Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The human genome at 20. We have some answers but way more questions now.


Twenty years ago, the human genome was treated as a Book of Life. Times have changed:

Today, the gaps between our genes, and the switches that direct genetic activity, are emerging as powerful determinants behind how we look and how we get ill – perhaps deciding up to 90% of what makes us different from one another. Understanding this “genetic dark matter”, using the knowledge provided by the human genome sequence, will help us to push further into our species’ genetic secrets …

Dispiritingly, it turned out that our genome contains roughly the same number of genes as a mouse or a fruit fly (around 21,000), and three times less than an onion. Few would argue that humans are three times less complex than an onion. Instead, this discovery suggested that the number of genes in our genome had little to do with our complexity or our difference from other species, as had been previously assumed.

Alasdair Mackenzie and Andreas Kolb, “The human genome at 20: how biology’s most-hyped breakthrough led to anticlimax and arrests” at The Conversation

That was an important find. Watching learned ignorance fly out the window, along with its easy and dogmatic assumptions, must have been fun. Here’s another one:

The non-coding genome, which makes up the remaining 98.3% of our DNA, doesn’t code proteins. This largely unknown section of the genome was once dismissed as “junk DNA”, previously thought to be useless. It contained no protein-creating genes, so it was assumed the non-coding genome had little to do with the stuff of life.

Bewilderingly, scientists found that the non-coding genome was actually responsible for the majority of information that impacted disease development in humans. Such findings have made it clear that the non-coding genome is actually far more important than previously thought.

Alasdair Mackenzie and Andreas Kolb, “The human genome at 20: how biology’s most-hyped breakthrough led to anticlimax and arrests” at The Conversation

And they’ve only just begun rattling the Darwinian cages…

Belfast @6--good point. In addition to FUNDED science, it includes PUBLISHED science as well. It's difficult to get contrarian views past reviewers and editors. On the other hand, they do a service by rejecting a lot of crackpot ideas. What makes it hard is that very rarely some of these crackpot ideas turn out to be true--or at least have a preponderance of evidence. Jack Oliver's 1968 paper on continental drift (plate tectonics) is a good example. BobRyan @9, Yes, exactly. The science is never supposed to be settled except in the minds of people who write multiple-choice and true-false questions. And politicians who don't know any better and want funding for their friends. In the 1980s, some scientists proposed the "Nuclear Winter" theory in support of nuclear disarmament. And then there was the scare in the 1960s, where we were told by scientists that we were about to enter another ice age. Some scientists even advocated the detonation of nuclear devices to halt the coming ice age and encourage global warming. Sure follow the science, but hold onto it loosely because it's invariably incorrect, more complex than first thought, and includes unintended consequences. Examples include the succession of non-native species introduced to Hawaii to control the previous one that had become a pest, and the lessons of the Kaibab deer disaster. -Q Querius
One thing the human genome has told us is that DNA does NOT determine biological form. And because of that evolutionism fails. But evos will remain in denial until they die. ET
Querius, Settled science has no more meaning than science denier. Both are used to stop a debate before it begins, since both are used by people who have no means to support their arguments in a rational way. Man-made global warming, now called climate change, has no bearing in science, but does not stop people from claiming it to be as true as Darwinism. The last Great Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago with about half the planet buried in ice, which resulted in lower water levels. When it ended, the ice started to melt and has been melting ever since. 10,000 years ago, there was nothing made by man that could have brought an end to an ice age, anymore than they could start or end the little ice age. BobRyan
Wait, I thought the science was settled . . . lol -Q Querius
@ Belfast After have read 16 science papers (neuroscience mostly) in the last two weeks, (Waste of money btw) I assure that none of them and I me none of them......... DIDN’T have exactly those two comments in them. One in the abstract and one in the conclusion at the end all of them had that but you also forget one other key term they also put in there “Form our knowledge, this is the first study to show (test, provide)” blah AaronS1978
At Seversky @3. No, Seversky, it doesn’t. Your naïve comment misses the point; it describes how FUNDED science works. Many reports describes firstly how they were ‘surprised to find’ then ends with saying that the finding ‘raises more questions.’ If they were fool enough to say the research answered a question, there would be no need for continued funding. Belfast
@3 Not particularly that’s actually more of a trope It’s more about we answered the question and don’t questioning us Lawrence Krauss is a good example of that. Unless you’re talking about when they ask the questions because when they ask the questions that’s OK AaronS1978
Read "Nelson Cabej- Epigenetic principle of evolution." Irony alert , even he believes in evolution ,he dismantle darwinian kind of evolution with powerfull arguments . Mind-blowing . Sandy
We Have Some Answers But Way More Questions Now.
That sort of describes science, doesn't it? Seversky
Oddly, this is one place where the modern quantumists and digitalists DIDN'T follow the digital model. They've been trying for 60 years to model reality with software, though it's always been clear that feedback loops can't be modeled in software. In this case the software model should have led them to see that variables are more important than hardwired constants. A program with nothing but hardwired constants won't do anything. It will just sit there giving the same answer forever. If you want change and evolution, you need to have most of the registers responding to inputs from the punch cards or keyboards or transducers. Hardwired DNA is the same. It just sits there giving the same answer forever, like a horseshoe crab or a coelacanth. polistra
i don’t understand is, where all the Darwinian self-confidence comes from… Not only in regards to OOL-research, but in general. Every new Darwinian scientific paper on evolution/genetics starts with a statement that it is “other than thought, more important than previously thought, earlier than thought, more complex than thought and so on … “. Or this 'JUNK"-DNA stuff... Each Darwinian claim sooner or later turned out to be wrong ... I really don’t understand where all the Darwinian self-confidence comes from … martin_r

Leave a Reply