His argument really doesn't make any sense. While DNA may not actively direct the transport of collagen once it has left the cell the distribution of collagen producing cells is governed by different levels of gene expression in response to specific morphogenic signals which are themselves the protein products of DNA.
Using the same argument, one could say that firefighters are useless for putting out fires because they can not control the water after it has left the hose.
There's the story right there. Dr. Wells is a moonie who began his studies of biology with the approval and financing of Sun Myung Moon, the leader and founder of the Unification Church. This was after he was awarded a degree by the unification theological seminary and then a PhD in theology from Yale. His expressed purpose in studying evolutionary biology was to learn enough to show that Darwin was wrong. You might suspect that he isn't giving you the straight truth in anything he says. Consider that his purpose it not to present science, but to glorify Sun Myung Moon. He has said so himself. Wells is, in fact, a molecular and cell biologist from UC Berkeley. Wells is the author of Icons of Evolution in which he misrepresents the facts of evolution, all for the glory of Father Moon.
No matter what Wells may believe, the fact of the matter is that he only has one poorly written peer review article on his CV. That spells "FAIL" amongst any scientific circle.
In achondroplasia, the body is not capable of 'filling' its inherited (?), natural form and so a new map is formed. The same with the pirates leg. Yet shape is inherited.
And it does not conform to the chemical anatomical model of life. There is nowhere that it can be stored in physical terms, let alone inherited. Science has no grasp on it and so it does its best to forget about it. Medicine really would prefer to forget it for so many reasons.
Achondroplasia is caused by a mutation in the FGFR3 gene. It is inherited. Dwarfism is the map that is inherited. This mutation changes the biochemical reactions that occur during development and aging. People who have this mutation and pass it on to their children have children with achondroplasia. It is a dominant allele, so it is possible for someone with achondroplasia to pass on the non-mutated allele and have children without achondroplasia.
Why are humans and chimps different? It is because of differences in the sequence of bases in their genomes, isn't it? Or are you saying that if a human concentrated really hard that they could give birth to a chimp?
That's what con artists say when they are selling hippy pseudoscience.
The electromagnetic field was empirically measured in both cases.
Peer reviewed publications please.
To explain the normal variance of the population through the complex interactions of multiple genes is only a hypothesis and we should remember that there are subjective gains in accepting the hypothesis as a part of a web of theories that prove Eugenics, the materialist world view, the monopoly of the chemical anatomical model of health and the need to fund the HGP
It isn't a hypothesis. It is an observation. Change the genes, change the development. That is the observation.
So where are the peer reviewed scientific publications backing your assertions?
I am unsure how you jump from Hox genes being important in the embyological ordering of segments, which is pretty much what I said, to such details of shape as inheriting the recognisable facial features of your parents.
Because development is development. Hox genes are the engines of development, and it is this process that produces your facial features. Why do you think identical twins, which are genetic clones, look so much alike?
About the best I can find on the internet about the importance of electrical signals in cell differentiation and growth, which obviously only includes recent data thinking in this expanding subject is to be found at http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/23/4267.full.pdf
Did you forget that it is genes that control the responses to these electrical cues, and that it is genes that control the production of these electrical cues?
Perhaps it would be useful to explain to Elhardt for the purposes of his video the psychological mechanisms behind the assumption that all inheritance is in chromosomal DNA from a Cognitive Behavioural stand point....
Scientists have investigated epigenomic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation patterns histone packaging. Scientists have also studied phenotype plasticity. These are well known and well studied mechanisms that are heritable and do not directly involved changes in DNA sequence.
In the case of epigenetics, the effects are small compared to the differences seen between species. Also, epigenetic mechanisms are only able to carry a phenotype forward a few generations. Epigenetics can not explain the differences between species, which is one of the very important things that scientists are trying to explain.
Phenotype plasticity is even weaker than epigenetics. These phenotypes are triggered by environmental cues. However, the plasticity of a phenotype is a direct result of DNA sequence. You tan when exposed to UV light because of the genes you carry, as one common example.
I don't think anyone is arguing that phenotype can not change with environment. What you seem to be ignoring is how it relates to evolution and differences between species. From my knowledge, no one has shown that a human can give birth to a chimp just by thinking about it. Skydivers do not give birth to children with wings. Human ability is defined by our DNA, be it physical or mental.
We could call it the fundamental mental block. it makes the person unable to listen or understand arguments that contradict their personal experience.
I understand your arguments just fine. What we are looking for is evidence to back up your arguments. That is the only way we can dig in and have a rational discussion.
Those that study DNA all day will unquestioningly believe that DNA is everything important in the outside world.
I study proteins and DNA, and I happen to believe that post-translational modification, transcriptional regulation, environmental conditions, and host factors are important as well. I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what scientists think, and why they think it.
It is often thought that the sequencing of the human genome was the last hurdle for understanding how human's work. This isn't even close to the truth. The human genome was just the first step. The second huge project, as it relates to DNA specifically, is the International HapMap Project. This project is mapping haplotypes, or alleles if you will. Knowing the genome of 4 people is great, but how do humans differ in their DNA? That is what the HapMap project is all about.
Next, we have the Transcriptome Project which looks at what genes are turned on in a given cell/tissue in a given species. This is EXTREMELY important for understanding embryonic development and tissue differentiation. It is also important for understanding host immunity, cancer, and a whole host of important medical conditions.
Last, but not least, we have the Human Proteome Project. This project focuses on what functions the proteins actually have in a given environment.
You need all of this information together to understand the DNA sequence and how it impacts inheritance, species differentiation, disease, and evolution. Scientists are NOT focusing on just DNA, but it is a very important aspect as all of the other processes relate back to the specific DNA sequence.