Junk DNA: The Real Story

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 25, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

By now you have probably heard about so-called junk DNA. In recent decades the genomes of a growing number of species have been mapped out. Not surprisingly, scientists did not understand how many of these DNA sequences worked. For instance, repetitive sequences are common, but what do they do? As these data accumulated evolutionists increasingly viewed such sequences as useless junk. Then, years later, various functions began to emerge as our knowledge grew. This junk DNA story is the latest version of what seems like a repeating bad dream that goes like this. Scientists discover something new in biology but don’t understand it. Evolutionists, unaware that they are staring at a design whose complexity dwarfs their puny understanding, decide it is a useless evolutionary leftover. Such a useless design is pressed into service as an evolution apologetic. Later, when the function is eventually uncovered, evolutionists automatically claim the design as an evolutionary achievement. The structure goes from junk to treasure without a second thought. Read more

Comments

Mr BA^77, I'm not sure why I should feel refuted, or why you are hung up on live birth. The paper I referenced listed the tests which showed that the resulting stem cells were human, not rabbit. Wells, whom you are trying to defend here, does not demand live birth. Here's a fun reference about teosinte and a morhoplogical change related to DNA change. It seems the change from annual to woody perennial is moderately common.Nakashima_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Acipenser, you know I really appreciate you setting me free from my creationist ways by showing me that fruit fly thing. You know the whole I was created by almighty God thing was just so stifling, It is just so much more exciting to realize my great-great grandpappy was a mud puddle and that I to shal be a mud puddle once again (and my mom use to get mad because I played in mud puddles) But as you know Acipenser, I am a newbie to these heathen ways of yours so you are going to have to walk me through a few things for a few days so I don't relapse into praising almighty God for creating heaven, earth and life. Now I know that whole Body Plan thing is settled now with the whole four-winged fruit thing fly. Though I do have some nagging doubts with the Cortical Inheritance issue to Body Plans, yet I might be able to overcome those doubts with my new blind faith in mud puddles. Yet there is another issue, besides Body Plans, that I don't think my new heathen faith is quite ready to handle. Doggone it acipenser its those nagging functional proteins. I just can't seem to believe they are accidental. Though you hate videos bear with to see what I mean: Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 Now Jack Szostak tried to get that number for functional proteins down to 1 in a trillion (1 in a trillion ain't a miracle is it?), yet these guys come along and go and upset that 1 in a trillion apple cart: A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385 But I was thinking hey anything can happen once, you know once you got a functional protein all you got to is switch some amino acids around,, right,, and ba da boom ba da bing you got yourself elephants, aardvarks and penguins. But what do you know Acipenser, this Behe guy comes along and turns that apple cart over: Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe - Oct 2009 Excerpt: Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution.,,, A time-symmetric Dollo’s law turns the notion of “pre-adaptation” on its head. The law instead predicts something like “pre-sequestration”, where proteins that are currently being used for one complex purpose are very unlikely to be available for either reversion to past functions or future alternative uses. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html Severe Limits to Darwinian Evolution: - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The immediate, obvious implication is that the 2009 results render problematic even pretty small changes in structure/function for all proteins — not just the ones he worked on.,,,Thanks to Thornton’s impressive work, we can now see that the limits to Darwinian evolution are more severe than even I had supposed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/severe_limits_to_darwinian_evo.html#more So as you can see Acispenser I am in real deep kimshe as far as my beliefs and may relapse to, I don't even want to say the word, Creationism ,,, I know this sunday I should go to worship in a mud puddle as my newfound heathen instincts are telling me, but I am just terrified I don't have the strength to do that and I may falter go to church instead. Any thing you can do to help me in this moment of crisis would be appreciated.bornagain77_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

acispenser,,, hmmm, you get four wings instead of two wings on the fruit fly(the second set of wings lack flight muscles by the way so it is a detrimental mutation to the HOX gene) , identical wings on the fruit fly that were already present in the beginning of the experiment,,, and then all of the sudden this means that morphological novelty is a slam dunk for Neo-Darwinism and you are now free to extrapolate that bacteria can become elephants, penguins and aardvarks given a few billion more mutations and a few billion years to play with. WOW how in the world did I miss it. Thank you so much acispenser for setting me straight, and letting me see how blind I was and how I was grossly moving goalposts around to a different field on a entirely different planet. Must of been a flashback to the sixties to think otherwise.bornagain77_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

BA77:acispenser,,, you don’t seem to grasp the whole concept of establishing scientific credibility.
You reached this conclusion how? Is it because I chose to cite the published literature rather than a youtube or blog post. but let's look at what assertion was on the table:
BA77:Now Nak if you do decide to provide relevant peer-review that does show body plans are decided by DNA I wi8ll gladly look at it to show you where your flaws in thinking are. Deal?
now the goalpost have shifted which is no suprise to me but now the original assertion has been shifted to this:
BA77:Now if you want to conclusively make your point, just turn a fruit fly into a butterfly, or anything else, by mutations to DNA
The original assertion was that DNA does not decide body plans as you stated. The citation I presented directly refutes your notion as does the three links you provided in #52. Now you can continue to shift the goalpost as your position erodes but doing that does not change the data whatsoever. If the DNA does not contain the overriding architectural plan then you need to present an alternate interpretation of the data or accept that DNA mutations alter the architecture of the body plan. Your own citations do not support your assertions. In fact they demonstrate that mutations in DNA can and do result in novel morphological changes, i.e., four wings instead of two is quite a novel development. I anxiously await the next setting up of the goalpost and hope that they will remain in this field of play and not be shifted to another field altogether...but we will see how that goes.Acipenser_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

acispenser,,, you don't seem to grasp the whole concept of establishing scientific credibility. The question is to validate the assertion that DNA mutations "PRODUCE" novel morphological features. I clearly pointed out that this minor requirement for scientific validity has not been met. You point to mutation studies to DNA that "PREVENT" body plans from fully developing due to lack of the proper supply of proteins from the DNA, and then you say this conclusively proves that DNA has the overriding architectural plans for Body Plans within itself. Your logic is non-sequitur. i.e. it does not follow that you have conclusively made your point that you would like to make. All you have done is show that you can't build a house without all the proper building materials. Which is a point I totally agree with in the first place. Now if you want to conclusively make your point, just turn a fruit fly into a butterfly, or anything else, by mutations to DNA.bornagain77_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

BA77:Hmm acispenser,,, seems that someone forgot to inform the humble fruit fly of your “clear” findings verifying DNA reductionism;
As was feared the appearence of the blog post and youtube in leui of data but let's take a look at what was posted:
Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations
yes, mutations in the genome influence the body plan.....supports the DNA:body plan hypothesis it appears. and...
Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan
clearly this is something we know is not true or seen as evidenced by the previous post in BA77's link. and..
Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile;
3-5% of malformations in human births can hardly be considered rare but again the concept of DNA mutations and the resultatnt morphological effects are clearly presented supporting yet agian the tenent that DNA pertubations are associated with altered body plans. Thank you for posting the creationist support of the DNA:body plan linkage now do you have any actual data that supports the notion of a lack of relationship between DNA and morphology?Acipenser_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Hmm acispenser,,, seems that someone forgot to inform the humble fruit fly of your "clear" findings verifying DNA reductionism; ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer"Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentinebornagain77_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

BA77:And if the parts supplier did not provide all the parts necessary for a “planned” machine at a robotic factory would not the general sequence of the malformed assembly of the machine that resulted from the robot because of insufficient parts, who is following a overriding architectural plan, look exactly as the patterns of malformed development you cite? To falsify the growing body of evidence that Body Plans do not reside in DNA, you must demonstrate morphological novelty for body plans arising from changes in the DNA. But alas something tells me you are going to fail.
Alas the failure of the Body Plans aren't coded in the DNA hypothesis fails miserably. Falsified by the data that clearly demonstrates that DNA pertubation/alteration results in malformed body plans. Specific alterations related to the timing of development of the body plan produces specific effects on the body plan. If the DNA were not responsible for the body plan then pertubation of the DNA should not produce any alterations of the body plan.....alas the data does not support such a conclusion and clearly points to the role of DNA in the body plan. The data is clear and the citation is far from being an isolated incidence. In fact there are entire journals dedicated to such research and the evidence points to one conclusions: DNA alterations affect body plan development. If DNA does not contain the 'body plan' what rational can be brought to explain the data.....hopefully no videos and/or blog citations will be presented in leui of data to support your hypothesis.Acipenser_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Nak, It is funny that a fellow evolutionist would provide the references to defeat your supposed falsification of body plans by showing that all "successful" live births are "within kinds", thus the evidence that clearly showed you to be drastically overstating your position for DNA reductionism (materialism) is from your own camp! Yet in the glorious display of "open mindedness" and fair play, which you undoubtedly display in admitting that you are wrong in your claims for novel body plan morphogenesis arising from DNA, you turn around and claim I am the one who is a "poster child for close mindedness". You know what is funny Nak? I DON"T NEED evolution to be true, because I am perfectly fine with the concept of God creating through evolutionary processes if He so desired. But you Nak ABSOLUTELY NEED evolution to be true or else you entire atheistic worldview collapses. So please tell me Nak which of us is more apt to be fair minded with the evidence and which of is more likely to be "a poster child for close mindedness"? I think the way in which you responded to the falsification of your position on this very thread is clear indication of who the poster child is.bornagain77_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

re: acipenser 33 And if the parts supplier did not provide all the parts necessary for a "planned" machine at a robotic factory would not the general sequence of the malformed assembly of the machine that resulted from the robot because of insufficient parts, who is following a overriding architectural plan, look exactly as the patterns of malformed development you cite? To falsify the growing body of evidence that Body Plans do not reside in DNA, you must demonstrate morphological novelty for body plans arising from changes in the DNA. But alas something tells me you are going to fail. AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.htmlbornagain77_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Mr Frost, I suppose one of the reasons I'm not a poster child for close mindedness is that I take your position seriously and want to understand it better. And the threshold of design is always when something cannot be reduced to randomness and necessity- or laws and chance– due to it’s overwhelming complexity and functional specificity. Yes, but can you associate that idea with a way to put a numeric measurement to it, and do you have examples of those numeric measurements for sample sequences? It seems to me that triplet repeats, SINEs, SINEs degraded by point mutations, etc. would all fall squarely into the "can be produced by law and chance" category. If so, I don't see why any ID supporter such as yourself would have difficulty with them being called junk.Nakashima_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

A recent finding of “junk” DNA function involves repetitive elements which have been found to be active in certain tissues. The researchers concluded that this activity “has a key influence” on the overall activity of the mammalian genome. As one evolutionist admitted, “As a class [repetitive elements] are not just a junk DNA. They’re not just parasites, but they can shape the architecture of the genome.”
So does this mean gene duplications increase information?
CLAVDIVS_{March 26, 2010
March
03
Mar
26
26
2010
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

CH I wonder if the Darwinists are right. What little junk DNA there is probably arose through evolutionary processes. This of course says nothing about whether or not there was a designer or even what kind of designer he was, since the original design may have been perfect but degraded since then.tragic mishap_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Nak, I could just respond to your post by saying something like "don't be the poster child for the close minded" but I don't think that would be an adequate response- so I wont. The threshold of what is or is not junk DNA may differ from one opinion to another- and junk DNA can indeed exist where there is natural deterioration of an aboriginal design that is somehow conferred and passed down generations- but the point is that when you site an example of junk DNA which calls into question the overall design of an ID inferred subject- this is when ID will go further and try to show and prove why there is the functionality predicted by the design inference- and it is through this extra step and effort that ID makes a unique contribution due to it's unique operation. And the threshold of design is always when something cannot be reduced to randomness and necessity- or laws and chance-- due to it's overwhelming complexity and functional specificity. I cannot give you an exact example of where some junk DNA is inferred to probably be useful and later proven as such- but I will admit that trying to differentiate between what is aboriginal to the design and what is degraded and indeed junk is one of the toughest challenges for ID. So not all junk DNA need be eliminated for ID to be correct in its theory- but the balance between the two needs to support the necessity of a design inference. Or to quote Richard Dawkins- "biologists can accept a certain amount of chance in their explanations of origins - but not too much" Which too on the other hand cuts both ways.Frost122585_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Mr Frost, On the other hand ID looks specifically for the hallmarks of design- which implies purposiveness- and so assumes at the onset that some functionality probably does exist- so long as the SC of the subject being investigated warrants it- leads to a more aggressive and in depth scientific pursuit of the nature of the phenomena- like likes of code in the genome. So, what is the SC threshold for investigating something? Can you give me an example of one stretch of junk DNA whose SC measures above that threshold, and another that measures below it? You're making a prediction that scientific investigation of the first will be more fruitful than scientific investigation of the second, correct?Nakashima_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Now Nak if you do decide to provide relevant peer-review that does show body plans are decided by DNA I wi8ll gladly look at it to show you where your flaws in thinking are. Why make yourself the poster child of closemindedness?Nakashima_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill,
On the other hand, I have often heard the phrase used as a rhetorical weapon, intended by those brandishing it to denigrate exclude people who did not immediately profess to having experienced it. Would that be the kind of “born again” you don’t want me to make jokes about, Clive?
I don't like it as a rhetorical weapon either. But that wasn't your intended target, it was passive aggressive disdain for the idea in general or at the commenter in particular, or so it appeared, and I don't want to see it.Clive Hayden_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

SO the simple point here is that Darwinism does not DEMAND an understanding of the functionality of coding in DNA that looks designed - and that if no functionality is manifestly obvious then there is no reason to suppose that such functionality need exist. Where as ID implies at the get go that there probably IS a functionality and that it is fruitful to vigorously investigate and pursue what that is until it is properly understood. And this fundamental difference is obvious. IF you do not presuppose that Atlantis exists then why would you waste you time and energy looking for it? If you did not think that there should exist cures for diseases in the rain forests then why would you waste you time and money and risk you life looking for them? Many people still might go out in pursuit of these efforts but not as many as those who do think that such exploration are "probably" worth pursuing. And in the case with Newton his pursuit of science in light of ID like theological beliefs was obsessive to the result of his life's work being possible unmatched by that of any other intellectual. Would he have put so much time into discovering the plan of the creator if he did not believe that a creator surely exist by the manifest beauty of the creation? Since Newton wrote more on theology than math and physics I certainly doubt it.Frost122585_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Allen at 37, You claim is bunk. I said that ID is more scientifically fruitful because it leads people to EXPECT that functions may exist and hence that would encourage them to spend more time and energy looking them- and not that Darwinists would not find any at all. It is often the case in science that one branch helps another unintentionally. Such is the case where the development of space exploration technology is copted and used in other fields. But the point is that if more people are taught about the scientific usefulness of the design inference then there will be a more open minded pursuit of the nature and origin of phenomena from the perspectives of functionality and purposefulness. Now take Newton for example- he discovered many useful mathematical and scientific things concerning nature which one can easily see came from his belief that there must have been rationality in God's design- that is, that the teleology of the world was so obvious (as you even seem to admit at some level) that it only makes sense that there is a rational way of explaining it because rationality (or intelligence) is behind the essence and nature of a design inference. You can also say the opposite is generally true- that where rationality ceases to exist so do intelligence. And Allen I have never said that ALL Darwinist biologists claim that functionality cannot exist regarding a specific presupposed junk DNA sequence etc- I have merely pointed out that the two paradigms of ID and neo Darwinism conflict on their inferences and operations- and that indeed ID is a much better paradigm when it comes to exploring the nature and origin of phenomena- because if the rigorous standards of an ID inference are met then an more intense and thorough investigation is warranted- and if those design criteria are not met then there is less waste of time trying to find more complex and convoluted explanations for things that are "probably" the result of simple predictable or chance based processes.Frost122585_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

And, while you're at it, please post direct citations to the recent primary literature in which "Darwinist" geneticists have asserted that non-coding DNA regions not only don't have any discernible biological functions, but can't have such functions, and should therefore not be investigated.Allen_MacNeill_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

If so, please post citations to the primary literature in which ID scientists have discovered the functions of non-coding DNA that were ignored by "Darwinist" geneticists and developmental biologists. Also, it would help to show the ratio of original research papers, to verify that the overwhelming majority of the discoveries in the field of non-coding DNA function can be attributed to scientists committed to ID, and that the paltry few so-called "discoveries" made by committed "Darwinist" geneticists have been on a steady downhill decline since 1972.Allen_MacNeill_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Based on Frost122585's assertion in comment #36, one should therefore expect that, since the overwhelming majority of geneticists are "Darwinists", they should have long ago stopped investigating the functions of non-coding DNA, and therefore ID scientists must have made the vast majority (indeed, virtually all) of the discoveries about the biological functions of non-coding DNA since 1972 (the publication date of Ohno's paper, in which the term "junk DNA" was first used). Is this the case, Frost 122585?Allen_MacNeill_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

This article really points out one of the fundamental sceintific distinctions between the ID and Neo Darwinist paradigrms. The essential issue has to do with sceintific progress- which comes by the enhancement of discovery and understanding. When Darwinists find a section of code that looks somewhat organized but cannot immediately find any function exact for it- by the virtue of their own investigative philosophy they are content with assuming that no such function exists at all- and hence the fruit of that conclusion is a SCIENCE STOPPER. On the other hand ID looks specifically for the hallmarks of design- which implies purposiveness- and so assumes at the onset that some functionality probably does exist- so long as the SC of the subject being investigated warrants it- leads to a more aggressive and in depth scientific pursuit of the nature of the phenomena- like likes of code in the genome. So obviously - as was the case with some of the greatest of minds like Newton- an ID perspective is a heuristically fruitful scientific position. And this is why it SHOULD be taught in schools- public and private alike- as it is not a religious doctrine at all- but a scientifically sound secular paradigm which has been proven to support the production of excellent scientific fruits.Frost122585_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

To return to the topic under discussion in this thread, having been a very small part of the scientific community that has investigated the various functions of DNA and how it regulates the assembly and operation of living organisms, I don't recall every having someone tell me that "junk DNA" didn't have any function. On the contrary, what nearly everybody has said about DNA from the very beginning is that we don't yet know a lot about how DNA does what it does. Being in a general state of ignorance about how DNA sequences become manifested in the structure and function of living organisms, the safest position to take (that is, "safest" in terms of not deluding oneself) is to assume nothing a priori, and then to modify one's model(s) as new information becomes available. This means that the so-called "junk DNA" should not be assumed to have a function until such function(s) can be empirically verified. To some this may appear to be a position in which researchers are asserting that "junk DNA" has no function. However, a much more accurate depiction of their position would be that no function for DNA should be assumed until it has been verified. Personally, I think the term "junk DNA" was an extremely unfortunate choice of words. "Non-coding DNA" would have been much more descriptive, more precise, and would not carry along any metaphysical baggage. In this context, I find it interesting that many of the people now actively investigating the functions of non-coding DNA do not (or at least no longer) refer to it as "junk DNA". No, that designation seems to come primarily from anti-evolutionists, who brandish it as a straw-man in rhetorical debates. For confirmation or falsification of my impressions, I think it would be educational if those who disagree with my assessment would post examples from the recent peer-reviewed literature in which researchers investigating gene expression have consistently used the term "junk DNA" in the way it has been used in this thread.Allen_MacNeill_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Yes, Clive, perfectly clear. As to being "born again" being a central tenet of Christianity, I don't remember it being taught to me in the 12+ years I was in Sunday school (Homer Congregational Church, Homer, NY), nor in my confirmation classes, nor did it come up during the 10+ years that I served on the board of directors of Cornell United Religious Work, nor have I heard it mentioned in 30+ years of attending the Ithaca Friends Meeting. But I suppose by your definition none of those organizations are genuinely Christian. On the other hand, I have often heard the phrase used as a rhetorical weapon, intended by those brandishing it to denigrate exclude people who did not immediately profess to having experienced it. Would that be the kind of "born again" you don't want me to make jokes about, Clive?Allen_MacNeill_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

To add to #31 if the DNA is not altered then normal body-plan devlopment proceeds normally. In the real world 3-5% of human births result in defects many of which are attributable to altered DNA either via a heritable problem or DNA damage during some stage in development. DNA alteration at differing stages cause different types of malformation.Acipenser_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill,
But, as I said (in a comment that apparently has not made it through moderation), it’s hard to make jokes that are understood by the ideologically committed…
We're all ideologically committed, even if the ideology is one of keeping all ideologies provisionally, that idea cannot be provisional if all other ideas will continue to be. Besides, I thought the joke was silly, and such silliness doesn't strike me as funny, but rather a way to be passive aggressive against being born-again, a central tenet of Christianity, of which passive aggressiveness is exactly how you strike me. Not everything is permissible because it appears as a joke, or comes as a punchline, for this kind of satire is really passive aggressiveness, and I find that silly and inappropriate, and I won't tolerate it. Are we clear?Clive Hayden_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

BA77:re acipenser: your kidding right? you cite a study of intentionally damaged DNA (they subtracted information for building parts of body plans) and then they observe various stages of malformed Body Plans??? Though their may be a nugget to glean somewhere in it, I really fail to see how this is relevant in any way to bolstering Nak’s falsified claim that body plans derive from DNA?,
The scientists who conducted this experiment did not subtract anything but to test their hypothesis that genotoxic agents, i.e., those that alter the DNA of an organism, cause malformations during development. In short pertubations of the DNA result in altered/malformed body plans that which you claimed was not possible. Perhaps you aren't familiar with teratogenises and how DNA is involved in formation of body plans.Acipenser_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

re acipenser: your kidding right? you cite a study of intentionally damaged DNA (they subtracted information for building parts of body plans) and then they observe various stages of malformed Body Plans??? Though their may be a nugget to glean somewhere in it, I really fail to see how this is relevant in any way to bolstering Nak's falsified claim that body plans derive from DNA?bornagain77_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

MacNeil, "it’s hard to make jokes that are understood by the ideologically committed." Would the "ideologically committed" be some sort of "religious" person who refused to change their beliefs even though all evidence they cling to melts away as knowledge increases? And MacNeill just whom do you think fits that personification?bornagain77_{March 25, 2010
March
03
Mar
25
25
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply