Anyone else for the myth of junk DNA? Richard Dawkins, for one

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 13, 2011

'Junk DNA', Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

He certainly drew the desired Darwinian conclusion:

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA. “

– Jonathan Wells, author of The Myth of Junk DNA, p. 20

And he was wrong as a result. Just like these folk:

Jerry Coyne and Michael Shermer. Oh, and Francis Collins, though he may be coming round.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Tell you what Nick, since you think you can design a genome better than the one we find in life, lay it all out for me. I am a willing listener. But something tells me you are not going to be embarrassing God anytime soon!!! 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htmbornagain77_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Mung writes,
Find someone here who thinks the sole purpose of DNA is for building the organism that contains it. I’m not that person. If you cannot find someone here who believes that, it’s a strawman indeed. So yes. That’s the appropriate response.
I'm not the one defending the position that "junk DNA is a myth", and that most/all DNA is functional and "Darwinists" were stupid for ever thinking otherwise. If you agree with me, that junk DNA is NOT a myth, well then, welcome to my side! And too bad for Wells and the ID movement, that they can't convince even a sympathetic listener once the listener has been informed of the basic facts.NickMatzke_UD_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

The Myth of Junk DNA http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Jun.....1936599007 The ‘wrap up’ by Wells on page 87 is this; ‘So the onion test is a red herring. Why onion cells have five times as much DNA as human cells is an interesting question, but it poses no challenge to the growing evidence against the myth of junk DNA.’
This provides no answer, except mere assertion, against the points I raised. Some onions have 20 human genomes worth of DNA that appears to be completely unnecessary for building an onion. If Wells **explains** why this hard, empirical data doesn't support the pro-junk DNA side, then quote that! Otherwise, you've got nothing.NickMatzke_UD_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
In response? You guys do nothing but shout “STRAWMAN”, with no rebuttal argument, or just blatantly try to change the subject (bornagain77).
Find someone here who thinks the sole purpose of DNA is for building the organism that contains it. I'm not that person. If you cannot find someone here who believes that, it's a strawman indeed. So yes. That's the appropriate response.Mung_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Nick, the 'onion test' is addressed on pg 85-87 in Wells's book 'The Myth Of Junk DNA',,, If you don't have a copy you may order it here: The Myth of Junk DNA http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Junk-Jonathan-Wells-Ph-D/dp/1936599007 The 'wrap up' by Wells on page 87 is this; 'So the onion test is a red herring. Why onion cells have five times as much DNA as human cells is an interesting question, but it poses no challenge to the growing evidence against the myth of junk DNA.' ============= Notes: Jonathan Wells: On Francis Collins and Junk DNA - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hksGZcqJ5h4 Reference Notes For Jonathan Wells' Book - The Myth Of Junk DNA - Hundreds of Studies Outlining Function for 'Junk' DNA http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zGp3gRRDmA0J:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fcommand%3Ddownload%26id%3D7651+Sequence-dependent+and+sequence-independent+functions+of+%E2%80%9Cjunk%E2%80%9D+DNA:+do+we+need+an+expanded+concept+of+biological+information%3F+Jonathan+Wells&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCq0TQUSKYlr0KNNIDgaGKMM7b3z0iEGiKe_faSd0646SzaYSoCCcNavm523X5TgaGbdQPtDFmN6Yw8IexI44RokfsMKs6q-EEeM_vyYw-zaMB-h_7wKu8JjGREn_JF-CPlkSq&sig=AHIEtbRfG8rv_5eur2oifBsWxHdM_e731gbornagain77_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Hey Nick, speaking of details of science being ignored by Darwinists: Please tell me where the DNA code came from in the first place, this is a fairly significant detail: “an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.” Dr. Wilder-Smith DNA Enigma - Chemistry Does Not Create Information - Ashcraft http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5542033/ Stephen C. Meyer - The DNA Enigma http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-AmnVNc7jcFk/ A New Design Argument - Charles Thaxton Excerpt: "There is an identity of structure between DNA (and protein) and written linguistic messages. Since we know by experience that intelligence produces written messages, and no other cause is known, the implication, according to the abductive method, is that intelligent cause produced DNA and protein. The significance of this result lies in the security of it, for it is much stronger than if the structures were merely similar. We are not dealing with anything like a superficial resemblance between DNA and a written text. We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA is a message. True design thus returns to biology." http://www.arn.org/docs/thaxton/ct_newdesign3198.htm The DNA Enigma - Where Did The Information Come From? - Stephen C. Meyer - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4125886/ The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 Codes and Axioms are always the result of mental intention, not material processes https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1PrE2Syt5SJUxeh2YBBBWrrPailC3uTFMdqPMFrzvwDY "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107." (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.) Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/ “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010 etc.. etc..bornagain77_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

To avoid the conclusion that a lot of DNA is nonfunctional, you’re really going to argue that onions, of all things, *need* drastically different amounts of functional DNA to build themselves?
STRAWMAN!
What? Why? Look, it's very simple. 1. You guys say junk DNA is a myth. 2. I point out that one onion species has 5 times more DNA than humans. 3. I further point out that another onion species has ~25 times more DNA than humans. 4. I argue that it is therefore plausible that those onions have a lot of DNA they don't need. I.e., this is strong evidence for junk DNA, and for Dawkins's initial statement being correction. In response? You guys do nothing but shout "STRAWMAN", with no rebuttal argument, or just blatantly try to change the subject (bornagain77). This is why creationism/ID eventually loses in schools, courtrooms, etc., again and again and again. The actual details of the science do not support the endless-repeated and never-checked ID talking points.NickMatzke_UD_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

To avoid the conclusion that a lot of DNA is nonfunctional, you’re really going to argue that onions, of all things, *need* drastically different amounts of functional DNA to build themselves?
STRAWMAN!Mung_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Hey, bornagain77, in spite of our precise citations, in which it is clear the ET false prediction about the vast majority of "junk" DNA (not only a little amount), the can only appeal to an "onion".. Is this not called "argument from ignorance"? Committing the same error over and over.. "We don't know why onions DNA is longer than ours, so the vast majority of it must be junk, i.e. the origin of life must be chance and necessity and we must have evolved.." To Elizabeth Liddle: We're addressing ET false predictions (and ET bishop's false claims too) about the ***vast part*** of junk DNA in all species, not some strings of *apparent* "junk" value that seem to exist in DNA.Jonin_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

But to bring this back a little to the topic Nick, it is important to note just what you have chosen to ignore to focus on your theologically based 'bad design' argument: You have chosen to ignore the fact that we are dealing with a level of complexity that exceeds anything man has ever done in his most advanced computers by several orders of magnitude: Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism - November 2009 Excerpt: In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-of-life/ Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html And on top of this staggering complexity, complexity that should make any sane man drop to his knees and praise God, you have also chosen to ignore the sheer poverty that neo-Darwinian processes have in generating any functional complexity whatsoever: The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-03T11_09_03-07_00 When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ etc.. etc.. etc.. Brooke Fraser - Lord of Lords(Legendado Português) - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkF3iVjOZ1Ibornagain77_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Nick, Let's skip your theologically based 'bad design' argument for a minute and take your atheistic presuppositions to their logical conclusion. If neo-Darwinism and materialism are true then science would be impossible in the first place!! Thus, neo-Darwinism defeats itself with its own internal inconsistency towards first principles of science; Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a cause for objective morality; The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE "Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110227a This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground beliefs within a materialistic worldview; John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo ============ Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html etc.. etc.. etc.. Nick, perhaps you think this is all trivial, but I beg to differ!!! If you cannot establish a firm foundation onto which to make 'truth' claims in the first place, why in blue blazes should I pay any attention, whatsoever, to what you have to say about science???bornagain77_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Re: c-value enigma. Ah! Brilliant! That's exactly what I was talking about (and have been for years). Regarding your extremely vague suggestions that all of that extra DNA has some important function... Really? To avoid the conclusion that a lot of DNA is nonfunctional, you're really going to argue that onions, of all things, *need* drastically different amounts of functional DNA to build themselves? Go take the Onion Test. It was devised by T. Ryan Gregory -- the very same scientist who coined the term "c-value enigma", actually! http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/junk-dna-junk-s.html Re: the correlation between cell volume and genome size. This is well-known. There are several proposed explanations, e.g. "skeletal DNA" (genome size physically determines nucleus size, which determines cell size which is under selection for growth rate) and "not costly enough to remove" (slow-growing species have low population sizes and generation times, thus selective pressure against extra DNA). What all the explanations have in common is that most of the DNA of large genomes has no sexy "information" or "coding" function. At best it has a function in bulk, i.e. the "function" is taking up space, where the actual sequence doesn't matter as long as it doesn't cause problems. None of this is what the ID guys are talking about.NickMatzke_UD_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Well, I suppose he could have just been using it as a straw-man for his selfish gene theory. You know, if you want to make your theory look better than another theory make up a really stupid other theory to compare your theory with and then declare yours the victor. But surely Dawkins wouldn't do that.Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Dawkins is claiming all DNA is there to build bodies and that’s it’s only purpose. How stupid is that, yeah?
Pretty stupid. But did he really claim that?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Jonin:
We’re just saying, as opposite to what the most prominent evo-tists had as an inevitable result for epochs of evolution “noise” [i.e. another evolutionary false prediction] that the majority of DNA isn’t “junk”, but maybe is designed for a purpose.
Yes, it would be surprising, given the likely low metabolic cost of producing DNA, if there were not to be substantial stretches of "junk" - and we know that there are - pseudo genes, bits of old virus etc. And they are really useful to researchers because as they are not used for anything, they acquire mutations readily (mutations to them are not purged) and so help with the construction of genetic phylogenies. Of course it's possible that DNA may be more "expensive" to maintain than we think, and that therefore there may be a selective advantage to mutations that omit useless sections, reducing the amount of "Junk" likely to accumulate. But there does seem to be a fair bit of junk in there, as predicted. But also a fair bit of stuff which we are now discovering uses for - which is really exciting. Protein coding genes are fairly boring really. What is much more exciting are genes that control which proteins are produces when under what conditions, because that's what makes organisms develop and function.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
If not, what are people claiming?
Dawkins is claiming all DNA is there to build bodies and that's it's only purpose. How stupid is that, yeah?Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Thus, it really is true that many species have way more DNA than is needed to build them. So. What. So the OP, and Jonathan Wells, are wrong, and Dawkins was right. I read Wells's book and I don't recall it containing an argument about how much DNA it takes to build a species. Nor does the OP. Dawkins: If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Let's just ignore that mighty big if shall we? Perhaps DNA serves multiple purposes. Oh, wait, but that would mean Wells and the OP are right, and Dawkins was wrong.Mung_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

To Elizabeth Liddle (15): >Is anyone here claiming that all >DNA is necessary for the organism >to survive and reproduce? We're just saying, as opposite to what the most prominent evo-tists had as an inevitable result for epochs of evolution "noise" [i.e. another evolutionary false prediction] that the majority of DNA isn't "junk", but maybe is designed for a purpose. Don't try to "change railway".. >If not, what are people claiming? See the above.Jonin_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Other confirmations about ET correct predictions...Ah-ah-ah, ih-ih-ih, uh-uh-uh..(thanks to www.evolutionnews.org) "..In particular, she found that repeated tracts of one base, adenosine, were more likely to form kinks than other sequences.." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20669-kinky-genes-biophysics-of-dna-affects-how-it-works.html "..Pseudogenes have long been labeled as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation.." http://rnajournal.cshlp.org/content/early/2011/03/11/rna.2658311.abstract "..The ability of transposable elements to autonomously amplify led to their initial characterization as selfish or junk DNA; however, it is now known that they may acquire specific cellular functions in a genome and are implicated in host defense mechanisms as well as in genome evolution.." http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/10/4761 "..Repetitive sequences, including transposable elements, are now believed to play a significant role in genomic differentiation and evolution. Some are also expressed as regulatory noncoding RNAs. Vast DNA databases exist for higher eukaryotes.." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851119/ "..Thus transposable elements, far from being "junk", have one of the most important roles in multicellular biology.." http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4896Jonin_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Is anyone here claiming that all DNA is necessary for the organism to survive and reproduce? If not, what are people claiming?Elizabeth Liddle_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

...Oh, I've forgot this: What can you say about another "correct" prediction of ET?Jonin_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Maybe you unknown evo-guys are right, but what about this (just to mention a brief part)? 2003, Scientific American, introns are genetic junk? “The failure to recognize the importance of introns ‘may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.’” Wayt T. Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,” Scientific American (Nov., 2003). 2010, Nature: “Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA—what used to be called ‘ junk’ DNA—has been fascinating and befuddling. Researchers from… ENCODE showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA.” Erika Check Hayden, “Life Is Complicated,” Nature, Vol. 464:664-667 (April 1, 2010). Papers indicating huge portions of DNA transcribed and hinting at function: John S. Mattick & Igor V. Makunin, “Non-coding RNA,” Human Molecular Genetics, Vol. 15: R17–R29 (2006); Shao-Yao Ying, Donald C. Chang & Shi-Lung Lin, “MicroRNA (miRNA): Overview of the RNA Genes that Modulate Gene Function,” Molecular Biotechnology, Vol. 38:257-268 (2008); Marcel E. Dinger, Paulo P. Amaral, Timothy R. Mercer & John S. Mattick, “Pervasive transcription of the eukaryotic genome: functional indices and conceptual implications,” Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics, Vol. 8: 407-423 (2009); Aristotelis Tsirigos & Isidore Rigoutsos, “Alu and B1 Repeats Have Been Selectively Retained in the Upstream and Intronic Regions of Genes of Specific Functional Classes,” Vol. 5(12):e1000610 (December 2009); Rodrigo Louro, Anna S. Smirnova & Sergio Verjovski-Almeida, “Long intronic noncoding RNA transcription: Expression noise or expression choice?, Genomics, Vol. 93: 291-298 (2009); Noam Shomron & Carmit Levy, “MicroRNA-Biogenesis and Pre-mRNA Splicing Crosstalk,” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Vol. 2009: 594678 (2009). Maybe it's time to awake on this, don't you think?Jonin_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Some discussion for Barb - there's more to the RNA Underworld than just transcription: http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/strange-things-at-promoters/ http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/junk-to-the-second-power/Arthur Hunt_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Nick - what did you think of the link I posted where a scientist belives that junk DNA isn't all junk? Thoughts?Barb_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

excerpt from previous paper: Excerpt: this show that,,, the higher total life energy per unit body mass leads to smaller C-value.bornagain77_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Of further note: THE ALLOMETRIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENOME SIZE (C-VALUE) AND TOTAL METABOLIC ENERGY PER LIFESPAN, PER UNIT BODY MASS IN ANIMALS http://www.sustz.com/Proceeding09/Papers/Medical%20Biology%20Studies/A_ATANASOV.pdfbornagain77_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Also of note: The is consistent scaling, of genome length to gene number, that is certainly not expected from the neo-Darwinian framework of Junk DNA: Scaling graph Excerpt under graph: Total number of nucleotides (above) and number of different genes (below) scale with identical slopes of 0.35, consistent with our hypothesis that scaling of metabolic power in prokaryotes reflects the number of genes and the complexity of the biochemical network. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12941/F4.expansion.htmlbornagain77_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

To piggyback on Alex73's comment: This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical 'evolutionary progression' to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the size of genomes found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species despite their differences in complexity and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma And yet, even though this C-value enigma is somewhat paradoxical to the materialistic, neo-Darwinian, point of view, from a design point of view we would expect genome sizes to vary with design constraints imposed in trying to achieve 'optimal design' in any particular life-form; For instance: "There is strong positive correlation, however, between the amount of DNA and the volume of a cell and its nucleus - which effects the rate of cell growth and division. Furthermore, in mammals there is a negative correlation between genome size and rate of metabolism. Bats have very high metabolic rates and relatively small genomes. In birds, there is a negative correlation between C-value and resting metabolic rate. In salamanders, there is also a negative correlation between genome size and the rate of limb regeneration." Jonathan Wells - The Myth Of Junk DNA - page 85bornagain77_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD, You say: Dawkins is right. Many very similar species have very different genome sizes. For example, onions. Many “simpler” species, like lungfish and ferns, have genomes up to 100 times bigger than the human genome. Thus, it really is true that many species have way more DNA than is needed to build them This is a non-sequitur. First one has to show that the particular species can indeed be built using a smaller genome. In your example, drasctically smaller genome with the same fitness as the wild version. "Simpler" species may have to cope with a plethora of inputs from the environment that jolly well may need larger genome than humans. "Simpler" species and the assumed smaller genome size are evolutionary predictions, am I not right? Unfortunately, today we do not even know what is needed to build a single cell, so speculation about what is needed for a lungfish is, well, just speculation... By the way, this is an extremely exciting area of research. If the current trend goes on, we will continue to discover complexity upon complexity in the way the genome, proteins and the environment interact.Alex73_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Thus, it really is true that many species have way more DNA than is needed to build them. So. What.
So the OP, and Jonathan Wells, are wrong, and Dawkins was right. Seems like a relevant point to make on this thread, don't you think?NickMatzke_UD_{July 14, 2011
July
07
Jul
14
14
2011
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply