Another Day, Another Bad Day for Darwinism

_{June 23, 2010

Evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design}

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

In the latest issue of Nature, a definitive role for pseudogenes is established. In the last sentence of the Abstract the authors conclude:

These findings attribute a novel biological role to expressed pseudogenes, as they can regulate coding gene expression, and reveal a non-coding function for mRNAs.

Haven’t read the full article* (no time at present), but there’s a related link at PhysOrg.com that gives an overview.

Yes, “junk” DNA now “communicates” with itself. A new “language”, an RNA language, is discovered. Another 30,000 pieces of functional information (over and above proteins) are part of cell architecture. And even more for Darwinists to explain per RM+NS. And the old standard explanation, of gene duplication and pseudogenes ‘evolving’ new function, takes a hit. You’ve got to feel bad for these Darwinists. What’s tomorrow going to bring!?!

*BTW, somehow I gained access to the pdf version of the article.

Comments

@gpuccio (#10) Are you claiming this researchers are actually pro ID, but operating under the radar out of fear of being censured? If so, please indicate how you've reached this conclusion. I'm asking because the study of alternative functions of non-coding DNA is not exclusive to those who support ID. Nor is it necessary for junk DNA to be universally non-functional to collaborate evolution. Clarifications in this regards have been made time and time, again, which are ignored.veilsofmaya_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Crevo has a article up on the "Pseudogene" paper: The RNA Code: Pseudogenes Functional, Help Prevent Cancer Excerpt: The commentary began by calling it “surprising news” that “pseudogenes are functional and could have a role in the control of cancer.” While Rigoutsos noted that “pseudogenes have been presumed to be largely vestigial ,” he pointed to other recent findings that they are functionally connected to other RNA regulatory elements. In the same News and Views article, and Frank Furnari (UC San Diego) said this: Defining ‘junk DNA’ is getting trickier. Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored. Well, they shouldn’t be anymore, according to Poliseno and colleagues, who show a clear functional relationship between the tumour-suppressor gene PTEN and its pseudogene PTENP1 (Fig. 1). This study could have major implications for understanding mechanisms of disease, and of cancer in particular. Furnari also pointed to other possible diseases where breakdown of the tight regulation of the PTEN could be responsible. Two of those are human breast and colon cancers. He said it may be time for a “redefinition of this seemingly vestigial pseudogene as a tumour-suppressor gene.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100624abornagain77_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya @ 8: Those who continually perpetuate these claims include the New Scientist, where you can read this: Once the vast majority of our DNA was dismissed as junk, but now we know it is important - or so you might have read recently. In fact, it still appears likely that 85 to 95 per cent of our DNA is indeed useless. While many bits of DNA that do not code for proteins are turning out to have some function or other, this was predicted by some all along, and the overall proportion of our DNA with a proven function remains tiny. The article came out just last week. Here is a link for you to read more. Once you have a retraction of these false claims by the editors, give us a shout. http://www.newscientist.com/special/unknown-human-genomeAlex73_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya [8]:
Isn’t the supposed “bias of Darwinism” supposedly preventing researchers from studying junk DNA?
Did the Ptolemaic system of astronomy cause the ancients to stop studying the sky? Of course not. It just prevented them from attaining a proper understanding of what they were studying. Fross: Did biology, as a science, exist before 1859? IOW, are you saying that unless Darwinism is embraced then biology cannot truly function as a science? The driving force behind ID is simply the sophisticated lab methods now employed and the tremendous complexity they reveal. Have you ever heard of a paradigm shift?PaV_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

veilsofmaya, Fross: Maybe the control of darwinism on research is not yet total. Somebody escapes, here and there. They must only be careful not to name ID in their papers. Maybe darwinists censors just use some google-like search engine to detect forbidden keywords (ID, design, intelligent), and if one is smart enough one can even publish papers which could "indirectly" favour ID. Maybe we are not in a totalitarian cognitive regimen, but only in a quasi-totalitarian one. Maybe there is still hope... If I were in the shoes of darwinists, I would definitely be worried :) . And, Frost: I have said that many times, and I say it again: it is not important "who" discovers the facts, but the facts themselves. Facts are nobody's property. Science is a collective search for truth about reality. Both the search for facts and the discussion about known facts have their important roles. This is not a race to copyrights, I believe...gpuccio_{June 24, 2010
June
06
Jun
24
24
2010
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

A few questions. 1. PaV said:
>Yes, “junk” DNA now “communicates” with itself. A new “language”, an RNA language, is discovered. Another 30,000 pieces of functional information (over and above proteins) are part of cell architecture.
Um, I count 12 (or thereabouts) objects of study in the cited paper. Even if we count every miRNA target site in these as a separate "piece of information", I don't see how we get to 30,000. 2. Just how much of each pseudogene actually participates in the described decoying? 3. If one does an informational inventory, I am pretty sure one will find that this mode of regulation is pretty unfriendly to ID, what with its insistence on high amounts of information and inaccessibility to random processes (neither of which applies to miRNA decoying by pseudogenes). So, the question is, why bring up the subject on this blog?Arthur Hunt_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

great job and congrats to the ID movement for getting some science done that exposes the role of "Junk DNA". Was this done through Dembski's research program or is there another one? I'm a little out of the loop on where the research is being done. Thanks!Fross_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

I'm confused. Isn't the supposed "bias of Darwinism" supposedly preventing researchers from studying junk DNA? For example, if the claim that biologists commit the fallacy of assuming genes with no currently known function really are universally functionless was true, it's unclear why anyone bothered to study these psuedogenes in the first place. As such, wouldn't this be a "very bad day" for those who continually, perpetuate, these claims, despite research such as this which clearly suggests otherwise?veilsofmaya_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

I particularly liked this quote from the abstract:
However, given that microRNAs bind to RNAs, we hypothesized that RNAs could possess a regulatory role that relies on their ability to compete for microRNA binding, independently of their protein-coding function.
I like it because: (1) it indicates that they were thinking in a strictly logical/engineering mode, rather than being dominated by Darwinist thought, and (2) it reminds me of some of things that have been posted here at UD over the last two years or so---Design logic.PaV_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Daniel Powter-Bad Day (lyrics) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmNTAvnSaisbornagain77_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

This is ironic to say the least. :DPhaedros_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Art hunt, Steve Matheson and Larry Moran all have blogs that accept comments. Go to it Gpuccio!Zach Bailey_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Yes Moran and Matheson and Hunt have recently committed themselves very much to that view (which I appreciate, I have often said, and it is no joke, that a good traditional neo-darwinist is by far better than an elusive revisionist neo-neo-darwinist). I don't think that Moran and Matheson are looking forward to discussing that with us (but some volunteer could make a sacrifice and start monitoring PT). But maybe Artur Hunt, aho has demonstrated a really correct approach here, could be tempted to comment...gpuccio_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

GP...what will someone, perhaps like Art Hunt, say about this? And isn't Moran a staunch Junk DNA junkie?Upright BiPed_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

PaV: Excellent article! And really bad news to the fans of junk DNA. The findings presented in this study have allowed us to reach a number of conclusions. First, the discovery of an miRNA decoy function for pseudogenes identifies these transcripts as biologically active units. We show that PTENP1 and KRAS1P affect the levels of their cognate genes and are possibly involved in disease pathogenesis. Thus, the analysis of pseudogene expression level and genomic status in tumorigenesis needs to be undertaken systematically to further our understanding of disease progression. And: We also demonstrate that pseudogenes such as PTENP1 can derepress their cognate genes, even when expressed at lower levels (Supplementary Fig. 3a and Fig. 2f–h). We propose that pseudogenes are ‘perfect decoys’ for their ancestral genes, because they retain many of the miRNA binding sites and can compete for the binding of many miRNAs at once. So, pseudogenes seem to be functional. Who would have said that? (Perhaps, only those silly IDists). And yet, they were such a perfect example not only of junk DNA, but even of "errors" in DNA: a wonderful demonstration that evolution is unguided, non intelligent, egoist, and so on... What a pity!gpuccio_{June 23, 2010
June
06
Jun
23
23
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply