we're talking life as we know it, viruses only fit the definition of life by the vaguest, most permissive definitions of life, the definitions that are so loose they're useless.

and all of that aside, the anon who said the central dogma doesn't apply to bacteria doesn't know what the fuck they're talking abou t

>>8987148
Yea you really have to define life to make that call on viruses. and then prions! I always found it interesting how the simplest way of replicating one's self also seems to represent some of the most resilient forms of "life", prions especially difficult to destroy.

opinions on >>8987117 ?

>>8987162
that post still doesnt address the fundamental issue of degenerate codons, and there's a whole host of post translational modifications that complicate the whole issue of translation amino acids to anticodons. and that's not even getting into species specific non-canonical bases/codons! plus, codon bias is a real, species specific thing, and the mechanism proposed by that anon doesn't address it at all.

>codon use is fairly conserved in bacteria
jesus christ that anon doesn't know what what they're talking about

>>8987169
it's my post, but that's exactly what i was looking for, why that wouldnt really be possible. I don't think it is, but who knows.
>jesus christ that anon doesn't know what what they're talking about
huh i thought it was fairly conserved, the codon chart, between prokaryotes and eukaryotes but i really don't remember for sure

>>8987202
there's a lot of consistency between euks and prots in terms of the most common codons but bacteria are also where you see the vast majority of non-canonical bases and codons. if you were going to look anywhere in biology to find the weird variation in genetic storage, bacteria are where you'd go first

>>8987218
gotcha, and bacteria is where a mechanism like that would be found.