Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Origins of Genomic ‘Dark Matter’ Discoverd–Once Again, ID Predictions are Spot On

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This just in from Phys.Org.

Pugh added that he and Venters were stunned to find 160,000 of these “initiation machines,” because humans only have about 30,000 genes. “This finding is even more remarkable, given that fewer than 10,000 of these machines actually were found right at the site of genes. Since most genes are turned off in cells, it is understandable why they are typically devoid of the initiation machinery.” . . .

The remaining 150,000 initiation machines—those Pugh and Venters did not find right at genes—remained somewhat mysterious.
These initiation machines that were not associated with genes were clearly active since they were making RNA and aligned with fragments of RNA discovered by other scientists,” Pugh said. “In the early days, these fragments of RNA were generally dismissed as irrelevant since they did not code for proteins.” [Yeah, that’s right—you called it “junk DNA” and said it was proof contradicting design.] . . . . .

Pugh and Venters further validated their surprising findings by determining that these non-coding initiation machines recognized the same DNA sequences as the ones at coding genes, indicating that they have a specific origin and that their production is regulated, just like it is at coding genes. . . . . . .

These non-coding RNAs have been called the ‘dark matter’ of the genome because, just like the dark matter of the universe, they are massive in terms of coverage—making up over 95 percent of the human genome. However, they are difficult to detect and no one knows exactly what they all are doing or why they are there,” Pugh said. “Now at least we know that they are real, and not just ‘noise’ or ‘junk.’ Of course, the next step is to answer the question, ‘what, in fact, do they do?'”[Really?!! “Dark Matter?” You called it “junk-DNA”; it’s only now, now that you’ve been proven wrong on a grand scale that you’ve decided to call it “dark matter.”][P.S. This is what liberals do: when wrong, change the words; e.g., “global warming” = “climate change”, or, “pro-abortion” = “pro-choice”. You see, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.]

So, let’s see: 150,000 “initiation machines” (Wow, are there “machines” in the cell?) in the Non-Coding, and 10,000 in the coding portion. I wonder which is more important???? And what has ID been predicting since the late 1990’s? That the Non-Coding portion of the genome is where the bau-plan (blueprint, more or less) of the animal is to be found, and that proteins are but the building blocks (kind of forming the “parts list” of life’s manufacture); i.e., that ‘genes-coding’ portions of the genome are of less importance to life than the ‘non-coding’ portions. Here, it is 15:1 in favor of the Non-Coding—and in full agreement with ID predictions.

And, guess what, finally we get to put to rest the ‘junk-DNA’ argument. How do I know? Because it’s now called “dark matter.”

Comments
Elizabeth:
If I’m ever in California, Bruce, I’ll be sure to get in touch
I look forward to it.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
PaV, re. #75:
The latest monstrosity is this: now the left wants to define a “fourth trimester.”
Once again, PaV, your ability to make distinctions is sadly lacking. I know many people who consider themselves liberal. None of them would endorse such a thing. You find one objectionable idea endorsed by some group of people and then attribute it to this vague idea you have, called "the left". If you want your thinking to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that!Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
PaV, re. #75:
Everything is very simple: human embryos give rise to human beings. All living human beings are ‘persons.’ Therefore, the human embryo is a ‘person.’
I have seen versions of this argument before, and it is fallacious. Here are some counterexamples that demonstrate that your conclusion does not follow: 1. It is known from cosmological principles that when a certain amount of interstellar dust collects within a given volume of space, the dust will give rise to a star. Does this imply that the dust cloud is a star? Of course not. 2. Thoughts give rise to actions which give rise to artifacts---art, literature, technology, etc. Does this imply that thoughts are the artifacts? Certainly not. 3. Water vapor evaporating from the ocean gives rise to clouds. Does this imply that the water vapor is a cloud? Not until it condenses in the upper atmosphere. 4. Organic matter that falls to the ground gives rise to soil. Does this mean that the organic matter (leaves, dead animals, bodily waste, etc.) is soil at the moment it touches the earth? Again, no. So you see, PaV, the "therefore" in your statements quoted above is false. You, like many conservatives, have confused your opinions with objective truth.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Phinehas, re. #72:
We are not talking about sincerity here. We’re talking about what is objectively true,
I disagree, vehemently as it happens. There is no objective truth regarding what constitutes a human being. My definition of a human being is a human body inhabited by a soul (which is what we truly are). Souls exist eternally and experience many lifetimes, each in a different body. Based on the best information available to me, I believe that a soul does not join with a body until the brain is sufficiently developed for the soul to merge with it. This happens sometime during the third trimester. Thus, a human being does not come into existence until that time. Is this objectively true? No. It depends upon my (subjective) definition of what a human being is, just as your belief that a fertilized ovum is a human being depends on your (subjective) definition of what a human being is.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Nice OPOptimus
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
First of all, let me apologize for going after 'liberals.' It's completely sidetracked any discussion of genomic "dark matter." I'll have to remember this the next time. Having said that, however, there's this: From the OP: [P.S. This is what liberals do: when wrong, change the words; e.g., "global warming" = "climate change", or, "pro-abortion" = "pro-choice". You see, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.] From Bruce David: However, there is no way to prove that a zygote is a human being for the simple reason that what is or is not a human being is ultimately a matter of definition, and definitions are not subject to proof. Each of us must decide for him or her self. You see, Bruce, this is exactly what liberals do: when they're wrong, they change the words. Here you suggest 'changing' the 'definition' of what a human being is. You see, everyone: for liberals "nature" doesn't exist. Now let me show you why. In this discussion---which I spent 3 minutes skimming---there's the question of human zygotes and when a 'person' comes into existence. Everything is very simple: human embryos give rise to human beings. All living human beings are 'persons.' Therefore, the human embryo is a 'person.' [As to its viability, that can be uncertain. As to whether more than one 'soul' is present is also uncertain. But, "By their fruits they shall be known." Hence, if "twinning" happens, then two 'souls' were present; if not, then one. This is just straight forward logic.] Now, if we're dealing with any animal other than a human being, we don't have discussions about whether or not the "cat" embryo is a "cat" embryo, or a "bat" embryo is a "bat" embryo, or that a "shark" embryo is a "shark" embryo. Bats give rise to bats; cats to cats, and sharks to sharks. Hence, human beings give rise to human beings. But all human beings are persons. Therefore, 'persons' give rise to 'persons.' Does anyone ask the question, when does a "cat" embryo become a "cat," or, when does a "bat" embryo become a "bat," or so forth. So, why do we ask these questions about human beings? So that we can justify destroying them in the womb. And how do we do this? By making 'nature' something that can be 'defined.' [Of course, 'natures' can have definitions, but a 'nature' is not a 'nature' simply because of our definition. The 'definition' doesn't bring the 'nature' into being. The 'nature' already exists independently of any 'definition.' Our 'definition' simply serves the purpose of describing and identifying the 'nature' of a thing. Unless, you're a liberal. Then you're a 'subjectivist.' And things 'exist' because the 'subject' says they 'exist.' And if the 'subject' says they don't exist, then those things don't exist. Aw, how simple is the life of a liberal.] So, just change the definition of a 'nature.' That's it. Simple stuff. {You see, it's all about what the meaning of 'is' is. Is it a 'nature' or isn't it?] And this persistence on the left to be IN CHARGE of DEFINING what a 'nature' is or isn't leads to bizarre hypocrisy. So for example, when a dolphin is beaten to death, this is horrible; but when it's pregnant, this is unbelievably horrible. But, if what's inside the dolphin is just a 'fetus,' why should it matter to those on the left who find it alright to take the life of a 'fetus'? And then this proclivity to 'subjectivism' leads here: The latest monstrosity is this: now the left wants to define a "fourth trimester." (There were persons on some university campus recently passing around petitions saying that this "fourth trimester" should be made legal, with university students signing the petitions) Yes, that's right. Even after the birth of a child, you have three months to choose whether or not you want to keep your BABY alive. You see, Bruce, everything is easy. If you can kill a baby in the womb in the first trimester, then why not in the second? If you can kill a baby in the second trimester, then why not the third? And, of course, if you can kill a baby in the third trimester, then why not the fourth? Oh, you object that a "fourth trimester" is a contradiction in terms. No problem. You see, there's no such thing as a 'nature', and there's no such thing as logic. There's just DEFINITIONS!!!! We'll just "define" the "fourth trimester" through a legislative act, and, there you have it: a "fourth trimester--legally "defined" and binding!! You know: FIAT. The WILL of a tyrant. Or, per Nietzsche, the WILL of SUPERMAN. I'm being rather blunt, hoping that this will open a few eyes.PaV
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Now I know that you can come up with answers to those questions which will result in the inclusion of a zygote in membership but the exclusion of unjoined gametes. And I don’t doubt that your belief in the veracity of those answers is sincere.
Let's be intellectually honest here. A gamete is a functionary haploid cell and not a unique life form in and of itself. A zygote/fetus is diploid, has unique DNA, and is alive in that it responds to stimuli, takes in nutrients, and develops, etc. Also, one must accept it is of our same species, as I don't think anyone would honestly claim otherwise. I'm not staking a claim of which position is right, or wrong (I'll keep that to myself), however one must accept the terms with their choice in the matter, and whether or not abortion is deemed appropriate.TSErik
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
If I'm ever in California, Bruce, I'll be sure to get in touch :)Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
BD:
Ah, but that definition leaves open what the qualifications are for membership.
Not really.
Is a zygote a member?
Of course a human zygote is a member of Homo Sapiens. Why wouldn't it be?
How about the sperm and the egg before they join? etc., etc.
I know of no one who would seriously say the unjoined sperm or egg is a human being or a member of Homo Sapiens.
Now I know that you can come up with answers to those questions which will result in the inclusion of a zygote in membership but the exclusion of unjoined gametes. And I don’t doubt that your belief in the veracity of those answers is sincere.
We are not talking about sincerity here. We're talking about what is objectively true, such that rights can be granted equally and with as much certainty as possible.
However, there is no way to prove that a zygote is a human being for the simple reason that what is or is not a human being is ultimately a matter of definition, and definitions are not subject to proof. Each of us must decide for him or her self.
To see just how ridiculous this argument is, simply replace "zygote" above with "child." To see how horrendously dangerous it is, replace "zygote" with "negro" or "Jew" or simply substitute your own name.Phinehas
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, You know, Lizzie, it's too bad we live on different continents (I live in California). I would love to have the opportunity to sit down with you over a cup of coffee (or whatever your drink of choice is) and have a real conversation. Regards, BruceBruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Phinehas, re. #67:
While it can be difficult to say who is a person and who is not because of the subjective fuzziness built into the concept, what constitutes a human being is much more concrete and objective: A human being is a member of the Homo Sapiens species.
Ah, but that definition leaves open what the qualifications are for membership. Is a zygote a member? How about the sperm and the egg before they join? etc., etc. Now I know that you can come up with answers to those questions which will result in the inclusion of a zygote in membership but the exclusion of unjoined gametes. And I don't doubt that your belief in the veracity of those answers is sincere. However, there is no way to prove that a zygote is a human being for the simple reason that what is or is not a human being is ultimately a matter of definition, and definitions are not subject to proof. Each of us must decide for him or her self.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Your God was my God, Bruce :) Still is, in many senses.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
tjguy, re #57: That's a lot of questions. I'll take them in turn.
What God do you believe in?
The God I believe in is All That Is, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Every where you look, there is the face of God. Everything that exists, including you and me, is a part of God.
What evidence do you have for his existence?
The fact that consciousness, the fundamental fact of existence, cannot be explained in a materialist philosophy. NDE experiences. Past life recollections of young children. Innumerable instances of ESP experienced by all manner of people. My own inner knowing.
Does he/she/it make any demands on you?
No. My God loves me unconditionally. Unconditional love is just that, unconditional. Unconditional love grants freedom. True freedom, not the freedom to choose but "if you don't do what I want you to, I will severely punish you." The God I believe in clearly states in The New Revelations, one of the volumes of the Conversations with God series by Neale Donald Walsch, "There is no such thing as right and wrong, only what works and what doesn't work depending on what you want to be, do, and have." In the place of demands, my God issues a permanent invitation: return to Me by remembering who and what you truly are---created in my image and likeness. Part of this is in every moment to ask yourself, "What would Love do now?" and act according to the inner answer you receive.
Does your god promise an afterlife?
Yes, although it's actually between lives.
If so, what is the requirement for entering it?
To be a human being.
Is there a right and wrong use of sex or any other of god’s good gifts? How do you know what they are?
As I said above, there is no right and wrong, period (in a moral sense, that is). If you want guidance in any given situation, ask yourself, "What would Love do now?"
If you reject so much of the Bible, where do you get your ideas?
From channeled entities such as Seth, Bartholomew, and Michael. From between life recollections under hypnosis recorded in Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls by Michael Newton. From the reports of NDEs by people such as Anita Moorjani and Eben Alexander. From the writings of the great Sufi masters such as Rumi, Hafiz, and Ibn al 'Arabi (although I don't accept the entirety of Sufism). And most importantly, from the Conversations with God series of books, by Neale Donald Walsch, which I regard as the revealed word of God. There are other sources of my belief as well.
Whether others agree or not, at least Christians have a reason for their faith – Gods Word.
I concur with Elizabeth Liddle's response in #59. I would add the following: Nearly every major and minor religious tradition has holy texts claiming to be the revealed word of God. How do you decide that the Bible is God's word and all the others are not? Furthermore, there are myriad interpretations of what the words written therein actually mean. How do you decide which interpretation is the correct one? I hate to break it to you, tjguy, but ultimately each of us is our own authority with regard to the nature and existence of God. Each of us has to choose from among all the myriad competing claims for truth. It is you who must decide what is true for you. There is no escape.Bruce David
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
BD:
To me, “human being” and “person” are pretty much synonymous. How do you differentiate between the two? In particular, how do you define “human being”?
As I said before, personhood may have extra metaphysical baggage for some, including whether or not a soul is required to qualify. Or, as goodusername has been kind enough to illustrate, one may place subjective limits on personhood based on self-awareness or the ability to think. Many among the religiously inclined will say that angels and God are persons, but certainly not human beings. If one accepts the possibility that sentient alien life forms exist, they may also qualify as persons, though not as human beings. While it can be difficult to say who is a person and who is not because of the subjective fuzziness built into the concept, what constitutes a human being is much more concrete and objective: A human being is a member of the Homo Sapiens species.Phinehas
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Ironical, jul3s. Ironical.Axel
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
What do you mean? Explain.Jul3s
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
'deeply twisted'!!! For goodness sake, man, say what you really mean!Axel
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
The words 'inconvenience' and 'discomfort' applied only to the pregnancy itself and I used the word responsibility in my last point. Once again, the size of the responsibility should have no bearing on what is determined to be moral or not.Jul3s
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
Ever heard of adoption agencies, Elizabeth? Not optimal, but perhaps better than a mother taking the life of her own progeny. An Irish saying I heard, 'She's scared of the calf, but she wasn't scared of the bull.'Axel
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Well, you are of course entitled to that view. It was your dismissal as trivial the concerns of those who do not share it that I was addressing. Many people not think there are good reasons for regarding a zygote as a person. To characterise people who do not as "dodging" the line for "the sake of convenience" or to "avoid discomfort" is to trivialise to the point of absurdity the reasons women have for not continue with a pregnancy to term. Raising a child is a huge responsibility, not an merely an "inconvenience" or a "discomfort".Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
Life should be viewed as being so valuable that losing autonomy should be acceptable. The magnitude of the responsibility is no justification for wanting to make that decision and the "biological" arguments are actually faulty philosophical ones.Jul3s
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
tjguy: I suggest that you too have your own ideas about who god is and what he is like. You chose the god of a particular branch of a particular religious tradition, based on a particular collection of texts, said to be that god's word. Why that one?Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
I don't see anything "deeply twisted" about trying to figure out when zygote becomes a human being with a claim that overrides that of its mother. Ethical decisions are often difficult, and sometimes the choice involves deciding which of two alternatives is the least bad. What I find somewhat "twisted" is your implication that lines are "dodged" for "convenience" or "the avoidance of discomfort". The statistics I gave show that far from attempting to "dodge" any "line", women who do not want to their pregnancy to continue try to end it as soon as possible. And to describe having a child as a "discomfort" or "inconvenience" is absurd. Having a child is a huge undertaking, and there can be extremely powerful reasons for not taking it on, including the welfare of other children, your ability to care for a child, your age, your health, whether the father is someone you even want in your life, whether the father is someone you even consented to have sex with. No woman wants an abortion. But many women become pregnant unwillingly, and because bringing up a child is a huge and onerous responsibility, not merely an "inconvenience" or a cause of "discomfort", do not want that pregnancy to continue. Obviously if your view is that a zygote is a person, then that still doesn't trump that person's right to life. But many do not consider that a zygote is a person, for perfectly good biological reasons, and to characterise women who do not, and who seek termination of their pregnancies as doing so for "the sake of convenience or the avoidance of discomfort" is, well, in my view, twisted.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Bruce, you seem to believe in some sort of God. But it certainly doesn't seem to be the trinitarian Creator God of the Bible. What God do you believe in? What evidence do you have for his existence? Does he/she/it make any demands on you? Does your god promise an afterlife? If so, what is the requirement for entering it? Is there a right and wrong use of sex or any other of god's good gifts? How do you know what they are? It sounds like you have your own ideas of who god is and what he is like. If you reject so much of the Bible, where do you get your ideas? Whether others agree or not, at least Christians have a reason for their faith - Gods Word. But if you reject that, or pick and choose from it only the things you happen to like or agree with, aren't you basically making up your own religion and god as well? You claim to believe that sex is a gift from god, but then reject much of what he says about how it should be used. You accept the gift and then neglect the loving intentions of the Giver!tjguy
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
It isn't hard to read between the lines. The desire to avoid complications in one's life are a major driving force, not logic. Even if it isn't murder, it is deeply twisted to try to figure out where exactly the line lies so that it can be dodged for the sake of convenience or the avoidance of discomfort.Jul3s
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Who are you pretending to quote there, Jul3s? Because it bears no resemblance to any view I've ever heard from anyone. Some US statistics: Half of all abortions are performed at or below 7 weeks of pregnancy (5 weeks gestation). 90% are performed in the first trimester. 1.3% are performed after 20 weeks. In fact, there is a strong inverse relationship between stage of pregnancy and date of termination. 30% of abortions take place at or before 6 weeks - as soon as, or before, the woman knows she is pregnant. For abortions at or after 20 weeks, a major reason given in a 1988 study was confusion about dates; a second major reason is difficulty in obtaining an abortion; a third was fear of telling partner or parents. If people care about reducing late abortions, then improving access to good reproductive healthcare is clearly the way to go. If anything, equating early abortion to murder just gets in the way of reducing the already small proportion of late abortions.Elizabeth B Liddle
September 19, 2013
September
09
Sep
19
19
2013
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
"We want to get as close as possible to committing murder without actually committing murder because we want to be able to avoid consequences that will impact our lifestyle."Jul3s
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
Querius, re. #52
So you can see that it’s not just “religious fanatics” that are trying to impose their beliefs “on the rest of us.” In fact, it seems just the reverse!
No, actually, I can't see it. Who is imposing their beliefs on whom in the examples you gave? Also, my passage that you quoted was part of a larger point I was making about understanding the perceptions of those you oppose as a way to avoid creating even more intransigence on their part. I didn't claim that it was true, only that it was the perception of people who are pro-choice. Finally, in a democracy, laws have to be made, and most laws will have those who support them and those who oppose them. Thus, almost any law can be perceived through the lens of someone imposing their will on someone else if one chooses to see it that way.Bruce David
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
“They regard you and those like you as religious fanatics bent on imposing your beliefs on the rest of humankind, no better than any other tyrant.”
I've always thought attitudes like this quaint. People are always forcing their beliefs on others. It's just which ones that's at issue. For example, - Why is rape rarely and lightly punished in the United States? - Should a potential rape victim, whose life is not in danger, be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for using deadly force? - In addition to HIV, why shouldn't knowingly transmitting other STDs be subject to criminal charges? - Why are past criminal records allowed to be taken into consideration in hiring an employee? - Why should certain mood-altering drugs be illegal and others (nicotine and alcohol) not? How many deaths are caused by drunk drivers every year compared with deaths resulting from marijuana consumption? - Why should terminal cancer patients in severe pain be denied access to stronger drugs such as heroin? - Why shouldn't polygamy and polyandry between consenting adults be legalized? - Shouldn't being overweight be considered a social burden and result in fines and incarceration to facilitate behavior modification and weight loss? - Why shouldn't post partum abortion be allowed? - Why isn't medical experimentation on other primates be illegal? Shouldn't killing an individual of another primate species be considered murder? - Why is prostitution between consenting adults illegal in most places? - What right does the United States have in trying to impose its loose moral values on Islamic states? So you can see that it's not just "religious fanatics" that are trying to impose their beliefs "on the rest of us." In fact, it seems just the reverse!Querius
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
For me its simple, at conception the information and blueprint is all present. When that cell splits your construction has begun, you are not a potential human being, you are already a human being, and you are in the assembly process.Andre
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply