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 It is an outdated metaphor,” said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama.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
paulmc:
In fact, it is not possible for the majority of the bases in our genome to be subject to purifying selection at the current mutation rate.
OK, just to make sure I understand what you are saying. 1. Are you saying that because the mutation rate is too high (compared with our reproductive cycle), most of the mutations cannot be eliminated through purifying selection? 2. If so, are you then further saying that because those mutations haven't caused any identifiable problems then we can infer that those sequences were/are non-functional?Eric Anderson
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Mung:
Please explain how onion genomes affect the human genome.
It should be fairly clear that it is not a case of the onion genome "affecting" the human genome. The challenge is to explain genomic variation broadly. You haven't offered any reason to doubt that the variation in genome sizes between different onion species is due to anything other than junk. The point we learn from onions is that non-coding DNA cannot be assumed to be functional (in the traditional sense). We know that half of any typical mammalian genome comprises old, degenerate retrotransposons - sequences that accumulate by their mutational pressure. Such a volume of non-coding DNA is lacking in some other vertebrates like fugu as I mentioned before - this is the multicellular end of the c-value enigma: there are no patterns of differences in complexity between these organisms, only massive variation in their non-coding, nuclear DNA. However, variation in genome size broadly correlates to population size, as laid out finely in the Lynch et al. review paper I linked to above. And this ties closely into your next point:
So what? The darwinian view is that transcription of ‘functionless’ DNA is a waste of energy and therefore should be selected against.
The accumulations of non-coding DNA occurs incrementally. Each addition does not waste much energy, and in small populations, selection is too weak to remove such variation. While it is true that the ultradarwinist view would not allow to such accumulation, this view doesn't represent mainstream evolutionary biology, and hasn't for decades. A more pluralistic approach will accept that the well-established limits of selection in small populations, and the population-genomic consequences. Lynch lays all of this out in a quantitative framework, with thresholds for junk accumulation.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
paulmc:
A stretch of DNA is called ‘functional’ in ENCODE simply if is transcribed.
So what? The darwinian view is that transcription of 'functionless' DNA is a waste of energy and therefore should be selected against.Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
paulmc:
The point stands that if we can observe such enormous variations in genome sizes, they warrant explanation.
Absolutely. We agree. But the fact that we do not yet have an explanation for x (the genome size of various species of onion) does not mitigate against the facts that we do have at hand concerning the human genome. Please explain how onion genomes affect the human genome. What was the most recent common ancestor?Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
Paulmc...what does it mean for the genome to have non-functional DNA? Or useless DNA? What is it?ForJah
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Mung:
Get back to me when you have a species of human that “needs” 4x as much non-coding DNA as another biologically and ecologically similar species of human.
The point stands that if we can observe such enormous variations in genome sizes, they warrant explanation. The variation suggests the tendency towards accumulating non-coding DNA that lacks any evidence of function, and there is no biological sense in treating humans separately here. This is a phenomenon that occurs across the eukaryotes.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Mung:
Now you’re just making things up. WHY would Encode claim there has been a “functional expansion” of the genome? According to your own admission the insertion would not change anything. It would still be removed. So Encode would discern no difference at all.
But this is their definition Mung - and is the main point! A stretch of DNA is called 'functional' in ENCODE simply if is transcribed. Because introns are transcribed -- even though they are removed in the production of the mature mRNA from which a protein is translated -- they are considered functional, even if they are entirely biologically inert in every other sense. ENCODE does discern a difference here because it is annotating this section of the genome as being intronic. Therefore an expansion in this region contributes to the functional component of the genome under ENCODE.
If you randomly generate a sequence and insert it into the genome, what are the possible scenarios? Surely one of the possible scenarios includes changing a formerly “functional” sequence into a “non-functional” sequence. If not, why not?
Absolutely, one of the possibilities is mutating something functional. If a chunk of random sequence falls in an exon, for example, it is almost certainly going to be deleterious. These mutations are removed quickly by purifying selection - often they won't produce a viable organism. Many, many other insertions do not have this effect because they occur in areas of the genome that are not subject to purifying selection - e.g. in the middle of a typical intron.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Eric - yes, that's right. In fact, it is not possible for the majority of the bases in our genome to be subject to purifying selection at the current mutation rate.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
paulmc, Get back to me when you have a species of human that "needs" 4x as much non-coding DNA as another biologically and ecologically similar species of human.Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
paulmc:
That’s exactly what they have done. ENCODE has effectively defined away junk DNA, as I have explicitly outlined.
No, they haven't. As I have explicitly outlined, lol.
Again, consider what happens when there is a random insertion into the genome – say 30 random bp inserted in the middle of an intron. The intron is still removed in the production of the mature mRNA molecule, and there is no appreciable effect on the organism. I would say that there has been an increase in the junk content of the genome, ENCODE would literally claim that there has been a functional expansion of the genome.
Now you're just making things up. WHY would Encode claim there has been a "functional expansion" of the genome? According to your own admission the insertion would not change anything. It would still be removed. So Encode would discern no difference at all.
To be clear — if you randomly generate a sequence and insert in the genome it would be “functional” under the definition used by ENCODE.
Why? If you randomly generate a sequence and insert it into the genome, what are the possible scenarios? Surely one of the possible scenarios includes changing a formerly "functional" sequence into a "non-functional" sequence. If not, why not?
Nope, you’re not wrong. I wouldn’t use the word purpose, but I know what you mean and you are right as far as I am concerned. This is the heart of the matter and why so many scientists are unhappy with ENCODE’s characterisation.
:) I am not sure why any scientist would object. It's there for a reason has to trump it's there for no reason at all. But for me, the jury is still out. The issue is not "functional" DNA but rather "purposeful" DNA.Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
paulmc: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your terminology. I understand purifying selection to refer to natural selection acting to eliminate deleterious characteristics. (We could quibble a long time about the whole concept of 'selection,' let's set that aside for now.) So if I'm understanding your reference to genome "conservation," what you're suggesting is that all the junk DNA (65%, 80%, 90%, whatever% of DNA) shows no evidence of elimination of deleterious characteristics? I just want to make sure I'm understanding your point.Eric Anderson
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Mung:
What does the “onion test” have to do with the human genome, which is, after all, the subject of the OP?
It has a lot to do with it. If we want to make the positive case that the majority of non-coding DNA in humans is functional in the traditional sense -- i.e., it is necessary to regulate the genome -- then we need to have a functional explanation of genome size that can explain a few things: 1) What is so complex about an onion, compared to a human, that it needs substantially more non-coding DNA than we do? Now, it is possible that we simply don't understand the complexity of the onion, and perhaps it really is much more complex than we are. There is no evidence for this, but even if we accept this: 2) Why does one species of onion need 4x as much non-coding DNA as another biologically and ecologically similar species of onion (both in the genus Allium)? This is not to say that there is no possible explanation for the differences in these two onion species. However, there is no clear functional explanation, yet we need one before we would conclude that the enormous variation in genome size is actually necessary DNA. Lacking such an explanation, we fall back to the far simpler explanation -- that much of the excess non-coding DNA is not biologically necessary. This is our null position, because we understand the processes that cause the accumulation of DNA well and can see these processes operate. However, if we accept that this is possible for onions, we should also be open to the possibility that not all of the non-coding DNA in humans is necessary either. For example, within the vertebrates there is much genome size variation. Why is the fugu genome only 400Mb when ours is about 9x larger? Is it because we need that much additional regulation? Or, like the onions, is this more likely to represent an excess of non-coding DNA?paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
as to:
the point is that beyond the four million switches are large swathes of DNA that have arisen by retrotransposon duplication and mutated to non-function,
nothing like presupposing your conclusion for non-functionality into the very question being asked for functionality is there paulmc??? Like I said before atheistic materialism is a hindrance to science and certainly does not provide a fruitful heuristic for discovery!bornagain77
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Mung -- I'll run a couple of your posts together and respond to the lot. Firstly:
But no so broad as to include all DNA.
Actually, Birney suspects that by the end of ENCODE (another 5 years) the figure will be 100% under their definition.
The definition subsumes some of what most of you would call junk, and perhaps even most of what most of you would call junk. So let’s not pretend like ENCODE has done away with “junk DNA.” There’s still some hope for most of you.
That's exactly what they have done. ENCODE has effectively defined away junk DNA, as I have explicitly outlined. Again, the expected figure of functional DNA in the human genome by the end of ENCODE is 100%, once the project is complete. This is not because it's all contributing to phenotypes, but because it has binding sites or gets transcribed, etc. Again, consider what happens when there is a random insertion into the genome - say 30 random bp inserted in the middle of an intron. The intron is still removed in the production of the mature mRNA molecule, and there is no appreciable effect on the organism. I would say that there has been an increase in the junk content of the genome, ENCODE would literally claim that there has been a functional expansion of the genome.
But I think the real issue is purpose. Does it serve any purpose? Is that still an open question in your mind? Or are you still convinced that it serves no purpose?
To be clear -- if you randomly generate a sequence and insert in the genome it would be "functional" under the definition used by ENCODE. Surely, this is not a standard that an ID advocate would accept as functional.
As far as I am concerned, “junk DNA” didn’t mean “biological inert DNA,” but rather “purposeless DNA.” Am I wrong?
Nope, you're not wrong. I wouldn't use the word purpose, but I know what you mean and you are right as far as I am concerned. This is the heart of the matter and why so many scientists are unhappy with ENCODE's characterisation.
Non-functional but biologically active sites involved in regulating gene activity? Still “junk”?
No, I wouldn't say so. Sites involved in gene regulation are not junk, even though many of the interactions might be of little significance (as we expect many interactions to arise by chance). Michael Eisen has an excellent discussion of this from his own work. The point is not that the human genome is complex -- of course, it is -- the point is that beyond the four million switches are large swathes of DNA that have arisen by retrotransposon duplication and mutated to non-function, by traditional definitions. ENCODE still considers them functional by definition.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Off Topic Here is a free course on wishfulthinking genetics and evolution https://www.coursera.org/course/geneticsevolutionsxussd13
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
NickMatzke_UD:
And, onion test. Answer it or you don’t have an argument.
Really? That's the best you can do? What does the "onion test" have to do with the human genome, which is, after all, the subject of the OP? ok, Nick. Why is there something, rather than nothing? Answer it or you don’t have an argument.Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Indeed, Modern Science was born in the matrix of Christian Theism by presupposing the world was intelligible to the human mind because we are made in the image of the Creator Who made the universe and all life in it.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199550018 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199594937Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
The project’s chief discovery is the identification of about 4 million sites involved in regulating gene activity.
Non-functional but biologically active sites involved in regulating gene activity? Still "junk"?Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
paulmc you state:
I’m sure their logic is just fine.,,
Unfortunately for you, the neo-Darwinian, atheistic/materialistic, foundation for logic is far from fine on this particular matter, or for any other subject in science for that matter, since atheistic materialism winds up in abject epistemological failure (A.Plantinga, Boltzmann's Brain). Indeed, Modern Science was born in the matrix of Christian Theism by presupposing the world was intelligible to the human mind because we are made in the image of the Creator Who made the universe and all life in it. Indeed science was born by presupposing that 'functionality' would be discovered in the universe and in life before any functionality was even known to exist in the world or in life. Atheistic materialism, which undergirds neo-Darwinian thought, with its demand for unguided randomness at its foundational base, is simply completely at odds with that very fruitful heuristic that was born out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions. Indeed Neo-Darwinian evolution with its demand for 'non-functionality', i.e. for junk, vestigial, etc.., is simply a complete hindrance to science properly done! This undo hindrance that atheistic materialism places on science is already self evident in this new area of investigation of 'Junk DNA:
"The failure to recognize the importance of introns “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”" –John Mattick, Molecular biologist, University of Queensland, quoted in Scientific American,,, On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. – Richard Sternberg Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679
I could list many more areas where atheistic materialism has hindered science in such a way. Thus paulmc however reasonable you may think your arguments to be for presupposing 'non-functionality (I personally find your arguments baseless), the fact is that you are in fact very unreasonable in trying to advance your position!bornagain77
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
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.
here Just bad science reporting?Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
paulmc,
‘functional’ under ENCODE means something very broad.
But no so broad as to include all DNA. IOW, even under ENCODE there is still room for "non-functional" DNA, aka "junk". True?
The definition subsumes what most of us would call junk.
But not all of what most of you would consider junk. And that, sir, is the point, isn't it? The definition subsumes some of what most of you would call junk, and perhaps even most of what most of you would call junk. So let's not pretend like ENCODE has done away with "junk DNA." There's still some hope for most of you.
They effectively redefine ‘functional’ as ‘biologically active’.
ok. But I think the real issue is purpose. Does it serve any purpose? Is that still an open question in your mind? Or are you still convinced that it serves no purpose? I have to wonder why they would call it functional if it serves no purpose. Why not just call it biologically active? As far as I am concerned, "junk DNA" didn't mean "biological inert DNA," but rather "purposeless DNA." Am I wrong?Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
BA: 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 assumption that Darwinists will change their story suggests finding errors in a theory is somehow a bad thing. This is illogical, as it conflicts with our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge. Namely, all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows. It also assumes some ultimate explanation can be found. For example, even when found to be in error as a whole, as it was in this case, a theory that only roughly 2% of the genome has a specific purpose is better than the vague claim that 100% of the genome "should be functional". This is because it encompasses the theory that roughly 2% of the genome a specific function, rather than some other specific function, which can be found in error. Merely assuming the entire genome "should be functional" does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized. Furthermore, if we do not conjecture a specific theory of what specific function they do perform, then we do not know what tests to run. And without tests, we do not know what observations to make. So, merely saying "all genes should be functional" doesn't tell us where we should look or what we should look for. In addition, a replicators, we know that genes to serve a purpose. They play a casual role in getting copied. So, of course, they "do something". The question is, what hard to vary role do they play in adaptations of biological organisms. IOW, proposing the remaining 98% of the genome did not play a role in building biological adaptations means that the 2% should play the entire role. That's a testable prediction that can be criticized. Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win win situation, which doesn't represent a blow to human intellect. In fact, it's just the opposite. Our ability to devise specific tests that would falsify one theory, but not the other, is an example of human intellect. This is what allows us to make progress. Furthermore human designers regularly make things that are merely cosmetic or inadvertently end up creating things that serve no purpose. In addition, a designer could make genes non functional in an attempt to obscure its role in the process. IOW, it's not clear why you would expect an abstract designer with no defined limitations to make all genes functional.critical rationalist
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Mung, I'm sure their logic is just fine. Their definitions not so much. As I explained in the first ENCODE thread here, and others have explained all over the internet (including Ewan Birney, ENCODE coordinator) - 'functional' under ENCODE means something very broad. The definition subsumes what most of us would call junk. They effectively redefine 'functional' as 'biologically active'. In Birney's words:
Having spent a long time thinking about and discussing this, not a single definition of “functional” works for all conversations. We have to be precise about the context. Pragmatically, in ENCODE we define our criteria as “specific biochemical activity” – for example, an assay that identifies a series of bases. This is not the entire genome (so, for example, things like “having a phosphodiester bond” would not qualify). We then subset this into different classes of assay; in decreasing order of coverage these are: RNA, “broad” histone modifications, “narrow” histone modifications, DNaseI hypersensitive sites, Transcription Factor ChIP-seq peaks, DNaseI Footprints, Transcription Factor bound motifs, and finally Exons.
So, for a start, functional is defined to automatically include every intronic base in the genome (60% of the genome already) on account of those bases being transcribed. ENCODE effectively redefine junk as anything that doesn't meet the criteria Birney describes above(i.e. very little). They argue the purpose of this is to give a precise definition of functional, yet other definitions are possible. The other definitions wouldn't have made such punchy headlines.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Eric, conservation = purifying selection.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Perhaps you should have read the link in @21 before posting? “Functional” is defined so broadly that non-functional is subsumed within it.
So you're accusing these scientists of being illogical?Mung
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
paulmc:
. . . I’d say that 90% of the genome shows no evidence of conservation . . .
Hang on. Weren't we being told that we share 95%, 98&, 99% (pick the favorite number) of our DNA with chimps? Now you're suggesting that there is no evidence of conservation of 90% of our DNA. So either our DNA has conserved the vast majority (and thus remains very similar to our common chimp ancestor), or there isn't any conservation (and thus the idea of DNA similar to the common chimp ancestor has to be questioned).Eric Anderson
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Can someone explain to me why scientists use the words functional and junk interchangeably...An answer from you Paul would be nice. Also, Maybe it's time for a redefining of terms in the case of the word "Functional" in evolutionary science. Scientists, I feel, want to use the "junk DNA" words because they think it hurts the idea of an IDer. I agree, it does, but if there was never any real USELESS junk in the genome, and scientists have know that for a while, than I accuse scientists of a half-truth, if not lying for years! Functional, nonfunctional, junk...it's all conflated now, especially if you are right Paulmc. The question I would like answered is...do these non-coding sequences have(serve) a purpose in our genome? (the importance of its usage is besides the point)...if yes than ID would predict that...if no than it hurts ID. I don't claim to know the answer just yet.ForJah
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
per crev.info
ENCODE Study Forces Evolutionists to Retract “Junk DNA” Myth http://crev.info/2012/09/encode-study-junk-dna/
bornagain77
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
I wonder if ENCODE did a graph comparing the Transcription Regulation in humans to a Call Graph of a computer operating system as the following video does for e-coli:
What Is The Genome? It's Certainly Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8905583/
It would certainly be very interesting to see the comparative differences between the e-coli and Human Transcription Regulation networks since humans have a vastly more expansive regulatory network than e-coli does Related notes:
Global project reveals just how active our 'junk' DNA is - Sept. 2012 Excerpt: They found that, across the genome, about 19 per cent of our DNA may code for RNA switches that turn genes on or off. "We see way more switches than we were expecting, and nearly every part of the genome is close to a switch," project coordinator Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, UK, told New Scientist. The switches also appear to be spread out over the genome, with some being located at a distance from the gene they are controlling. Around 95 per cent of the genome appears to be very close to a switch, suggesting that almost all of our DNA may be doing something important. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/09/global-project-reveals-what-ou.html “Millions of DNA Switches That Power Human Genome’s Operating System Are Discovered.” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905135326.htm An expansive human regulatory lexicon encoded in transcription factor footprints http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11212.html The accessible chromatin landscape of the human genome http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11232.html
bornagain77
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
Junk DNA has no bearing on phenotype.
Really??? That's a pretty radical claim paulmc! Indeed:
A phenotype (from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type') is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype Definition of PHYSIOLOGICAL 1 of or relating to physiology 2 characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning 3 differing in, involving, or affecting physiological factors
Thus if:
Junk DNA has no bearing on phenotype.
As paulmc claims then Junk DNA would have to be perfectly neutral biochemically and place no unnecessary energetic burden on the cell affecting its normal, healthy, functioning. But that belief in perfect biochemical neutrality is preposterous! Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 For the cell would have to expend energy replicating totally useless DNA and, according to this new research by ENCODE, transcribing it into massive amounts of RNA, where, according to Darwinists, it does absolutely nothing useful, but is just a unnecessary energetic burden on the cell???,,, ...And so goes the completely insane swamp land of evolutionary apologetics. notes:
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010 Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans ( Esther K. Davies, Andrew D. Peters, Peter D. Keightley) "In fitness assays, only about 4 percent of the deleterious mutations fixed in each line were detectable. The remaining 96 percent, though cryptic, are significant for mutation load...the presence of a large class of mildly deleterious mutations can never be ruled out." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5434/1748 Sanford’s pro-ID thesis supported by PNAS paper, read it and weep, literally - September 2010 Excerpt: Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that most of the mutation load is associated with mutations with very small effects distributed at unpredictable locations over the entire genome, rendering the prospects for long-term management of the human gene pool by genetic counseling highly unlikely for all but perhaps a few hundred key loci underlying debilitating monogenic genetic disorders (such as those focused on in the present study). https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/sanfords-pro-id-thesis-supported-by-pnas-paper-read-it-and-weep-literally/ Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933 Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE 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
bornagain77
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply