How do cells maintain integrity during division?:
When a stem cell divides, one daughter cell must maintain its stemness (i.e., ability to differentiate into any cell type) while the other specializes. Therein lies another truckload of requirements for coordinated action that, if it goes awry, can spell disaster for an animal or human. Watch this subject grow into a huge problem for evolutionary theory.
Researchers at University of California at Riverside investigated what happens when stem cells divide and specialize. UCR’s reporter Iqbal Pittawala describes how “genome organization influences cell fate.”
“Understanding the molecular mechanisms that specify and maintain the identities of more than 200 cell types of the human body is arguably one of the most fundamental problems in molecular and cellular biology, with critical implications for the treatment of human diseases. Central to the cell fate decision process are stem cells residing within each tissue of the body.”
The two daughter cells face a massive organization problem. Even though they contain the same DNA code, they will take on separate roles in the cell. This means that the accessibility of genes between the two cells must radically differ.
Dave Coppedge, “Cell Fate: Another Hurdle for Evolution” at Evolution News and Science Today (May 6, 2022)
Actually, it is only a problem if ruining the careers of those who engage in an honest discussion is no longer an available option.
As Mr. Spock would say… Fascinating.
Andrew
A fundamental problem just understanding them? No way. We already know that this evolved, so we clearly must have understood all of this by now. “UCR’s reporter Iqbal Pittawala” is just a journalist so he’s not an expert and obviously doesn’t understand.
Back to earth … clearly it is a massive problem for evolution. Just basic cell division. I am reminded of the video on the structure of cell walls that allow nutrients to pass through but block toxins.
Darwin can’t even give us a single cell.
So far, no problem at all. There’s no debate. No weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Evolution is more certain than gravity.
Is this just more proof that the mechanism for development and thus Evolution lies not in DNA?
Where is this mechanism?
Same DNA carries out different roles from parent to daughter cell. Even if mutation and selection could account for the code, which it can’t, it then has to make that differentiation from something other than the DNA.
So-called “junk DNA” was a decision made before all of the research was in. It turns out that these non-coding (for proteins) regions have functions.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/945286
Here’s an article written for the layperson that might be worth a look
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-complex-truth-about-junk-dna-20210901/
I’ve read it and it’s quite a helpful non-technical summary.
Lots of room for ID proponents to find the function in the junk. Have at it, guys and gals.
From Larry Moran’s blog Sandwalk
Really?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014423/
https://news.wsu.edu/news/2021/07/23/research-identifies-potential-role-junk-dna-sequence-aging-cancer/
https://www.drugdiscoverytrends.com/genomics-researchers-say-junk-dna-key-to-advancing-medicine/
@ Marker
Did you read the articles you linked to?
I sure did. More:
https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medicine-magazine/article/junk-no-more/
Oh, man Dawkins didn’t apologized for this yet, just jumped from:
to
Back in 2012 ENCODE talked about at least 80% functional based on their data. This is a undeniable fact . Only religious darwinists dispute that.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11247.pdf
Marker:
That surprises me. I read the linked articles and the first two seem uncontroversial. The third makes a couple of basic errors (non-coding DNA is not junk DNA) and the fourth attacks a strawman version of Encode.
8-12 % of the human genome is generally agreed as essential (including non-coding DNA) and 75% roughly is junk-DNA. There’s questions on the remainder. Another opportunity for ID researchers.
🙂 This is how a religious type of evolutionist looks like. Hey, wake up we are not in 1850 to believe in self-organisation of matter that Pasteur debunked in 1860(food spoiled because of contamination by invisible bacteria, not because of spontaneous generation. )Back then they really believed that worms appear from rotten flesh or flies from rotten fruits so make sense for Darwin fans to think a cell need only gene for proteins , who need regulation of protein?
Anyone saying the bulk of our or any genome is junk, has to tell us how blind and mindless processes produced spools to organize that junk and functional sequences to maintain viable organisms.
Larry Moran can’t do it. He is the worst of the cowards. No one should listen to what he has to say because he ignores the elephant standing on his chest.
ET @14
Very good point …
I have asked something similar in my other post:
How a cell knows, what is the position/location of a particular gene … first, which chromosome, then which arm of the chromosome, and then what is the exact position on this arm … ( biologists had to create a gene map)
PS: and, obviously, genes always stays at the same position … they don’t move elsewhere … otherwise the gene map would be useless … so i was wondering, when some retro virus inserts its DNA into our DNA, will this gene map become useless ?
Junk DNA is a favorite distraction guaranteed to create all sorts of irrelevant diversion.
The answer to what is junk is, some is probably not junk, some is probably junk. The question is what is the percentage of each? Nothing to do with the OP.
Unless one has evidence that this is where information about cell formation takes place. Then why do other organisms have different junk DNA? Somehow that doesn’t come up.
But again, this OP has nothing to do with junk DNA.
Jerry,
You still don’t understand? Cell division – what regulates it? What causes it? What makes it work? Scientists still don’t know a lot but they’ll put the answer ahead of the research. Evolution is the default answer no matter what the question is. ‘It all happened by itself’ is the default answer before examining the organism, whichever organism that is.
It has everything to do with “junk DNA.”
Darwinists and Junk DNA:
If there won’t be any Junk DNA, in other words, if the whole genome has a function, a Darwinist would say:
This makes lots of sense, because natural selection would remove any non-functional DNA, why to waste energy to keep something which isn’t need …
If there is Junk DNA, for Darwinism, it is also OK, because this is an evidence for blind unguided evolution, and “junk” accumulated through the years …
For Darwinists it is a win-win situation … as always …
Non-coding DNA is not Junk DNA. This is basic stuff, folks.
Marker: Cell division – what regulates it? What causes it? What makes it work?
You seem not interested in even trying to find answers for your questions. It’s quite easy to start with something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_division
And if some subtopic attracts your attention then follow the links to the pertinent research cited.
Hickson @19
Basic stuff?
Look here, ScienceDaily article (2021):
it looks like, your guys (Darwinists) don’t know ‘basic stuff’.
It has nothing to do with junk DNA is probably a more accurate answer.
Aside: I have recommended that the term “junk DNA” be discarded. It is a meaningless term. There does appear to be some DNA that has no function. Maybe that will change but there is a mechanism for creating new DNA that has no function.
Not really. Cell is “smarter” than you think. If move a gene/sequence in other place will make a different bookmark (editing) so when will need it will go directly to the new bookmark(address)
https://www.ed.ac.uk/mrc-human-genetics-unit/news-and-events/news-2014/gene-relocation
I don’t think so. To know that you have to decode all processes in the cell but while they continue to do experiments that means they don’t know how it works.
It appears that part of the goal here is to just confuse the issue. I did not invent the term “junk DNA.” I did not write articles about it. But here, as opposed to say a journal like Nature, the recommendation is to discard it? Why? Inconvenient? Gets in the way of a belief system? If anyone wants to discard the term, explain why.
ET: Anyone saying the bulk of our or any genome is junk, has to tell us how blind and mindless processes produced spools to organize that junk and functional sequences to maintain viable organisms.
“spools to organise that junk” . . . really? What does that mean? Are you saying the junk is organised? Are you saying the ‘junk’ and the functional sequences are organised so the system recognises what is ‘junk’ and what is functional?
Perhaps you should keep up on the literature. Those kind of things are clearly and obviously addressed. If you’re interested in finding out that is.
LCD,
thanks for that GENE RELOCATION article, very interesting …
However, i doesn’t answer my question, how the cell knows what is the location of a particular gene … i understand, there are some bookmarks, but it still doesn’t explain how the cell knows which bookmark stands for a particular gene … so some ‘map of bookmarks’ is required in any case… if i am wrong, please correct me …
PS: by the way, i have no doubts that the cell is very smart (or the one who created it)
The Origin of the Term “Junk DNA”: A Historical Whodunnit Who else than darwinists?
An us versus them discussion has no value. I recommend sticking with facts.
Martin_r: new research shows that one piece of junk DNA — the promoter of a virus-based transposon — plays a critical role in cell proliferation and timing of embryo implantation in mice.
Oooo, one piece. ONE PIECE! And you think that destroys the whole idea that a large portion of the human genome is junk?
Let’s consider some other living creatures and their genomes . . .
The human genome is about 3 GB of base pairs. About since there is a difference between different individuals between repeated sequences.
So did you know that the Polychaos dubium has a genome that is 670 GB?
Or the Paris japonica which has a genome which is 150 GB?
What about the Tetraodon nigroviridis which has a genome which is 390 MB?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome#Genome_size
If you have design explanations for these disparities then I’d love to hear them. You may have a good explanation but I am not going to pre-suppose your response.
Rare on UD. Discussions usually based on emotions.
Add logic though because that is what ID is all about. Facts + logic. ID is Science+
The “+” is logic.
JVL @29
read carefully mine and Hickson’s posts … perhaps you will understand why i posted the ScienceDaily article …
I am unconcerned with emotion-based responses. The rants can go on for years but facts remain facts.
Martin_r: read carefully mine and Hickson’s posts … perhaps you will understand why i posted the ScienceDaily article …
I will do if you agree to try and explain the wide disparity in genome sizes from a design point of view.
Deal?
Marker
Indeed! A discussion can’t happen if facts are in dispute. Wouldn’t it be great if we all started from some cook ground and progressed from there? I am an incurable optimist.
Marker
Indeed! A discussion can’t happen if facts are in dispute. Wouldn’t it be great if we all started from some common ground and progressed from there? I am an incurable optimist.
Hey, does Fred Hickson get a say here? I mean it’s no big deal. This little corner of the blogosphere can raise fences against reality. Carry on
🙂 This is another point that destroy darwinism :”gradual” acumulation of new mutations/information “, except information require an intelligence source. Answer is very simple: a mind can code softwares with different levels of complexity and on different levels of hardwares(A MIND HAS FLEXIBILITY) , while physical laws being unidimensional can do exactly what Origin of Life experts have been doing for 100 years now: nothing.
blogosphere? Seriously? The Global Cabal of Word Inventors and Repackagers has no hold over me. I have a long list of fake/invented words I will never use.
Meanwhile, progress begins with facts. As opposed to fencing off portions of reality.
Well, live and let live, marker.
live and what? Are answers useful here or not? I’ll continue to post information.
Finger pointing is useless.
Carry on, Marker, carry on. You could change the World.
JVL:
Wow. Histone octamers. Look them up. And yes, without them the DNA would be a mess.
Seriously, how ignorant are you of cellular biology?
Anyone saying the bulk of our or any genome is junk, has to tell us how blind and mindless processes produced the histone octamer spools to organize that junk and functional sequences to maintain viable organisms.
Larry Moran can’t do it. He is the worst of the cowards. No one should listen to what he has to say because he ignores the elephant standing on his chest.
This is active spooling- dynamic, not static. And without the spools you can’t have a viable organism.
Only ignorance says the majority of our genome consists of junk DNA.
Mobile genetic elements? Transposons? Retrotransposons?
What’s the ID explanation?
Fred Hickson:
Transposons carry within their sequence the coding for two of the proteins required for it to move around. Please demonstrate how blind and mindless processes produced such a thing. Or admit that you are clueless.
ET logic failure. All I’m claiming is mobile genetic elements (which in humans amount to at least half the genome) provide no benefit to the host organism and thus deserve the title “Junk”. All Joe has to do to rebut me is to tell us what did mobile genetic elements ever do for us. (Apart from the aqueduct, obviously – or should I say obvioulsy.)
Hickson
Your self-confidence amazes me …
I have asked this question before, but when i see someone like you, i have to ask again:
What makes Darwinists so trustworthy ?
Today, every other Darwinian biology paper starts like this:
“…current concepts are reviewed…”
“…uprooting current thinking….”
“… latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
“… it challenges a long-held theory …”
“… in contrast to the decades-long dogma …”
“… it upends a common view…”
“… it needs a rethink … ”
“… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
“… it shakes up the dogma … ”
“… earlier than thought…”
“… younger than thought….”
“… smarter than thought ….”
“… more complex than thought ….”
So what makes Darwinists so trustworthy ?
They seem to be always wrong …
Martin_r – and never will we see them admit that their confidence (arrogance) was originally misplaced in spite of all the rethinking, surprises, shaking up, contradictions, conflicts, challenges and upendings they report.
No, they report the “new insights” with as much hubris as they did the refuted ones. As if nobody was paying attention to their previous claims — and maybe nobody was. If you keep talking in circles enough, nobody bothers listening any more. What difference does it make if giraffes evolved by stretching their neck for leaves at the top of trees or by a mating-ritual? “They evolved” is the only important “fact” that all supposedly-educated people need to believe in.
At the same time, to maintain authority over the “scientifically illiterate”, in spite of contradicting themselves, they just need a credentialing organization, with vested interest in self-selecting for Darwinian apostles, to stamp their teachers with “evolution expert” label and people won’t question whatever nonsense they come up with.
FH at 44,
The ID explanation is simple: It was all designed.
Evolution has no goal, no direction. It’s like a driverless car careening down a road, which eventually crashes unless intelligent control can be added.
Fred Hickson:L
You are ignorant of logic.
Your uneducated opinion is meaningless.
Wrong again. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Marker:
Blind watchmaker evolution has no goal. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. They have goals. They are directed.
<Anyone saying the bulk of our or any genome is junk, has to tell us how blind and mindless processes produced the histone octamer spools to organize that junk and functional sequences to maintain viable organisms.
Larry Moran can’t do it. He is the worst of the cowards. No one should listen to what he has to say because he ignores the elephant standing on his chest.
This is active spooling- dynamic, not static. And without the spools you can’t have a viable organism.
Only ignorance says the majority of our genome consists of junk DNA.
OK, great. Evos don’t have any clue how much of our genome is junk DNA and they cannot account for the histone octamers that had to arise to organize the genome into something functional.