A new study, we are told,”turns our picture of the nucleus upside down”.
Researcher: These non-coding RNAs are once considered as “junk”. In recent years, however, researches have revealed vital roles of non-coding RNA, such as in gene regulation and maintaining chromosome structure
What? It turns out it is not junk. It needs managing but it isn’t junk. “Our results reveal how a family of proteins that was long considered an oddity of nature, turns foes into friends,” says Didier Trono. And almost nothing the Darwinians told us is true.
Rob Sheldon responds, “I think this is more than enough justification for the last 20 years of ID. Now can we get past the meme that ID isn’t science? That’s so 2005.” He is referring to the fact that the ID folk never thought it was junk. One reason the ID folk were supposed to be wrong was that junk DNA proved Darwinism.
The technical term is functional pseudogene and what it does in this case (creating sensitivity to pain) could be a mixed blessing, depending on your circumstances.
Notice that the neurons aren’t being called “junk neurons,” as in the exploded concept of vast libraries of “junk DNA.” Quite the contrary, they are given the somewhat glamorous cachet of “dark” neurons, as in “dark matter.” Perhaps something has been learned from the collapse of the concept of “junk DNA.”
The Y chromosome has been notoriously difficult to sequence due to repetitive elements. Junk, right? Now, researchers from the University of Rochester have found a way to sequence a large portion of the Y chromosome in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster—the most that the Y chromosome has been assembled in fruit flies. The research, published […]
Some researchers wondered whether all that junk DNA supposedly left over from Darwinian evolution actually did something after all so they tested the idea: Patches of seemingly meaningless DNA dotted throughout the genome might actually have a function: helping cells to survive starvation. Two studies published in Nature on 16 January suggest that these stretches […]
Researchers Nigel Goldenfeld and Thomas Kuhlman noticed that “half of the human genome is made up of retrotransposons [jumping genes, “junk DNA”], but bacteria hardly have them at all” and wondered what would happen if they just inserted some: “We thought a really simple thing to try was to just take one (retrotransposon) out of […]
And we are not sure which ones they are. From ScienceDaily: Research Centre (CNIO) reveals that up to 20% of genes classified as coding (those that produce the proteins that are the building blocks of all living things) may not be coding after all because they have characteristics that are typical of non-coding or pseudogenes […]
From ScienceDaily: Scientists at the MDI Biological Laboratory and the University of Maine have discovered that genetic material in the cell that was previously thought to be “junk” because of its apparent lack of function likely plays a part in regulating genetic circuits responsible for regeneration in highly regenerative animals. … The discovery of these […]
From ScienceDaily: Researchers have captured video showing how pieces of DNA once thought to be useless can act as on-off switches for genes. These pieces of DNA are part of over 90 percent of the genetic material that are not genes. Researchers now know that this “junk DNA” contains most of the information that can […]
Abstract: Seventeen years after the sequencing of the human genome, the human proteome is still under revision. One in eight of the 22 210 coding genes listed by the Ensembl/GENCODE, RefSeq and UniProtKB reference databases are annotated differently across the three sets. We have carried out an in-depth investigation on the 2764 genes classified as […]
With respect to “A “junk DNA” jumping gene is critical for embryo cell development, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson writes to say, In personal correspondence over the past couple of years with a tenured geneticist at a major university who is a “junk DNA” proponent, I’ve pointed out that “x has no function” propositions in […]
From David Klinghoffer at ENST, on Darwinism and the recent find that junk DNA can alter genitalia: The “junk” view, once a prized piece of evidence for neo-Darwinian theory, is thus reduced to the province of the benighted, the reactionaries who “still refer to [it] as ‘junk’ DNA,” after science has already passed them by. Having […]