Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Rest of the Science Community Starting to Catch Up With ID on “Junk” DNA (It Ain’t)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The ID community, including many writers here at UD, has been predicting for years that so-called junk DNA would be  found to be functional.  The Darwinists have scoffed.  Now ID proponents are being vindicated.  My prediction:  The Darwinists will change their story to “we’ve been saying this all along.”

The Washington Post reports on the breakthrough research published in Nature.

Most of a person’s genetic risk for common diseases such as diabetes, asthma and hardening of the arteries appears to lie in the shadowy part of the human genome once disparaged as “junk DNA.”

Indeed, the vast majority of human DNA seems to be involved in maintaining individuals’ well being — a view radically at odds with what biologists have thought for the past three decades.

Those are among the key insights of a nine-year project to study the 97 percent of the human genome that’s not, strictly speaking, made up of genes.

The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, nicknamed Encode, is the most comprehensive effort to make sense of the totality of the 3 billion nucleotides that are packed into our cells.

The project’s chief discovery is the identification of about 4 million sites involved in regulating gene activity. Previously, only a few thousand such sites were known. In all, at least 80 percent of the genome appears to be active at least sometime in our lives. Further research may reveal that virtually all of the DNA passed down from generation to generation has been kept for a reason.

This concept of ‘junk DNA’ is really not accurate. It is an outdated metaphor,” said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama.

Myers is one of the leaders of the project, involving more than 400 scientists at 32 institutions.

Another Encode leader, Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Britain, said: “The genome is just alive with stuff. We just really didn’t realize that beforehand.”

“What I am sure of is that this is the science for this century,” he said. “In this century, we will be working out how humans are made from this instruction manual.”

The new insights are contained in six papers published Wednesday in the journal Nature. More than 20 related papers are appearing elsewhere. . .

The new research helps explain how so few genes can create an organism as complex as a human being. The answer is that regulation — turning genes on and off at different times in different types of cells, adjusting a gene’s output and coordinating its activities with other genes — is where most of the action is. . . .

In one paper, a team led by Thomas R. Gingeras of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York reported that three-quarters of the genome’s DNA is “transcribed” into a related molecule, RNA, at some point in life. A small amount of that RNA is then “translated” into protein. Much of the rest appears to have gene-regulating activities that remain to be discovered.

In a telephone conference call with reporters, several of the researchers likened the 4 million regulatory sites to electrical switches in a hugely complex wiring diagram.

By turning switches on and off, and varying the duration of their activity, a nearly infinite number of circuits can be formed. Similarly, by activating and modulating gene function, immensely complicated events such as the development of a brain cell or a liver cell from the same starting materials is possible.

Comments
To bring it back to the science, ENV has another article up highlighting the desperate situation Darwinists are in with this entire junk DNA dogma of theirs:
Why the Case for Junk DNA 2.0 Still Fails - September 27, 2012 Excerpt: if anything, ENCODE uses too narrow a definition of function -- by limiting it to "biochemical" function. For this reason, the functionality reported by ENCODE surely underestimates the total.,,, The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe, insisting that the vast ocean around them is nothing to worry about. But if trends continue, as ENCODE gives us excellent reason to expect they will, then before long those defenders of junk DNA will be planting their flag in open water. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/why_the_case_fo_1064771.html
bornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
So instead of focusing on the science, and the complete bankruptcy of Darwinism to explain the complexity we find in life, you decide to go full bore into a theological argument??? Oh well, so much for you being objective,, you ask,, "Are you a YEC or OEC?" I hold closely to what Dr. Dembski has laid out here in this book,,, The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World William Dembski PhD. Theology and Mathematics http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf you then state: "If you are an OEC then natural evil was already in the world prior to the fall." That's not the proper Theological view when taking into account, in the fall of man, that we sinned against almighty God who is timeless, eternal, outside of time spoace matter and energy, knowing the beginning from the end,, etc... etc..., i.e. our sequential, temporal, frame of reference is completely useless as a frame of reference for time in dealing with the issue of our complete separation from God! If you still hold that such 'retrograde action in time' for death entering the world is impossible, well I've already cited empirical proof from quantum mechanics, as well as noted the 'eternity' of special relativity, that shows such retrograde action is not impossible as far as physics is concerned, and that there is, in fact, a higher 'eternal' dimension that really is above this 3-D material dimension, just as theism has always resolutely held! You then go full bore into theological argumentation and state: 'provide some citations that test the effects of sin on tornadoes, floods, disease etc.' Incredible Parallels Between Israel and the U.S. Evacuations - Bill Koenig (the precise timing of the Katrina hurricane and America's actions against Israel) http://www.watch.org/showart.php3?idx=71558&rtn=&showsubj=1&mcat=24 Jonathan Cahn, author of The Harbinger, shares nine omens that spell judgment for America on this edition of Jewish Voice with Jonathan Bernis. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H13DPkb6kjQ you then state: 'Also, I think I hijacked this thread which I fully admit. I would like to continue this discussion but off thread if you are interested.' I'm not. Despite my tone, I am seeking answers to these questions but I don’t find pat answers satisfying. I’m not saying that’s what you’re giving but that’s what I’m finding. I don't believe you.bornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Are you a YEC or OEC? If you are an OEC then natural evil was already in the world prior to the fall. Man's sin didn't bring it in. If you think that's the case, please provide some citations that test the effects of sin on tornadoes, floods, disease etc. Also, I think I hijacked this thread which I fully admit. I would like to continue this discussion but off thread if you are interested. Despite my tone, I am seeking answers to these questions but I don't find pat answers satisfying. I'm not saying that's what you're giving but that's what I'm finding.JLAfan2001
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
First you apologize for making a theological argument and state "it wasn’t because of proof or lack of it", then instead of presenting any proof that Darwinian processes can produce functional information you go ahead and dig a deeper theological hole by bringing 'natural' evil into it, i.e. death. So I ask you again to you "do you want to argue theology or do you want to focus on the fact that you are empirically bankrupt for your preferred answer of Darwinism? Either way you lose!" The following book has a brief Biblical exegesis the fall of man affecting all of creation even to the point of death preceding the fall:
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - William Dembski PhD. Theology and Mathematics http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
i.e. God's view of time is simply not linear, sequential, temporal, as we view time, but is eternal, timeless, knowing the beginning from the end,, thus explaining why when we sinned against almighty God it affected all of creation even in a future effecting the past manner. If you hold that such is not possible, well advances in quantum mechanics begs to differ with what you would prefer to believe Notes:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video http://vimeo.com/38508798 Time travel theory avoids grandfather paradox - July 2010 Excerpt: “In the new paper, the scientists explore a particular version of CTCs based on combining quantum teleportation with post-selection, resulting in a theory of post-selected CTCs (P-CTCs). ,,,The formalism of P-CTCs shows that such quantum time travel can be thought of as a kind of quantum tunneling backwards in time, which can take place even in the absence of a classical path from future to past,,, “P-CTCs might also allow time travel in spacetimes without general-relativistic closed timelike curves,” they conclude. “If nature somehow provides the nonlinear dynamics afforded by final-state projection, then it is possible for particles (and, in principle, people) to tunnel from the future to the past.” http://www.physorg.com/news198948917.html Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011 Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony
It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Verse and music:
1 Corinthians 15:55-57 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt (Music Inspired by The Story) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit
bornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
I admit that I went off in a different direction but it wasn't because of proof or lack of it. I just thought that would be an interesting question to pose. All the videos that you posted were about moral evil. I was referring to natural evil. Malaria, HIV and E.coli don't have moral codes but kill humanity because they were seemingly designed to. Why? Why does the design of nature require so much death and survival? This seems to be poor design right from the get go but in falls in line with the idea of natural selection.JLAfan2001
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
So do you want to argue theology or do you want to focus on the fact that you are empirically bankrupt for your preferred answer of Darwinism? Either way you lose! i.e. the argument from evil presupposes the existence of a absolute standard of good of the way things ought to be but are not. Exactly where do you derive this standard of good from to enable you to judge by if it did not in fact exist in reality? Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M Cruel Logic – video Description; A brilliant serial killer videotapes his debates with college faculty victims. The topic of his debate with his victim: His moral right to kill them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI Albert Einstein and his answer to his Professor ! - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLOZDpE1rkAbornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
This raises an interesting question that even Behe brought up. Why would the Intelligent Designer (and we all know who that is even if ID wants to pretend they don’t) design malaria, HIV and E.coli? That would imply that the Intelligent GoDesinger was not all good.JLAfan2001
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
'What I’m trying to find out is if all that complexity came to be after years of trial and error.' A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge020071.html Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/editbornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
I never said that I didn’t agree with any of things you mentioned. In fact, I do agree with it very much. I think any biologist out there would too. What I’m trying to find out is if all that complexity came to be after years of trial and error. Perhaps the junk DNA is proof of that.JLAfan2001
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
notes only 4 grams of DNA can store the entire information content of the entire world:
Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute - video https://vimeo.com/47615970 Quote from preceding video: "The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA." Sriram Kosuri PhD. - Wyss Institute Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram - Sebastian Anthony - August 17, 2012 Excerpt: A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.,,, Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram DNA Stores Data More Efficiently than Anything We've Created - Casey Luskin - August 29, 2012 Excerpt: Nothing made by humans can approach these kind of specs. Who would have thought that DNA can store data more efficiently than anything we've created. But DNA wasn't designed -- right? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/who_would_have_063701.html Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA - Dr. Fazale Rana - September 10, 2012 Excerpt: One gram of DNA can hold up to 455 exabytes (one exabyte equals 10^18 bytes). In comparison, a CD-ROM holds about 700 million (7 x 10^8) bytes of data. (One gram of DNA holds the equivalent amount of data as 600 billion CD-ROMs. Assuming a typical book requires 1 megabyte of data-storage capacity, then one gram of DNA could harbor 455 trillion books.) http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dna Biochemical Turing Machines “Reboot” the Watchmaker Argument - Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: Researchers recognize several advantages to DNA computers.(7) One is the ability to perform a massive number of operations at the same time (in parallel) as opposed to one at a time (serially) as demanded by silicon-based computers. Secondly, DNA has the capacity to store an enormous quantity of information. One gram of DNA can house as much information as nearly 1 trillion CDs. And a third benefit is that DNA computing operates near the theoretical capacity with regard to energy efficiency. http://stevebrownetc.com/2012/07/02/biochemical-turing-machines-%E2%80%9Creboot%E2%80%9D-the-watchmaker-argument/ Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048 The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Scientists' 3-D View of Genes-at-Work Is Paradigm Shift in Genetics - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Highly coordinated chromosomal choreography leads genes and the sequences controlling them, which are often positioned huge distances apart on chromosomes, to these 'hot spots'. Once close together within the same transcription factory, genes get switched on (a process called transcription) at an appropriate level at the right time in a specific cell type. This is the first demonstration that genes encoding proteins with related physiological role visit the same factory. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215160649.htm DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video http://vimeo.com/33882804
Bill Gates, in recognizing the superiority found in Genetic Coding compared to the best computer coding we now have, has now funded research into this area:
Welcome to CoSBi - (Computational and Systems Biology) Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas. (of note: the preceding header, which was originally on the main page of the website ,is now missing)
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
"Why can’t you just admit ID and Jonathan Wells were wrong on this?" They weren't! On the other hand Why can't you admit to the overwhelmingly obvious fact that DNA, and the coding in DNA, is unfathomably complex, being several orders of magnitude more complex than anything our best computer engineers or computer programmers have ever built or programmed??? Or is going through life with you head stuck in the sand how you prefer to do science?bornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Why can’t you just admit ID and Jonathan Wells were wrong on this? It also seems there is bias on the other side because it very well could be junk which I suspect will be.JLAfan2001
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
as to which way the functionality percentage will go, well I'll let the evidence speak for itself:
Why All the Fuss Over Some Junk? - Jonathan Wells - September 25, 2012 Excerpt: the four bloggers listed above are doing everything they can to discredit the ENCODE project's estimate of functional DNA. Yet whatever the estimate may currently be, it is certain to increase with further research. In 2007, the ENCODE pilot project reported on the basis of about 200 datasets that our DNA is "pervasively transcribed," suggesting functionality. The 2012 results, based on 1,640 datasets, documented that "the vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome" is biochemically functional in at least one cell type. But ENCODE has so far sampled only a fraction of the cell types in the human body. Clearly, we have a lot more to learn about our genome -- but not if we start by assuming that most of it is junk. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/why_all_the_fus_1064721.html 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."" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html
bornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
"I think the 80% will lower quite a bit in the future becoming a hard blow to ID." Nothing prejudiced there! i.e. Why should I care one iota what you think about the evidence when you are basically reading tea leaves and calling it science whilst you are completely ignoring the elephant standing on your chest in the middle of your living room!?!bornagain77
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Over at ENV: "The debate thus hinges on whether activity such as transcription, transcription factor association, and histone modification are signs of true function. My own view is that such such activity is suggestive of functionality, but not proof. Therefore I would be cautious about claiming that these results show 80% of the genome to have function in the sense that we normally use that word." It seems that even IDists are starting to reel in the reigns on their celebration of no junk DNA. If Jonathan M. is becoming cautious about 80%, why shouldn’t everyone else. Anything more to add, BA77? Keep in mind that this thread is about the issue of junk DNA not origins of life or CSI. I think the 80% will lower quite a bit in the future becoming a hard blow to ID.JLAfan2001
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
My comment was not asking where genes come from or how Darwinism can’t explain the lack of functional genes.,,,
And you are ignoring this glaring, and profound, deficiency of evidence because why exactly???? i.e. Why should I care one iota what you think about the evidence when you are basically reading tea leaves and calling it science whilst you are completely ignoring the elephant standing on your chest in the middle of your living room!?!bornagain77
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
BA77 and Joe My comment was not asking where genes come from or how Darwinism can’t explain the lack of functional genes. I will phrase it in some questions. Did ID predict that junk DNA would be a myth? Did ENCODE find junk DNA or non-functioning pseudogenes? If so, does this undermine the ID argument? All I want to know is are there or are there not any junk DNA in the genome?JLAfan2001
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Further Thoughts on the ENCODE/Junk DNA Debates - Jame Shapiro - Sept. 18, 2012 Excerpt: The ENCODE scientists have learned that it is wise to avoid interpreting the data from a fixed view of genome organization. That is why they speak of "DNA Elements" rather than genes or any other artificial categories. They tend to restrict themselves wisely to operationally defined features, such as transcription start sites (TSSs) and splice sites at exon-intron boundaries. Diogenes and like-minded people argue that we knew enough in the 1970s to understand the basic principles of genome organization. They do not accept that the flood of new information from genome sequencing and the kind of methodologies exemplified by the ENCODE project will fundamentally alter our genetic concepts. While they are certainly entitled to these opinions, I think we have to recognize that they are nothing more than that -- simply opinions that fly in the face of scientific history. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/further-thoughts-on-the-e_b_1893984.htmlbornagain77
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Just up at ENV: ENCODE Results Separate Science Advocates from Propagandists David Klinghoffer September 20, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/encode_results_064491.htmlbornagain77
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
This detrimental mutation rate is far higher than what even leading population geneticists agree is acceptable:
Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' for mutations, and how it completely falsifies evolution, is shown in the following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
Further reflection on the implications of genetic entropy are discussed here:
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933
JLAfan2001, you mentioned following the evidence where it leads, those are wise words indeed. Why don't you please follow your own advise??bornagain77
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
JLAfan2001, you are missing the entire point of experimental (empirical) science. Even Einstein's theories (special and general relativity) were considered nothing more than conjecture until experimental proof was brought forth confirming time dilation for special relativity (now confirmed by multiple lines of experiment) and the experimental proof of the warping of 4-D space-time (i.e. bending of starlight during a eclipse) confirmed general relativity. In other words, why should Darwinism even be given the time of day, a free pass as far as Darwinists are concerned, as to explaining how genes arose when Darwinism has NEVER EVER been observed to create even a single functional gene and/or a functional protein in the first place??? whereas intelligence has been observed to create as such???
Computer-designed proteins programmed to disarm variety of flu viruses - June 1, 2012 Excerpt: The research efforts, akin to docking a space station but on a molecular level, are made possible by computers that can describe the landscapes of forces involved on the submicroscopic scale.,, These maps were used to reprogram the design to achieve a more precise interaction between the inhibitor protein and the virus molecule. It also enabled the scientists, they said, "to leapfrog over bottlenecks" to improve the activity of the binder. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-computer-designed-proteins-variety-flu-viruses.html Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video https://vimeo.com/32148403
JLAfan2001 it is simply beyond ludicrous, indeed insane, for you to presuppose Darwinism as true for all of biology with no empirical basis to support your position that Darwinism can create functional complexity. Moreover for you to point to broken (vestigial) genes, which I grant Darwinism processes would be more than excellent at achieving, as proof that Darwinism is true simply because you can't envision a Designer (God) allowing such genetic entropy to occur after He has implemented top-down design, is simply not even in the field of empirical science, and, in reality (not Darwinian fantasy land), such argumentation clearly is theological argumentation that you, and other Darwinists, have been using solely to try to support your empirically bankrupt, and philosophically motivated, theory! Notes:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast:
Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-losing-ground-badly.html
There is no evidence of Darwinian processes ever creating novel genes or proteins in humans whereas the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.hgmd.org/
I really question their use of the word 'celebrating'. (Of note, apparently someone with a sense of decency has now removed the word 'celebrating'). Such a high rate of detrimental mutations is further elaborated here by Dr. John Sanford:
John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsu94HQrL0 Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
bornagain77
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
But darwinism cannot explain the existence of genes...Joe
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
BA77 So if there are pseudogenes then ID is correct. If there are no pseudogenes then ID is correct. Isn’t this the type of reasoning Darwinists use? This sounds like a just-so story that they are always being blamed for. According to Jay’s blog, ID and creationism predicted the presence of pseudogenes but we all know that’s not right. Junk DNA is not a myth as previously thought and it kills one of ID’s best arguments. It might be time to go where the evidence leads...Darwin was right.JLAfan2001
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
But are the pseudogenes really completely non-functional or are they a design feature that provides redundancy if a primary pathway is broken???
The regulatory utilization of genetic redundancy through responsive backup circuits - 2006 Excerpt: many such backed-up genes were shown to be transcriptionally responsive to the intactness of their redundant partner and are up-regulated if the latter is mutationally inactivated. … We thus challenge the view that such redundancies are simply leftovers of ancient duplications and suggest they are an additional component to the sophisticated machinery of cellular regulation. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/31/11653.full
Either way Darwinism loses, i.e. if pseudogenes are a design feature of some type, such as providing redundancy, or some other design feature that hasn't been looked for yet (given the extreme overlapping complexity of the coding in DNA), then the purported pseudogenes overtly support ID, and if the vast majority of pseudogenes really are broken genes, as Darwinists prematurely presuppose (think vestigial organ arguments that have now been overturned), then they provide further proof that Darwinian processes are excellent at breaking things but are powerless to create things! Of related interest form ENCODE, and shattering to the foundational Darwinian precept of the "Central Dogma' i.e. DNA makes RNA makes Proteins, is the fact that ENCODE found that a 'gene' is not a gene anymore:
...three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene. This supports and is consistent with earlier observations of a highly interleaved transcribed genome, but more importantly, prompts the reconsideration of the definition of a gene. As this is a consistent characteristic of annotated genomes, we would propose that the TRANSCRIPT be considered as THE BASIC ATOMIC UNIT OF INHERITANCE. Concomitantly, the term gene would then denote a higher-order concept intended to capture all those transcripts (eventually divorced from their genomic locations) that contribute to a given phenotypic trait. (Landscape of transcription in human cells. Sarah Djebali et al. Nature 2012 489: 101-108.) And: Although the gene has conventionally been viewed as the fundamental unit of genomic organization, on the basis of ENCODE data it is now compellingly argued that this unit is not the gene but rather the transcript (Washietl et al. 2007; Djebali et al. 2012a). On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA. (What does our genome encode? John A. Stamatoyannopoulos Genome Res. 2012 22: 1602-1611.) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/demise_of_the_g064371.html
bornagain77
September 20, 2012
September
09
Sep
20
20
2012
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
@ JLA Shapiro also weighs in; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html And http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-white/media-genome-science_b_1881788.htmlwateron1
September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
It may seem that the ID community celebrated too early on this. According to Jay Wile's blog, a vast majority of pseudogenes are non-functional. And yes, I did leave a nasty note on there. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8766 Larry Moran's blog says that the PR people screwed up the story and that Junk DNA is still alive.JLAfan2001
September 19, 2012
September
09
Sep
19
19
2012
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Mung- If it defies imagination then they will either not want to discuss it, take LSD to help their imagination, or give the rest of us LSD to help ours.Joe
September 17, 2012
September
09
Sep
17
17
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
The remarkable story of eukaryotic introns
The "genes in pieces" (exon-intron) architecture of the protein coding (and some RNA-coding) genes in eukaryotes is a truly astonishing feature... Why would genes be interrupted by multiple non-coding sequences, most of which have no demonstrable function and are excised from the transcript by an elaborate molecular machine (evolved solely for this purpose) only to be destroyed? This almost defies imagination.
...introns seem to have played a key role from the start of the evolution of eukaryotes...
Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological EvolutionMung
September 17, 2012
September
09
Sep
17
17
2012
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
I think I used a bad example (methyl donors), but the hypothetical premise seems to hold potetial.JGuy
September 14, 2012
September
09
Sep
14
14
2012
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
@NickMatzke_UD #6 Hi Nick. About the onion test. It reads:
Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?
I suppose one hypothesis, within an ID worldview, would be that there could be some nutritional value in the onion for other species. Pumping up the DNA size might simply pump up the nutrional content or variety of benefits. Example:DNA is Not Destiny article from Discover magazine (excerpt):
Remarkably, the researchers effected this transformation without altering a single letter of the mouse's DNA. Their approach instead was radically straightforward—they changed the moms' diet. Starting just before conception, Jirtle and Waterland fed a test group of mother mice a diet rich in methyl donors, small chemical clusters that can attach to a gene and turn it off. These molecules are common in the environment and are found in many foods, including onions, garlic, beets, and in the food supplements often given to pregnant women. After being consumed by the mothers, the methyl donors worked their way into the developing embryos' chromosomes and onto the critical agouti gene.
(bold emphasis mine) So, an ID-ist might persue the discovery of overlapping genetic benefits between speices (e.g. humans and onions). This is a possible prediction that could not be made faithfully within the Darwinist view because it would apparently presume a feature of an organism (the onion) the exclusively serves the good of another organism(humans or other onion eaters). JGuyJGuy
September 14, 2012
September
09
Sep
14
14
2012
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply