Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Remember junk RNA? Cell division requires a balanced level of it

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Cell division requires a balanced level of non-coding RNA for chromosome stability
The researchers offer a model/U Hong Kong

It turns out that centromeric RNA (cenRNA) helps control cell division:

If there is too much or too little centromeric RNA (cenRNA), the centromere will be defective and chromosomes will be lost. The findings were recently published in one of the top multidisciplinary journals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). This research article is recommended by F1000Prime, whose members selected approximately the top 2% of all published articles in the biology and medical sciences each year, and the recommended Faculty commented that this PNAS article is of special significance and an emerging frontier in the centromere biology field.

The DNA of our chromosomes codes for about 20,000 proteins. When the cell needs to produce a particular protein, such as insulin, the segment of DNA molecule coding for insulin, known as a gene, is first used as a template to copy into a RNA molecule. That RNA then serves as a recipe for directing the cells to make the specific protein. However, only 2% of our DNA is protein-coding. Yet, another 70% of our DNA is still copied into RNAs, which are not recipes to make proteins. Those are called non-coding RNA. These non-coding RNAs are once considered as “junk”. In recent years, however, researches have revealed vital roles of non-coding RNA, such as in gene regulation and maintaining chromosome structure…

The University of Hong Kong, “Cell division requires a balanced level of non-coding RNA for chromosome stability” at Phys.org

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham, who writes, “The abstract at the .nih website contains a reference (18) to another paper, “Evolution: Tracing the origins of centrioles, cilia, and flagella” which is an interesting read. The Conclusions and Perspectives of this paper states “Because we have not yet found intermediate structures, we can only speculate how CBBs and cilia could have emerged from simpler, preexisting components.”

And got stored as random accumulations of junk.

See also: The centriole as just another instance of random accumulation of cells Philip Cunningham draws attention to a comment that reads “If I were in a repair shop and came across something that looked like this I’d say it’s the stator rotor of a brushless DC motor. This looks very similar and it is constructed from laminations, just like a DC rotor is constructed. Hmmm.”

Junk RNA helps embryos sort themselves out

Junk RNA” plays key role in helping cells respond to stress

and

“Junk” RNA helps regulate metabolism

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
AaronS1978, Yes, I take that correction. Sarcasm ON Darwin won! This video falsifies ID: it shows there’s no such thing as functional complexity or complex functionality in biology: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wp6c2DWBpuY Sarcasm OFFPeterA
May 24, 2019
May
05
May
24
24
2019
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PST
The sarcasto button has been bornAaronS1978
May 24, 2019
May
05
May
24
24
2019
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PST
‘SARCASM ON’ Uuiuuuuuuuhmmmmmmmm Actually PeterA it’s Heads: Darwin WINS Tails: You lose Get it right! And remember in Darwinian evolution life evolved to use junk DNA so technically it’s not junk but life found a purpose for it through natural selection because if it didn’t it would just die off Soooooooooooooo the life that would survive would be the ones that learned to use its left over junk dna (Insert mountains of research that suggests I might be right, maybe, with a little interpretation) Walla no junk DNA problem SARCASM OFFAaronS1978
May 24, 2019
May
05
May
24
24
2019
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST
Assuming BA77 is not going to charge me for using his cool “sarcasm on/off” switch: Switch ON All the papers referenced in this website are according to Darwinian theory. Let’s prove it empirically: Throw a coin: Head - Darwinism wins Tail - it wins too There’s abundant literature confirming that fact. Therefore it has been confirmed beyond any doubts. Switch OFFPeterA
May 24, 2019
May
05
May
24
24
2019
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST
"sarcasm on" That simply can't be true. Remember Dan Graur said, “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA,,, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.”
Dan Graur, Darwin’s Reactionary - June 21, 2017 Excerpt: In 2013, biologist Dan Graur criticized the “evolution-free gospel of ENCODE” and accused its researchers of “playing fast and loose with the term ‘function,’ by divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context.”81 In a lecture at the University of Houston, Graur argued that “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.” In other words: “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.” But for Graur, evolution can’t be wrong. His solution to the problem? “Kill ENCODE.”82,,, Lots of evolutionists think that way but only the rare Darwinian atheist materialist is willing to state the matter as nakedly as this. No wonder Dr. Graur is among a list of individuals thanked by Dr. Wells in his Acknowledgments for “making embarrassingly candid or unwittingly humorous statements.” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/dan-graur-darwins-reactionary/
So since we know (by faith) that Darwinsm cannot possibly be false, then all scientific research that shows Darwinism to be false, as the present study in the OP does, must necessarily be wrong. "sarcasm off"bornagain77
May 24, 2019
May
05
May
24
24
2019
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST
Let's not forget that when it comes to brain development, researchers are discovering that "pseudo-genes" are intimately involved. You know, those sections of DNA that are just waiting to be useful to the organism.PaV
May 24, 2019
May
05
May
24
24
2019
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PST

Leave a Reply