'Junk DNA' News

Helpful for non-Darwinists: Uses of junk DNA

Spread the love

Scientists have revealed nearly 100 genetic variants implicated in the development of cancers such as breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Here.

nlike the coding region of the genome where our 23,000 protein-coding genes lie, the non-coding region — which makes up 98% of our genome — is poorly understood. Recent studies have emphasised the biological value of the non-coding regions, previously considered ‘junk’ DNA, in the regulation of proteins. This new information provides a starting point for researchers to sieve through the non-coding regions and identify the most functionally important regions.

But you don’t care. You’d die for Darwin instead, right?

7 Replies to “Helpful for non-Darwinists: Uses of junk DNA

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    I am reading through this article and it says that there is non-junk DNA in the junk-DNA and there is also junk-DNA in the junk-DNA.

    Maybe we should abandon the term junk-DNA since it is apparently meaningless.

    I have always thought that the concept of junk-DNA was a red herring in the evolution debate. It gets people off on the wrong direction and away from the meaningful discussions.

  2. 2
    TheisticEvolutionist says:

    Well said jerry, the term “junk-DNA” is just another Darwinist abuse of language, just like “natural selection” or “selfish genes”, they are misleading metaphors and terms without empirical foundation that confuse people. Not science.

  3. 3
    smiddyone says:

    ” If this non-coding, ultrasensitive region is central to a network of many related genes, variation can cause a greater knock-on effect, resulting in disease.
    Way to spin news. Junk DNA is useful because it helps find diseases caused by junk DNA.Does disease causing junk DNA fit the design inference is the bigger question.

  4. 4
    franklin says:

    TE:Well said jerry, the term “junk-DNA” is just another Darwinist abuse of language, just like “natural selection” or “selfish genes”, they are misleading metaphors and terms without empirical foundation that confuse people. Not science.

    What term would you apply to a region of DNA, say 1-3 million base pairs, that when removed caused no noticeable effects in the embryonic growth, development, and reproduction of an organism? Junk seems to fit nicely but, please do tell me the correct term for this excised DNA.

  5. 5
    MrMosis says:

    franklin @4

    1-3 million, out of how many? Sequential? How was the sequence selected? Would the same be true of any other sequence of the same size removed from “junk” regions? What about 1-3 million randomly selected junk base pairs?

    With regard to the case you cited without citing, while you characterized the effects as being non-noticeable, what bearing does the sequence being removed have on the organism at the level of gene expression and the regulation thereof?

    With what level of confidence can you attest to the fact that the remainder of the “junk”, along with the coding sequences, are not compensating for the lost “functionality” of the removed “junk”?

    And while we’re at it, how do the lineages and their respective reproductive fitnesses compare longer term, all environmental factors being equal?

  6. 6
    franklin says:

    1-3 million, out of how many?

    is there a percentage factor we should be concerned with, i.e. is there any ‘junk’ at all?

    Sequential? How was the sequence selected?

    not familiar with the research I see.

    Would the same be true of any other sequence of the same size removed from “junk” regions? What about 1-3 million randomly selected junk base pairs?</blockquote.

    Sounds like a starting hypothesis for a crack ID research lab to start working on!

    With regard to the case you cited without citing, while you characterized the effects as being non-noticeable, what bearing does the sequence being removed have on the organism at the level of gene expression and the regulation thereof?</blockquote.

    If there are no effects on development, growth, and reproduction what does it matter?

    With what level of confidence can you attest to the fact that the remainder of the “junk”, along with the coding sequences, are not compensating for the lost “functionality” of the removed “junk”?

    see above comment.

    And while we’re at it, how do the lineages and their respective reproductive fitnesses compare longer term, all environmental factors being equal?

    longer term? How long do you think a single study should pursue the experiment considering something like this had not yet been attempted? In the length of the study there were no differences in the wild-type and the DNA deleted population.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    So, just how much does “junk DNA” bring in today’s economy?

    Could I sell some of mine? I’ve no doubt that that I have been blessed by The Designer with an over-abundance.

Leave a Reply