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 It is an outdated metaphor,” said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama.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
Eric, no, not quite - I'd say that 90% of the genome shows no evidence of conservation, and while much of it is likely to be junk, it is not possible to firmly conclude it is *all* junk without a stronger basis. With that said, there is also much that we do know, which allows us to put upper and lower limits on junk. Firstly, the ENCODE extrapolation suggests a final figure might be 20% functional (by traditional definitions) and 80% junk. Secondly, in the past I have referred repeatedly to Larry Moran's quantitative account of genome composition as being a good guide - the junk component there being estimated as between 65% to 90%. The majority of the human genome is junk by any of these definitions.paulmc
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
paulmc:
Junk DNA has no bearing on phenotype.
Hang on. Just want to make sure I caught this. Are you saying that some 90% of our DNA (the "junk" figure, plus or minus a couple of percentage points) has no bearing on phenotype?Eric Anderson
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
paulmc:
Junk DNA has no bearing on phenotype.
True, but that does NOT mean that all the DNA that has no bearing on phenotype is junk.Joe
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Junk DNA has no bearing on phenotype. Functional DNA for most people would be everything else, rather than just everything that has a degree of biological activity. As Eddy points out - and others have too - you would expect random generated sequences inserted into a genome to qualify as functional under ENCODE. Therefore it is the definition of function and not of junk that is too broad here.paulmc
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
About the C-Value paradox I remember reading a paper from Lynch that 1-50bp deletions in humans were 3 times as likely as insertions. Could lungfish, salamanders, and onions have some process in the replication that has gone wrong, causing them to accumulate extra nucleotides over time? (and therefore it would be junk). I suppose this is the same as the Darwinian explanation, and also perfectly compatible with ID, esp. given degeneration?JoeCoder
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
paulmc, actually Darwinists have junk defined so broadly that functionality is subsumed within it.bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Perhaps you should have read the link in @21 before posting? "Functional" is defined so broadly that junk is subsumed within it.paulmc
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
paulmc accuses Mr Arrington of being disingenuous:
Barry @14, you are being disingenuous in your response to Nick. The definition of function used by ENCODE is paramount to the discussion.
Really paulmc??? Disingenuous paulmc??? that's funny because the reality of the situation is that it is neo-Darwinists who are the ones who have been completely disingenuous towards the evidence for functionality in DNA. This 'disingenuousness' is especially surprising since the initial 2007 ENCODE findings came out urging a more 'neutral' view of non-coding regions. If science were to have operated as it should, this warning should have put severe dampers on Darwinian claims. But it did not, which goes to show, once again, that it is not about the science with Darwinists!!!: i.e.
Concluding statement of the ENCODE study: "we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more 'neutral' view of many of the functions conferred by the genome." http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf
Did neo-Darwinists listen to these words of caution paulmc? No of course not! Despite the fact that researchers are dealing with complexity that is orders of magnitude greater than anything ever built by man in computer programs,,,
Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected - April 2010 Excerpt: Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said,,,, Network theory is now a new paradigm that has replaced the one-way linear diagram of gene to RNA to protein. That used to be called the “Central Dogma” of genetics. Now, everything is seen to be dynamic, with promoters and blockers and interactomes, feedback loops, feed-forward processes, and “bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100405a Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html
,,,the Darwinists are, for purely philosophical/religious reasons as far as I can tell, dead set against ever admitting to any hints of Design in life whatsoever. In fact, it is held in some quarters that this irrational stance (indeed unscientific stance) by Darwinists has severely hindered scientific progress:
Matheson's Intron Fairy Tale - Richard Sternberg - June 2010 Excerpt: 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,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/mathesons_intron_fairy_tale035301.html 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
and this irrational stance of Darwinists can even be argued to have hindered medical progress:
International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases" Excerpt: uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-discovery-institute-needs-to-be-destroyed/#comment-357177
No paulmc, IDists may not be perfect, no human is for that matter, but neo-Darwinists take the cake on being disingenuous towards the evidence for finding functionality in DNA! further note:
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm
bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Here is a particularly good read from Sean Eddy on ENCODE's findings. You'll see that junk DNA is functional because of ENCODE's definition.paulmc
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
paulmc- so is the definition of dispensable junk.Joe
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Barry @14, you are being disingenuous in your response to Nick. The definition of function used by ENCODE is paramount to the discussion.paulmc
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Moreover, very unexpectedly from the atheistic Darwinian mindset, the 3-D arrangement of DNA is found to determine 'the form of the endogenous electric field'
Not in the Genes: Embryonic Electric Fields - Jonathan Wells - December 2011 Excerpt: although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels -- which determines the form of the endogenous electric field -- constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo.
Here is a 'jaw dropping' video of a 3 dimensional 'electric field' in action:
The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFe5CaDTlI
Moreover, as if the preceding was not bad enough for dogmatic neo-Darwinists like Matzke and Moran who refuse to admit they are wrong on Junk DNA, body plans are not even encoded solely by the DNA code in the first place (as is required in the genetic reductionism model of neo-Darwinism). This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance and 'epigenetic' studies.
Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4187488 “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888340 The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA? – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo
Besides this mysterious epigenetic information, there is also now found to be 'non-local quantum information' along the entirety of the DNA molecule which we really have no clue as to what it is doing:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/
As well, besides the quantum information/entanglement in DNA that no one really has a firm clue as to exactly what it is doing, there are hints of another whole level of information hidden within the genome that, as well, no one has a clue what it is doing:
DNA Caught Rock 'N Rollin': On Rare Occasions DNA Dances Itself Into a Different Shape - January 2011 Excerpt: Because critical interactions between DNA and proteins are thought to be directed by both the sequence of bases and the flexing of the molecule, these excited states represent a whole new level of information contained in the genetic code, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128104244.htm
Of related interest is this very recent breakthrough which stored 700 terrabytes of functional information on just one gram of DNA!
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
Notes of interest:
What Is The Genome? It's Certainly Is Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis - video https://vimeo.com/33882804
bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Here are a few points for you to chew on Nick as you defiantly cling to your colossal error of junk DNA:
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome" - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012 Excerpt: "And what's in the remaining 20 percent?,,, ENCODE only(!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand.,, If every cell is included,,, "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 ENCODE: The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (Interviews with members of the ENCODE Project) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsV_sEDSE2o Quotes from preceding video: "This metaphor about Junk DNA has become very entrenched. It has been entrenched publicly and entrenched scientifically. And ENCODE totally challenges that. We just don't have big, blank, boring, bits of the genome. All the genome is alive at some level." "There are about 2000 DNA binding proteins in the genome. We looked at about 100 of those, 115 of those, so there is a long way to go yet, there is a lot more to study."
"Junk DNA" is found to have 100% purpose in an astonishing way in this following paper:
Shoddy Engineering or Intelligent Design? Case of the Mouse's Eye - April 2009 Excerpt: -- The (entire) nuclear genome is thus transformed into an optical device that is designed to assist in the capturing of photons. This chromatin-based convex (focusing) lens is so well constructed that it still works when lattices of rod cells are made to be disordered. Normal cell nuclei actually scatter light. -- So the next time someone tells you that it “strains credulity” to think that more than a few pieces of “junk DNA” could be functional in the cell - remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig.html#more
virtual 100% functionality for DNA was established by another method here:
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. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
Moreover this study suggests that the simplistic definition of a gene is gone bye-bye:
ENCODE project: In massive genome analysis new data suggests ‘gene’ redefinition – September 5, 2012 Excerpt: The vast amount of data generated with advanced technologies by Gingeras’ group and others in the ENCODE project is likely to radically change the prevailing understanding of what defines a gene, the unit we routinely use, for instance, to speak of inheritable traits like eye color or to explain the causes of and susceptibility to most diseases, running the gamut from cancer to schizophrenia to heart disease. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-09-encode-massive-genome-analysis-gene.html
This following video is a bit more clear as to exactly why the term 'gene' is far too simplistic
The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/
As well this study found that the 3-Dimensional structure of the genome is found to play a important role:
Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role - September 2012 Excerpt: There is another sort of hairball as well: the complex three-dimensional structure of DNA. Human DNA is such a long strand — about 10 feet of DNA stuffed into a microscopic nucleus of a cell — that it fits only because it is tightly wound and coiled around itself. When they looked at the three-dimensional structure — the hairball — Encode researchers discovered that small segments of dark-matter DNA are often quite close to genes they control. In the past, when they analyzed only the uncoiled length of DNA, those controlling regions appeared to be far from the genes they affect. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Related '3-Dimensional' notes
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 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048
bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Applying Nick's "logic" to soda- Coke cannot taste good because Moxie tastes like crap.Joe
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke:
4. If most of our DNA is functional, why do some other vertebrates (and plants) make a vertebrate with 10 times less DNA, and other vertebrates use 10 times more?
LoL! the first part "If most of our DNA is functional..." has nothing to do with the second. Desperation is not a good position to argue from, Nick. But anyway- Why do old computers contain many more discrete components than their modern counterparts? Why are old computer languages more cumbersome and contain more coding lines than their modern counterparts? BTW Nick, how many different proteins do we have compared with the number of genes? I used to work for a computer/ technology company that used redundancy- every board was backed up by another- if the main board failed it automatically switched to the other. AND each board was also redundant- each side a mirror image of the other, both running and checking each other to make sure they had the same 1s and 0s. We could have removed 75% of the system and it still would have functioned, ie 75% was dispensable junk by Nick's "logic". However far from being dispensable junk redundancy is a design feature with those systems. Also there is another feature of genomes that Nick's position doesn't even consider-> that it also serves as a data storage device just as hard drives, flash drives, PROMS, etc do. Meaning there is actual software directing gene expression & alternative gene splicing and determining final form. The DNA just helps in carrying out the instructions it contains. See also the onion test answeredJoe
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Nick, I will not rise to your bait. Your attempt to deflect from the fundamental findings at ENCODE are sad. Tell you what. I will answer your questions just as soon as you admit that everyone who said the vast majority of human DNA is “junk” was wrong. Again, I won’t be holding my breath.Barry Arrington
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Hey Barry. Answer me this: 1. What definition of "function" did ENCODE use? 2. Is that a good definition, in accord with standard English usage? 3. Why isn't it valid to point out that even the project leader, Ewan Birney, expressed qualms about the 80% number and chose it mostly to get attention? 4. If most of our DNA is functional, why do some other vertebrates (and plants) make a vertebrate with 10 times less DNA, and other vertebrates use 10 times more? We all have about the same number of genes, the differences are due mostly to repetitive elements. Why isn't it reasonable to think that the minimal genomes contain what is actually needed, and the critters with 10 times bigger genomes (us) and 100 times bigger genomes (e.g. salamanders) have a lot of DNA that it pretty much dispensable, i.e., junk?NickMatzke_UD
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Here ya go Nick. just say it wasn't youUpright BiPed
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Nick is in full spin mode. Here is my prediction. Nick and his buddies will say ENCODE isn’t really saying what you think they are saying until that becomes totally unsupportable. Then they will start saying that they never really believed most of the DNA was junk. In fact, Darwinian theory predicts exactly what ENCODE has found. The whole thing is like the husband who was caught by his wife in flagrante delicto carrying on with another woman. The man tries to brass it out and denies the affair. The wife says “but I caught you in the very act,” to which the man replies “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” Nick asks us to believe him and not our own eyes. Nick, no amount of spin on your part is going to make this anything other than a devastating loss of the “junk DNA” crowd. Why don’t you show a little class and fess up that you and your buddies have been wrong all along when you claimed the vast majority of human DNA is junk.Barry Arrington
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
The rate-independent symbol structures make life and evolution possible. Deal with it, or you don't have an argument.Upright BiPed
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
So aside from this being yet another failed Darwinian prediction, what's the big deal? Can someone please explain what's going on in simple terms? Thanks.humbled
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Nick as to the onion test, let's see if you can detach your 'intellectual inertia' for a moment: Nick, as with you philosophically (and dogmatically) driven belief in Junk DNA, human ignorance for why the genomes are the varying sizes they are is not a actual argument for the Darwinian origin of those varying sizes! In fact some very credible reasons have been put forth for why it would make ‘engineering sense’ to vary genome sizes as such: i.e. There is no logical ‘evolutionary progression’ to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the size of genomes found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species despite their differences in complexity and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma And yet, even though this C-value enigma is somewhat (very?) paradoxical to the materialistic, neo-Darwinian, point of view, since information is presupposed to simply ‘emerge’ from a material basis and there clearly is no linear correlation to amount of material present and amount of information expressed, from a design point of view we should rightly expect genome sizes to vary within design constraints. Constraints that would obviously be imposed in trying to achieve a ‘optimal design’ for any particular life-form that was designed; For examples of such constraints,,: “There is strong positive correlation, however, between the amount of DNA and the volume of a cell and its nucleus – which effects the rate of cell growth and division. Furthermore, in mammals there is a negative correlation between genome size and rate of metabolism. Bats have very high metabolic rates and relatively small genomes. In birds, there is a negative correlation between C-value and resting metabolic rate. In salamanders, there is also a negative correlation between genome size and the rate of limb regeneration.” Jonathan Wells – The Myth Of Junk DNA – page 85 Similarities Found in Genomes Across Multiple Species; Platypus Still out of Place – July 2011 Excerpt: “Basically what this all means is that if the chromosome number of a species can be given, the relative sizes of all the chromosomes can instantly be known,” Yu said. “Also, if you tell me the genome size in the chromosome base pair, I can tell you the base pair length of each chromosome.” http://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com/2011/07/o-grande-quadro-dos-cromossomos-revela.html THE ALLOMETRIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENOME SIZE (C-VALUE) AND TOTAL METABOLIC ENERGY PER LIFESPAN, PER UNIT BODY MASS IN ANIMALS Excerpt: this show(s) that,,, the higher total life energy per unit body mass leads to smaller C-value. http://www.sustz.com/Proceeding09/Papers/Medical%20Biology%20Studies/A_ATANASOV.pdf As well, at the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, we find that ‘genome length vs. mass’ gives a enigmatic 1/4 power scaling on the plotted graph for a wide range of different creatures. Thus, once again, giving strong indication of a design constraint that was/is imposed, top down, on genome length, and which is inexplicable from the neo-Darwinian framework: 4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5964041/ Chargaff’s “Grammar of Biology”: New Fractal-like Rules – 2011 Excerpt from Conclusion: It was shown that these rules are valid for a large set of organisms: bacteria, plants, insects, fish and mammals. It is noteworthy that no matter the word length the same pattern is observed (self-similarity). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first invariant genomic properties publish(ed) so far, and in Science invariant properties are invaluable ones and usually they have practical implications. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.1528.pdf Why the “Onion Test” Fails as an Argument for “Junk DNA” – Jonathan M. – November 2, 2011 Excerpt: The so-called onion test, or indeed the “C-value enigma,” is predicated on unsupportable assumptions about the physiological effects of — and/or requirements for — larger genomes, many of which are contradicted by the scientific evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/why_the_onion_test_fails_as_an052321.htmlbornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
I like this article:
A lesson from ENCODE about the limits on Human Reason - David Ropeik Excerpt: In what should be another blow to the hubris of human intellect, we have a new entry in the long and ever growing list of “Really Big Things Scientists Believed” that turned out be wrong.,,, Well, there’s going to be a lot of editing on Wikipedia in the days and weeks to come, and it’s time to reprint the basic biology textbooks, because extensive research into the mystery of what most of DNA is doing there has discovered that the ‘junk’ isn’t junk at all. Most of it has all sorts of jobs. Science Journalist Ed Yong has written a wonderful summary of this work here. The nut of it is: “A massive international project called ENCODE – the Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements – has moved us from “Here’s the genome” towards “Here’s what the genome does”. Over the last 10 years, an international team of 442 scientists have assailed 147 different types of cells with 24 types of experiments. Their goal: catalogue every letter (nucleotide) within the genome that does something. “For years, we’ve known that only 1.5 percent of the genome actually contains instructions for making proteins, the molecular workhorses of our cells. But ENCODE has shown that the rest of the genome – the non-coding majority – is still rife with “functional elements”. That is, it’s doing something.” In many ways, this puts us back to the ABCs of DNA. So toss out a lot of what you know. Only, that won’t be easy. Given the nature of human cognition, it is innately difficult to let go of what you ‘know’ and keep a truly open mind. Just look at history. Big ideas, once set into place and ascribed to by the ‘experts’ in a given field, are hard to get people to think about in new ways. This intellectual inertia can do great harm. http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2012/09/07/a-lesson-from-encode-about-the-limits-on-human-reason/
bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
And, onion test. Answer it or you don't have an argument. http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/04/onion-test/NickMatzke_UD
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Backtracking? Pretty much everyone is saying the "80% functional" number is wrong. Even the project leader, Ewan Birney, more or less admitted it's not credible for standard definitions of "functional". So it's the ENCODE leaders that are backtracking, not the scientific community.NickMatzke_UD
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
I don't believe I've ever seen a larger, more collective backtracking than I have when reading Darwinists' reactions to the ENCODE Project's discovery. This is unintentional comedy at it's finest.Jammer
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Very interesting quote: "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." Emphasis mine. Does the phrase "immensely complicated events" ring a bell for us in ID? I bit ot does :) Now our "friends" (the darwinists), in the spare time left by their unsuccessful attempts at explaining how the basic protein domains came into being, must also explain how the right circuits were generated among the search space of a "nearly infinite number of circuits". I am not surprised that they are a little bit displeased...gpuccio
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Around 9:30 minute mark of the following podcast, Casey Luskin speaks on this dogmatic 'no concession' policy of neo-Darwinists as to ever admitting they were wrong:
"ENCODE Project Finds Mass Functionality for “Junk” DNA" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-07T18_00_13-07_00
bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
This paper is a bombshell. I like this quote from the following video:
Scientists go deeper into DNA (Video report) (Junk No More) - Sept. 2012 http://bcove.me/26vjjl5a Quote from preceding video: “It's just been an incredible surprise for me. You say, I bet it's going to be complicated', and then you are faced with it and you are like 'My God, that is mind blowing.'” Ewan Birney - senior scientist - ENCODE
The denial of this overwhelming evidence against Junk DNA, that I've seen thus far from Darwinists, really is illuminating as to revealing the dogmatic philosophical bias that Darwinists have as to ever evaluating the evidence fairly.bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply