“Whether the genetic remnants of human endogenous retroviruses can cause disease in people is still under study.”
“Junk DNA could unlock new treatments for neurological disorders as scientists discover its breaks and repairs affect our protection against neurological disease.”
“Rice University bioengineers are using deactivated Cas9 proteins to target key segments of the human genome and synthetically trigger the transcription of human genes.”
Formerly thought of as “junk DNA,” their mobility may help explain unique problem-solving abilities. “I literally jumped on the chair…” one researcher said.
Researchers: With the special case of junk DNA in mind, we explore how to model and understand the causal specificity, reach, and corresponding efficacy of difference makers in biology.
Whoops, it did.
Perhaps science is a bit more like business than we think. In business, products get rebranded when vice presidents outnumber customers for the old brand.
This Phys.Org press release isn’t about a particularly interesting scientific paper. However, what the authors tells us about how this paper came to be is very interesting. And, I may add, very revealing. Listen to what they have to say about their “aha” moment: Inside some of the data that a standard mapping algorithm normally Read More…
Can someone please tell them, the Titanic has sunk — its seaworthiness is no longer an issue?
And the winner is “genomic dark matter”: “Most DNA in the human genome still has unknown functions and is referred to as “genomic dark matter.”
Okay, why, until recently, did researchers think that “the majority of our genes were made up of junk DNA, which essentially didn’t do anything”? Because that vast sunken library of dead information (sheer randomness and waste) was a slam dunk for Darwinism, as politically powerful theistic evolutionist Francis Collins was quick to point out in The Language of God. (2007). If that’s not true, an argument for Darwinism is disconfirmed.
“the large proportion of our genome that does not instruct our cells to form proteins” The phrase is a bit longish, of course, but concision is usually a product of usage. It’s better than “non-coding DNA” because it’s more specific and limited as a privative. That is, there is a specific thing that that vast mass of DNA does not do. The longish phrase does not come with the implication that it doesn’t do anything.
Apparently, repeated sequences have a function: “Marshall explains that previous technology that was used to sequence the human genome made scientists “blind” to the fact that such sequences are, in fact, useful.”
Douglas Fox at SciAm: The salamanders would be on death’s door if they were human. “Everything about having a large genome is costly,” Wake told me in 2020. Yet salamanders have survived for 200 million years. “So there must be some benefit,” he said. The hunt for those benefits has led to some heretical surprises, potentially turning our understanding of evolution on its head.
When you think about it, it’s a better long-term strategy to predict that something has function than that it doesn’t.