We all know that Darwinists have junk for brains [ 😉 ]and this proves it.
It appears that “long non-coding” RNA’s (lncRNA) play a role in the brain’s pineal gland, which is involved in circadian rhythms and such. This ‘junkiest’ of junk functions in activating, blocking or altering the activity of genes or influencing the function of the proteins, or acting as scaffolds for the organization of complexes of proteins.
Here’s a quote from the senior author:
“These lncRNAs come from areas of the genome that we thought were quiet, . . . “But current research in the field makes it unequivocally clear that the information-carrying capacity of the genome is a lot greater than we realized previously.”
Ah, yes, “junk-DNA”—here, the ‘junkiest’ of “junk-DNA”—has a function. One less argument for the Darwinists; one feather in the cap of IDers.
Another day; another bad day for Darwinists.
PAV, the link did not work. Perhaps this paper?
a few more notes along that line:
I’ve fixed the link, BA77. Thanks. Your link to the NIH is about the same paper.
What’s interesting here, IMO, is that a particular organ (pineal) in an extremely complex other organ (the brain) shows itself to have a very important function. We sometimes forget that huge variety of cell-types that exist within the mammalian body-type. And what might be of very little utility to a muscle cell might be of very great utility in the retina; and, yet, all of this information must be handed down.
I think this paper unveils for us a better way of looking at, and understanding, the structure of the genome.
It’s always nice to see some science news posted here.
PaV:
Hi, old friend! Always spot on, as usual.
The procedures, the procedures: we are starting to understand a little bit of the procedures, at last.
That will really mean a “new bad era” for darwinists.
http://find.lifetechnologies.c.....r2012b/gdn
Junk For Brains
I’ll have to try to remember to post responses to posts at TSZ in this thread.
Junk For Brains is so apropos.
Zachriel:
We’ll await the results of the empirical verification of Lizzie’s simulation.
Toronto:
That I have to see.
Toronto:
Then stop claiming GA’s model of evolution and that GA’s demonstrate what evolution can do.
Toronto:
And just what is it that Lizzie’s program simulates?
Natural Selection? Really?
keiths@TSZ:
A GA without a fitness function isn’t much of a GA. So that’s hardly mutually inconsistent.
And a statement that any fitness function in any GA in no way models NS is not inconsistent with a statement that GAs are invalid as models of NS.
So, it was otherwise a close contest, but you win the “junk for brains” award for today.
grats
petrushka:
And in GA’s.
Mike Elzinga:
Mike’s learned everything is there to learn, and that is why he spends his time posting on an internet blog rather than being out there practicing what he preaches.
Mike Elzinga:
Not that Mike has never himself used a rule that was not derived from the study of the physical universe. That just wouldn’t do.
Toronto:
It’s ok to model physics with math.
It’s ok to model chemistry with math.
Biology is just physics and chemistry.
Dembski errs when he tries to model biological mechanisms with math.
p.s. Surely no one else has ever tried to model biological mechanisms with math.
And today’s Junk for Brains winner is:
onlooker@TSZ:
So let’s just ignore what the fitness function actually does and how it is able to do it and just pretend that it’s just a model of an environment. And if you refuse to ignore the facts and pretend with us, well, you’re just confusing the model with what’s being modeled.
The environment has no goal, purpose or function in mind. It’s not trying to use organisms to solve some problem. It’s purpose is not to direct organisms towards possible solutions to a pre-specified problem.
Unless you believe it’s all part of some grand design, that is.
petrushka:
That’s a straw-man. People are not judging the efficacy of GA’s.
And I wonder how many of you over there at TSZ who are pontificating on these subjects can meet your requirements.
lol. What does knowing how to code a GA have to do with evolution?
Zachriel@TSZ:
DOH.
ack
I hate it when i forget to end a bold properly. Can’t believe that bug still hasn’t been fixed.
PaV @3:
Exactly. This is an important point whenever considering so-called junk DNA, knock-out experiments and the like. Also, we in fact know that many functional requirements exist only at certain times (early development of the organism, for example). All of this has to be taken into account. We cannot simply look at what the DNA is doing, today, in one location, and make a pronouncement about what portion of the DNA is unnecessary.
And epigenetics is a whole additional layer . . .
Compare and contrast with UD’s comment policy:
I wonder if an ID skeptic would be allowed to continue post such material. Oh, wait, no I don’t. Everyone already knows the answer to that.
onlooker (25):
From Joe in post 767 of the original TSZ objector thread that went to over 900 comments:
That’s been up for almost a week.
And I’ve had a comment in moderation in the new TSZ thread for the last 7 hours or so. Sigh.
I’ve had a post up for moderation for almost 9 hours now on the new TSZ thread.
Was it something I said?
Well, onlooker, maybe you should encourage your mates over at TSZ to stop feeding me material.
🙂
Jerad: Did you submit a post with too many URLS or links, the UD limit is about 6 or 7 I think; used to be 4 IIRC. If so, your comment is in the mod pile for the UD moderator — I have occasionally been caught out on that. You will need to wait. Beyond that I can only suggest. KF
F/N: Someone has made a blunder on closing a bold, too. If the solidus is after the b it runs over into the rest of the thread, from experience.
KF:
Ah yea, that is probably it. Thank you for responding. I wondered if there was some criteria I was violating. I didn’t think I’d been particularly obnoxious although I do have my moments admittedly.
I shall make sure I submit under the limit from now on.
Thank you.
And yes, someon has forgotten to close a formatting tag on this thread.
ME ME ME!
see my post @21
WordPress.
/b>Mike Elzinga:b>
Gee I don’t know Mike. How did you manage to push the keys on your keyboard and generate this trope?
petrushka:
Neither do cows. And i’m guessing that grasses outnumber cows, by far.
Toronto on October 22, 2012 at 2:57 am said: