Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The non-coding human genome is being filled in


They quit calling it junk:

Scientists have now drafted a complete version of the human genome sequence — but the job of deciphering our DNA has only just begun.

Why it matters: The bulk of the human genome is noncoding regions, some of which play an important role in how genes are expressed. New tools are allowing scientists to test exactly how these elements — once called “junk DNA” — work, which could lead to new drug targets.

Driving the news: A team of 99 scientists completed the human genome sequence last week, filling in gaps in the draft sequence published 20 years ago using some new technologies.

They reported the human genome is 3.05 billion base pairs long and consists of 19,969 protein-coding genes, including more than 100 newly deciphered genes that can likely produce proteins.

Alison Snyder, Eileen Drage O’Reilly, “Diving into the genome’s uncharted territories” at Axios

And it all just sort of fell together, right?

There is no junk DNA (John Sanford): https://youtu.be/nV_q14L14H0 Ex nihilo nihil fit
Wait until the darwinists shift and say "of course all the DNA is useful, isn't Evolution amazing!!" zweston
They should change the terminology of "non-coding DNA". Just because it doesn't code for protein doesn't mean it isn't coding for something else. Other "codes" in DNA (aside from genes) might include control codes of various sorts, sequencing codes, processing instructions, tags or labels (codes) for finding and accessing DNA segments, DNA patches flagged (coded?) for non-use in this particular cell or organ, communication codes for signalling inside and outside the cell, and so on. If all (or most) of our DNA is being used, then I submit that it is mostly coding something or other, and not only proteins. Fasteddious
can we decode the chimp/ape (whichever is closest) genome and actually find out how close we are percentage wise to similarity once and for all
Is DNA and the non-coding genome just part of a protein building design mechanism and only a small part of what makes a cell functional? Also evidence indicates that a body design mechanism is somewhere else. The narrator is right in that the DNA to protein process is only part of the life process. He is wrong in that the proteins make the cells function. Something else is guiding the proteins to the right place in the cell that will help enable the cells to be functional. What does this guiding is unknown. That guidance mechanism is one of the real real puzzles of life. jerry
"Could lead to new drug targets" makes commercial sense, but there's a more interesting set of implications. Tritely but truly, Grandma's "superstitions" were science. You can affect the genes of your offspring through your emotions and thoughts. Epigenes also control functions in the current organism, so changing your emotions and thinking can have a lasting and intergenerational impact. I'm sure the psychopaths who run governments and social media already know this in considerable detail. NSA has always been WAY ahead of academic science, and I assume NSA's Google division is the same. polistra
As to "but the job of deciphering our DNA has only just begun." And this is another shining example of why the presuppositions of Darwinian evolution would actually hinder, instead of fostering, scientific discovery. Within Darwin's theory it was held, (and still is held), that the vast majority of non-protein coding DNA was, and is, useless junk.,, (And why should anyone ever try to 'decipher' useless junk?) In fact, Larry Moran is suppose to release a book, sometime in 2022, that unbelievably "still' claims that 90% of the genome is junk.
Larry Moran To Write New Book: Claims Genome Is 90% Junk - Apr. 2021 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/genetics/larry-moran-to-write-new-book-claims-genome-is-99-junk/
The reason why Darwinists, such as Larry Moran, (of note, Moran, since he adheres to 'neutral theory' doesn't like being classified as a "Darwinist"), still cling to the idea that the vast majority of genome must be junk is because, via the mathematics of population genetics, Junk DNA is simply required for Darwin's theory to have any realistic chance of being feasible, (and even granting Junk DNA to Darwinists, for the sake of argument, I would still argue that it still does not make their theory feasible). As Robert Carter explains, “Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done.”
The slow, painful death of junk DNA – Robert W. Carter – 2009 Background Based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane5 and others, who showed that natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura6 developed the idea of “neutral evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 were correct, then the majority of DNA must be non-functional. It should be free to mutate over time without needing to be shaped by natural selection. In this way, natural selection could act on the important bits and neutral evolution could act randomly on the rest. Since natural selection will not act on neutral traits, which do not affect survival or reproduction, neutral evolution can proceed through random drift without any inherent “cost of selection”.8 The term “junk DNA” originated with Ohno,9 who based his idea squarely on the idea of neutral evolution. To Ohno and other scientists of his time, the vast spaces (introns)between protein-coding genes were (exons) just useless DNA whose only function was to separate genes along a chromosome. Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma. Without it, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties. Junk DNA necessary for evolution Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_12-13.pdf
As the article in the OP highlights, the 'requirement' of Junk DNA within Darwin's theory is directly contradicted by empirical evidence, (and thus Darwin's theory has served as a hinderance, rather than as a catalyst, for scientific research). In fact, the trend in research, directly contrary to Darwinian 'predictions', has been to find far more functionality in 'non-coding' regions than in protein coding regions. As the following recent article highlighted, "With the HGP draft in hand, the discovery of non-protein-coding elements exploded. So far, that growth has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five, and shows no signs of slowing."
Discovery Of Useful “Junk DNA” “Has Outstripped The Discovery Of Protein-Coding Genes By A Factor Of Five… - March 2021 Excerpt: It is now appreciated that the majority of functional sequences in the human genome do not encode proteins. Rather, elements such as long non-coding RNAs, promoters, enhancers and countless gene-regulatory motifs work together to bring the genome to life. Variation in these regions does not alter proteins, but it can perturb the networks governing protein expression With the HGP draft in hand, the discovery of non-protein-coding elements exploded. So far, that growth has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five, and shows no signs of slowing. Likewise, the number of publications about such elements also grew in the period covered by our data set. For example, there are thousands of papers on non-coding RNAs, which regulate gene expression. - Alexander J. Gates, Deisy Morselli Gysi, Manolis Kellis & Albert-László Barabási, “A wealth of discovery built on the Human Genome Project — by the numbers” at Nature https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/discovery-of-useful-junk-dna-has-outstripped-the-discovery-of-protein-coding-genes-by-a-factor-of-five/
And when ENCODE first came out, Ewan Birney, the senior scientist on the project, stated that, "This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin - September 5, 2012 Excerpt: The Discover Magazine article further explains that the rest of the 20% of the genome is likely to have function as well: "And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."" We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let's simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called "junk" DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like "surprising" or "unprecedented." They talk about of how "human DNA is a lot more active than we expected." But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html
,,, "metaphor of junk isn’t that useful” is an understatement. The entire concept of Junk DNA is a hinderance as far as scientific research is concerned. And even though ENCODE was breathtaking in its scope, Darwinists were having none of it. When ENCODE came out, Darwinists defended their theory as if they were defending a religion and were attacking the ENCODE researchers as if the ENCODE researchers were heretics to their religion. As Casey Luskin noted, it was a situation, "where devotion to the paradigm trumps the evidence."
Fear of Intelligent Design Prevents Some Biologists from Accepting ENCODE's Results - Casey Luskin November 16, 2015 Excerpt: In his retrospective on ENCODE in Nature, Philip Ball acknowledges that there is an "anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it."1 Likewise, pro-ENCODE biochemists John Mattick and Marcel Dinger observe that "resistance to [ENCODE's] findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design."2 Writing in a slightly different context, eight biologists published a Nature article in 2014 recognizing that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism because, "haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front."3 It's disturbing that scientists oppose empirically based research results or suppress their own doubts about the neo-Darwinian paradigm simply because they don't like the perceived alternative -- ID. These admissions show that evolutionary biology is in an incredibly unhealthy state, where devotion to the paradigm trumps the evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/fear_of_intelli100881.html
Obviously, that was a very strange reaction to ENCODE findings from Darwinists! So again, and in conclusion, Darwin's theory, and in so far as Darwin's theory has been taken seriously by researchers, has only hindered scientific discovery rather than ever fostering scientific discovery.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
So, can we decode the chimp/ape (whichever is closest) genome and actually find out how close we are percentage wise to similarity once and for all? zweston

Leave a Reply