Junk DNA label a mistake? Genome region linked to heart failure

_{News
April 25, 2014

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

We’ll let ScienceDaily tell it:

In the new study, the investigators found that unlike other RNA molecules, expression patterns of long noncoding RNAs could distinguish between two major types of heart failure and between failing hearts before and after they received LVAD support.

“We don’t know whether these changes in long noncoding RNAs are a cause or an effect of heart failure,” Nerbonne said. “But it seems likely they play some role in coordinating the regulation of multiple genes involved in heart function.”

Look, if Darwin’s people say it’s junk, it’s junk. Why you asking, anyway?

Comments

Denial is to be expected optimus. Admitting it is the first step. It's ok, we're here for you!AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PST}

AVS @ 26 Nope!Optimus_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST}

Do you "retire" from a job as a janitor? I guess you can call it whatever you want Mungy! Was it you Mung that tried to tell me you had a book about protocells that refuted what I was saying and then never provided said information? Refresh my memory.AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PST}

Why are you a quadriped, optimus?AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PST}

AVS, I can retire any time I choose. It's a great position to be in. Funny you should ask Optimist about dancing, when you dance around subjects that must be near and dear to your heart, such as protocells (bridging non-living and living matter) and cell membranes.Mung_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PST}

I think bipedal locomotion is a prerequisite for pairs dancing, AVS;-) But thanks for the offer!Optimus_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PST}

Hey, it takes two to tango, optimus. Want to dance?AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PST}

The takeaway (obscured by the AVS' pathological quarrelsomeness) is that this points to another possible example of function associated with non-coding regions. Let's not take our eye off the ball...Optimus_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PST}

Don't quit your day job MungyAVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PST}

You have to love AVS' unbiased approach to ID. Or is it a biased approach.Mung_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PST}

I never said it should be conscious, and I never agreed that the researchers had shown any type of confirmation bias. Like I said, the study of lnRNAs simply did not fall within the scope of the first investigation. They included it in the second investigation most likely because human heart tissue relevant to their study is hard to get, so they tested everything they could. You are losing your mind over nothing.AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PST}

AVS: Just to understand, why do you think that confirmation bias should be "conscious"? That would simply be fraud. Please, review what "confirmation bias" means: "The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. In addition, individuals may discredit information that does not support their views. The confirmation bias is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance. Whereby, individuals may reduce inconsistency by searching for information which re-confirms their views"gpuccio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PST}

You don't understand what is really going on Dio. Yes there are many researchers that are debating many of the details about how evolution works, but there is no massive undermining of the theory occurring, as you would like to believe. The research is constantly refining the theory of evolution, not overthrowing it. For the last time, you have no idea what you are talking about because you get your information from sites like UD. What happened to you being broke? You have enough money to pay for subscriptions to these magazines though? You're either a complete idiot, or quite a storyteller. Most likely both. =)AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST}

...the evolution/abiogenesis content in college level textbooks is only increasing.
What matters in science is the unbiased information coming out of research labs around the world. Many hardworking dedicated research scientists are publishing reports that in some ways conflict with the college text books you mentioned. Just read the leading-edge publications and see it yourself. Apparently you're not aware of what is being published out there in cell.com and many other magazines I'm subscribed to. Go and read them. You'll see what I mean. They'll have to reprint them. Hopefully the following editions are on eBooks, so they don't have to waste so much paper.Dionisio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PST}

Please Dio. It's not, don't worry. As I've let you guys know on here numerous times now, the evolution/abiogenesis content in college level textbooks is only increasing. The fact that you apparently think evolution is "crumbling," is laughable. You guys on here would love to make people think that, but it couldn't be further from the truth. Pray in one hand and spit in the other, we'll see which one fills up first. =) Thanks though!AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST}

AVS, Hopefully your disrespectful attitude is not associated with a desperate panicking reaction to the visible crumbling of neo-Darwinism we are witnessing these days. Because it ain't gonna get better. You ain't seen nothing yet, buddy. In any case, I pray for you. I really mean it. God loves you, even though you don't reciprocate. If it is God's will, He will help you, so that you, like many of us here, can enjoy the wonderful things science is discovering these days. Please, think about this seriously. I want the best for you. I'm serious.Dionisio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PST}

No, Dio. You couldn't be more wrong. As you said, you are certainly not a scientist, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Neither you or the other commenters have any idea what the phrases "unbiased approach" or "biased approach" mean in a scientific context. Feel free to do some research on genomic studies and find out. Careful though, you might learn something!AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PST}

AVS, There you go again with your offensive attitude to write your usual redundant nonsense. Please, try to learn and be more civilized and respectful. Stop being so miserably arrogant. What both awstar and PaV wrote in their comments seem to describe precisely what the phrase 'unbiased approach' appears to mean in the context it was found. The second part of the text quoted by awstar @ his comment #1, clearly shows how the long established neo-Darwinian biased approach to scientific research, based on misleading preconceived beliefs (like the so-called 'junk' DNA), has caused so much delay to the discoveries of new treatments for diseases. It's a sad reality no honest scientist can deny these days. Let's take a quick look at the second part of the text quoted in the first comment in this thread:
“We were surprised to find that long noncoding RNAs stood out. In fact, the field is evolving so rapidly that when we did a slightly earlier, similar investigation in mice, we didn’t even think to include long noncoding RNAs in the analysis.”
Note the revealing phrases: "surprised to find that..." surprised to find that their preconceived ideas didn't match the observed evidences? duh! "the field is evolving so rapidly that..." yes, thank God science, specially biology, is moving ahead so fast, that the biased folks are surprised by so many discoveries that seem to trash their outdated ideas. How come? Well, one possible explanation could be that many hardworking dedicated scientists out there are starting to be more independent, pragmatic and open-minded in their approaches, thus finally abandoning the outdated neo-Darwinian biased approaches that had done so much damage to the free scientific thinking. "we didn’t even think to include..." same nonsense as explained before. Why did they think not to include that part of the DNA in their research? Based on what? So, next time, take it easy, buddy. Chill out. Go out, breathe some fresh air, calm down. Then, come back. These are exciting times to be in science. Since I'm not a scientist, and my limited knowledge does not qualify me to work with scientists, not even cleaning their bathrooms, I'm content to just observe it from the sidelines, looking forward with great anticipation to the results from research, which keep shedding light on the wonders of God's amazing creation. In the meantime I sing hallelujah!Dionisio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PST}

Relax poochy, it's not like they consciously chose to ignore lnRNAs, it just didn't fall within the scope of their mice project. Maybe they were lazy, I don't know. The next time around though, when testing human tissue, they went the whole nine yards. You're losing your head over nothing.AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PST}

AVS: Excuse me if I am fastidious. I will copy the paragraph adding a different emphasis:
"We took an unbiased approach to nvestigating which types of RNA might be linked to heart failure," said senior author Jeanne M. Nerbonne, PhD, the Alumni Endowed Professor of Molecular Biology and farmacology. "We were surprised to find that long noncoding RNAs stood out. In fact, the field is evolving so rapidly that when we did a slightly earlier, similar investigation in mice, we didn't even think to include long noncoding RNAs in the analysis."
So, in their previous study they "didn't even think" to include non coding RNAs in the analysis. Why? Because they did not expect that it could be functionally relevant. Guess why? And indeed, when they did include it, using an "unbiased approach", they "were surprised" that long noncoding RNAs stood out. Do you know how it is called when someone looks for what he expects, and so does not find what he does not expect? It's called "cognitive bias", and in particular "confirmation bias". From Wikipedia: "Confirmation bias: The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions."gpuccio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PST}

Relax ladies. The phrase "unbiased approach" just means that the system they used did not favor analysis of any certain type of transcript, long/short, coding/noncoding, etc. They did many reads (deep sequencing) of the transcriptome to make sure they were not missing anything, hence "unbiased."AVS_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PST}

Former Junk DNA Candidate Proves Indispensable by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. - April 2014 Excerpt: Amazingly, these ecRNAs persist in experiments when the chromosomes are destroyed. Clearly they are very stable and an important part of the chromosomal matrix in the cell nucleus. In fact, when the ecRNAs themselves were destroyed with an enzyme called RNase, the chromosomes rapidly condensed and collapsed. If it were not for the presence of the ecRNAs, chromosome stability and function would not even be possible! While nearly all the other types of former "Junk DNA" have been debunked, this most recent study is truly the icing on the cake. The seemingly most scientifically neglected and scoffed at sequences in the genome are now appearing to be the key elements involved in constructing the functional matrix that allows chromosomes to operate. http://www.icr.org/article/8041/ Articles by Jeffrey Tomkins http://www.icr.org/index.php?search=AdvancedSearch&f_keyword_all=&f_context_all=any&f_context_exact=any&f_context_any=any&f_context_without=any&f_search_type=articles&section=0&f_constraint=both&=Search&module=home&action=submitsearch&f_authorID=207bornagain77_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PST}

Look, if Darwin’s people say it’s junk, it’s junk. Why you asking, anyway?
I totally agree with News on this, why do we keep bothering with this annoying criticism of this term 'junk' DNA ? Can't we just get over it? It's a done deal, a settled issue. No more discussions. That's it. Ok? Anyways, this shows we just don't understand evolution ;-)Dionisio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PST}

awstar @ 1
They did sneak the word “evolution” in there so they could pass the Darwin police word scanners, however.
That seems like a 'sneaky' trick if one wants to publish a paper in a 'high impact' webzine run by the academic 'politburo' out there.Dionisio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PST}

awstar and PaV: Are you suggesting that, say, Larry Moran is biased? That's really naughty! :)gpuccio_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PST}

awstar: I noticed that same wording, too. Yes, "unbiased." You know, as in: "Well, most of the time we have this bias; and, well, we can't help ourselves. And, yes, of course it does get in the way of good research, but, hey, what the heck, we're able to put that bias to the one side every now and then, and take a good look at how things really are. So, I guess that's not so bad."PaV_{April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PST}

Obviously these are functionless genes because they make the heart not work! Duh! Anyways, the reason evolutionists believe that most of the DNA is junk has nothing to do with any claims of lack of function, regardless of what they have been writing for decades.sixthbook_{April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PST}

Genome regions once mislabeled 'junk' linked to heart failure
once mislabeled ? Why? By whom?TZ_{April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PST}

"We took an unbiased approach to investigating which types of RNA might be linked to heart failure," said senior author Jeanne M. Nerbonne, PhD, the Alumni Endowed Professor of Molecular Biology and Pharmacology. "We were surprised to find that long noncoding RNAs stood out. In fact, the field is evolving so rapidly that when we did a slightly earlier, similar investigation in mice, we didn't even think to include long noncoding RNAs in the analysis."
"unbiased approach" must be code for "in spite of beliefs based on evolution mythology" They did sneak the word "evolution" in there so they could pass the Darwin police word scanners, however.awstar_{April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply