Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Latest ENCODE Research Validates ID Predictions On Non-Coding Repertoire

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers will likely recall the ENCODE project, published in a series of papers in 2007, in which (among other interesting findings) it was discovered that, even though the vast majority of our DNA does not code for proteins, the human genome is nonetheless pervasively transcribed into mRNA. The science media and blogosphere is now abuzz with the latest published research from the ENCODE project, the most recent blow to the “junk DNA” paradigm. Since the majority of the genome being non-functional (as has been claimed by many, including notably Larry Moran, P.Z. Myers, Nick Matzke, Jerry Coyne, Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins) would be surprising given the hypothesis of design, ID proponents have long predicted that function will be identified for much of our DNA that was once considered to be useless. In a spectacular vindication of this hypothesis, six papers have been released in Nature, in addition to a further 24 papers in Genome Research and Genome Biology, plus six review articles in The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

The lead publication of the finding (“An Integrated Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome“) was released in Nature. The abstract reports,

“The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease, and can thereby guide interpretation of this variation. Overall, the project provides new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome, and is an expansive resource of functional annotations for biomedical research.” [emphasis added]

They further report that,

“[E]ven using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein- coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function. Many of the regulatory elements are not constrained across mammalian evolution, which so far has been one of the most reliable indications of an important biochemical event for the organism. Thus, our data provide orthologous indicators for suggesting possible functional elements.”

As this Nature press release states,

“Collectively, the papers describe 1,640 data sets generated across 147 different cell types. Among the many important results there is one that stands out above them all: more than 80% of the human genome’s components have now been assigned at least one biochemical function.” [emphasis added]

The UK Guardian also covered the story, noting that

“For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as “junk” DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode’s work, be consigned to the history books.” [emphasis added]

This new research places a dagger through the heart of the junk DNA paradigm, and should give adherents to this out-dated assumption yet further cause for caution before they write off DNA, for which function has yet to be identified, as “junk”. Be sure to also check out Casey Luskin’s coverage of the findings at ENV.

Comments
@ wd400 Your comment that non-Darwinian mechanisms account for why so much junk is in the genome simply assumes that which is in doubt. The research done by ENCODE indicates that the genome is not nearly as full of junk as Darwinian zealots would have everyone believe. Regardless of the exact figure they presented, the take-away message (as nicely highlighted by Jon Garvey above) is that way more of the genome is being used than was previously thought. Not only is that significant, but so is the idea that DNA acts in a three-dimensional way that dramatically changes our understanding of how sections of DNA interact with other sections that seem remote (two-dimensionally speaking). I don't think ENCODE is making the claim that they have elucidated what each and every nucleotide does, but they are giving compelling reason to reject non-function as the starting point. As far as the onion test is concerned, I already mentioned (reading comprehension helps) that at present there is no sure answer, though, like Joe mentioned, several persons have proposed ideas. My criticism is that it's a classic argument from ignorance to point to something like the C-value paradox and automatically conclude that it points to a Darwinian origin for DNA generally speaking. That we don't know why something is as it is does not furnish adequate reason to prefer a cause with unproven explanatory power (Darwinian evolution) over a cause with amply demonstrated explanatory power (ID).Optimus
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
wd400:
Do you realise that non-Darwinian mechanisma are the reason so much of our genome is junk?
Yet darwinism did not predict the existence of junk DNA. And yes the onion test has been answered by more than one person providing more than one answer.Joe
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
This is for Eric Anderson's comment, up in 13. 08 Human vitellogenin psu-gene http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267819/?tool=pubmed They predicted that there would be remnants of the gene in a particular place on the chromosome, they looked there, and they were there. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?PNG
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
Well, I read the chief researchers' comments on the presentation, and I read the main Nature paper, and the big story was "Far more of the non-coding genome has control function than we ever dreamed, and most of the rest (possibly nearly all) has some function, the significance, or not, of which is as yet still unknown." So why does all the discussion argue to and from about what is, as yet, unknown, rather than about the highly significant increase in what is known, which flatly contradicts the "junk DNA" hypothesis that only a tiny percentage of introns have "significant" function? That surprise is what the prestigious research team emphasise, and it has many implications worthy of discussion. The other 60% or whatever will reveal its secrets by and by. Who knows, the bloated nature of the onion genome might even prove to be a rare and instructive example of how the cell's usually rigorous self-maintenance can fail and accumulate junk. After all, the Elephant Man didn't demonstrate that all human features are, in reality, tumours.Jon Garvey
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
My word Optimus, Do you know what ENCODE counts as biochemically functional? Do you realise that non-Darwinian mechanisma are the reason so much of our genome is junk? Do you have an answer to the onion test? Or can you explain why it's not relevant?wd400
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
It’s remarkable to watch the mental acrobatics take place as committed Darwinists seek to dismiss or minimize the results of the ENCODE project. It’s not as if the results came out of BioComplexity. If Doug Axe or Ann Gauger had published these results, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the dismissal of the findings, as they are on the intellectual blacklist due to their support of ID. Isn’t the ENCODE project the product of hundreds of scientists working nearly a decade, publishing their findings in numerous prestigious peer-reviewed journals (usually the litmus test for what is “scientific")? What, then, is the problem? This is a striking example of what happens when the Darwinian worldview crashes up against an uncooperative reality. Nick Matzke, paulmc, etc. seem utterly unwilling to discard the hopelessly discredited idea that 90% (or whatever large percentage one may fancy) of the genome is garbage, the leftovers of evolution’s hit-or-miss whimsy. To maintain a semblance of sensibility, such persons have to resort to semantic games (e.g. “what is the definition of functional?"). This a rhetorical strategy that grows evermore hackneyed with each deployment. This same thing happened when ID proponents really started emphasizing the implications of information in DNA. What were previously uncontroversial facts (there’s digital information in DNA, the genetic code is arbitrary, etc. ) were attacked energetically by Darwinists who couldn’t cope with the straightforward inferences that these facts mandated. ENCODE aside, did it ever really make sense to conclude that most of the genome is nonfunctional? I would contend that it was never really a logical conjecture to make. How on earth could an organism that comprises some 100 trilion cells, exhibits mechanical complexity on both the micro and the macro level, and possesses the most sophisticated computing system in the known universe (i.e. the brain) be derived from a set of blueprints that is mostly junk? Could an automobile be successfully fashioned by such means? A hand calculator? A typewriter? What seems hopelessly absurd in any other context is par for the course in the magnificent neo-Darwinian synthesis. One last thing - enough with the 'onion test'! Yes it's odd, no we have no sure explanation for the present, but nonetheless the default fallback of "look at how weird this is, therefore Darwinian evolution must be the cause" is intellectually lazy and a non-sequitir.Optimus
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
tjguy: Thanks for your thoughts. In terms of epigenetics, it is a term that is not used completely consistently, so we have to be careful when we see the term used. In a broad sense, though, it is referring to everything outside of the DNA sequence itself ('epi' meaning "upon" or "over," per my handy dictionary; thus that which is in 'on top of' or 'in addition to' pure genetic sequence). Sometimes people use the term to describe the higher-level structure of DNA beyond the pure sequence. Other times, they are referring to higher structural elements of the cell/organism completely outside of DNA. There is a whole massive layer of information going on outside of the DNA. I like to keep in mind, for example, that the same DNA exists in cells as diverse as our heart, lungs, eyes, and big toe. Thus, by definition, it is not the DNA that causes different higher level structures. Indeed, there is a big open question whether all the information for an organism is even contained in the DNA in the first place. A chicken-and-egg problem . . . Literally.Eric Anderson
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Eric said:
Good point. Yet a thought nags at me. How would you describe the gap without this evidence? Puny, tiny, easily traversible in 6 million years? Or is it still big, huge, massive, so improbable as to be essentially impossible.
Good question. Even if it were 98%, I personally believe it would be essentially impossible by Darwinian means. Even 2% is not pune, tiny, or easily transversible. I'm a bit confused myself about something. Perhaps someone can help. When we hear talk of epigenetics, is that the same thing as what the ENCODE project found evidence of or is epigenetics something above and beyond even that? If I understand it correctly, it is above and beyond even what the ENCODE project found so that would add a whole extra dimension to the differences between apes and humans and further complicate matters - as if it isn't impossible as it is.tjguy
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
EA "I suppose more evidence will convince a few fence-sitters out there. But the committed materialist is already committed to miracle after miracle just to even get past the laugh test. I’m not sure adding a few more zeroes to the improbabilities will convince anyone who is already avoiding the math." How true that is :o)PeterJ
September 9, 2012
September
09
Sep
9
09
2012
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
tjguy:
If I am understanding this properly, this would indicate a vast impassable gap between us and chimps, especially given the evolutionary timeline that only allows, what — something like only 6 million years or so for the change from apes to man to have taken place? Simply Impossible.
Good point. Yet a thought nags at me. How would you describe the gap without this evidence? Puny, tiny, easily traversible in 6 million years? Or is it sill big, huge, massive, so improbable as to be essentially impossible. I suppose more evidence will convince a few fence-sitters out there. But the committed materialist is already committed to miracle after miracle just to even get past the laugh test. I'm not sure adding a few more zeroes to the improbabilities will convince anyone who is already avoiding the math.Eric Anderson
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
tjguy "If this is true, wouldn’t you say it has absolutely huge implications for the chimp to man evolutionary story? I mean, come on, we’re talking 30 times more regulatory elements than animals, including chimps! I don’t know what kind of a percentage difference this will turn out to be, but one thing is for sure, it is no where close to the 98% story that evolutionists have been using as evidence to support common descent!" Thank you for sharing this as I think this will prove to be very interesting indeed.PeterJ
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Jonathan M- Arthur Hunt, #49, is right. Please correct your OP. Just get rid of the "m" of "mRNA" in your first sentence and add an "s" at the end. And if you want you can put a "x" in front to designate different types of RNAs. Thank youJoe
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
"ENCODE Project Finds Mass Functionality for “Junk” DNA" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-07T18_00_13-07_00bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
Here is another video on the ENCODE announcement:
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: "Very little of our genomes are junk. 80% of our genome is engaged in at least one biochemical activity. For a large fraction of our genome, not now 5%, but 80% of the genome, we can (now) say that we know that it does something." "This metaphor about Junk DNA has become very entrenched. It has been entrenched publically and entrenched scientifically. And ENCODE totally challenges that. We just don't 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."
bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
Dr. Fazale Rana has a short video up on the ENCODE findings:
Encode DNA Project May Revolutionize Biology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqcgM9cGxik
bornagain77
September 8, 2012
September
09
Sep
8
08
2012
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
wd400:
I do fight against the sort of mischracterisation of the genome that sees it as a well oiled machine.
quoted from crev dot info
Nature looked back at a quote by Nobel laureate David Baltimore 11 years ago when the human genome was first published: “Unless the human genome contains a lot of genes that are opaque to our computers, it is clear that we do not gain our undoubted complexity over worms and plants by using many more genes. Understanding what does give us our complexity — our enormous behavioural repertoire, ability to produce conscious action, remarkable physical coordination (shared with other vertebrates), precisely tuned alterations in response to external variations of the environment, learning, memory … need I go on? — remains a challenge for the future.”
Hmm. What evidence would it take to convince you? I think the genome works very much like a well oiled machine! Perhaps it has suffered a little rust over time, but it still works quite well, as the prospering of our race would seem to indicate. Is devolution really evidence against it originally having been an even better well oiled machine? Not in my book. Mutations build up over time, but that is to be expected as natural selection just cannot keep up with them all, especially the ones that are not serious enough to warrant being selected for. Was it in the original article on Evolution News & Views where they mentioned that even the precise way that DNA folds into a ball and is stored in the cell is important for it's function? Absolutely amazing. The fold is anything but random and it seems like it would have had to be like that from the beginning.tjguy
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
wd400:
I don’t really think junk DNA has much to say on design . . .
I agree with you that both paradigms can accommodate a degree of function and junk. So it is really a question of degree and the overall expectations and weight of the evidence.
. . . but I do fight against the sort of mischracterisation of the genome that sees it as a well oiled machine.
That's OK. I like to fight against the sort of mischaracterization that says a well-oiled system at the macro level can exist and function on the basis of a sea of junk at the micro level. :) Now that I think about it, however, such an idea is consistent with the general engineering naivete that characterizes the whole materialist creation story: we have a bunch of chemicals floating around making a mess of things, but voila, out of the chaos emerges life, organisms, functional cellular systems, etc. As long as we don't ask too many detailed questions about what is really required for a functionally-integrated system to operate, we can cock our head to the side, squint real hard, and kind of imagine that exquisite function 'just happens' to emerge from the chaos . . .Eric Anderson
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
JLAfan says:
"This is yet another prediction verified for evolution through common ancestry."
Well, I think it is far too early to make that kind of a claim. Let's wait and see how this all pans out. There is still so much unknown about the genome. It has many more surprises for us. This result certainly fits with ID much better than with evolution and common descent. For instance, Jonathan M over at Evolution News and Views wrote this in an article stating why this is such a big deal:
“the prized 98% sequence-identify figure between humans and chimpanzees relates to the 2% of DNA that codes for the production of proteins. The non-protein-coding regions of DNA are far more species-specific. If these stretches of non-coding DNA really are functional, then what becomes of this sequence-identity figure and its significance with respect to shared ancestry?”
Here, courtesy of crev dot info, is a very interesting statement from the article in the Wall St. Journal entitled Junk DNA’ debunked”,
“The unexpected level of activity seen in the genomic hinterlands may also help explain what makes us human. Compared with other species, the human genome has about 30 times as much “junk DNA.””
If this is true, wouldn't you say it has absolutely huge implications for the chimp to man evolutionary story? I mean, come on, we're talking 30 times more regulatory elements than animals, including chimps! I don't know what kind of a percentage difference this will turn out to be, but one thing is for sure, it is no where close to the 98% story that evolutionists have been using as evidence to support common descent! If I am understanding this properly, this would indicate a vast impassable gap between us and chimps, especially given the evolutionary timeline that only allows, what — something like only 6 million years or so for the change from apes to man to have taken place? Simply impossible. I’ll look forward to the implications of this research as more is learned, evaluated, and published. I think it is going to make the chimp to human idea sound absolutely incredible!tjguy
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
wd400 you claim: "There is quite (A lot) of evidence that this sort of thing is common." really??? you got (a lot) of evidence??? Please do provide a detailed amino acid by amino acid, step by step, 'trivial' transition of a single protein to a novel variant. When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. ,,,Mung please cite the actual observational evidence that led Kimura to believe that these DNA and Protein polymorphisms were transient (as you yourself cited!). Myself, regardless of what you personally think of me, I have much observational evidence gathered that argues very strongly for constraint of protein evolvability.bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
it was discovered that, even though the vast majority of our DNA does not code for proteins, the human genome is nonetheless pervasively transcribed into mRNA.
Um, that's not what was discovered. Jonathan M, do you know what mRNA is? Just wondering.Arthur Hunt
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
BA, This will be my last, but what do you think a "transient" protein is? The transient polymprophisms those profoundly non-Darwinian evolutionary biologists Kimura, Ohto and Nei were talking about were variant that come into a population, stick around and perhaps even fix without having any impact on their hosts survival. There is quite of of evidence that this sort of thing is common.wd400
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
BA, "Transient proteins" and "transient DNA" and "transient polymorphisms" are your own straw-man constructs. How did Kimura know about polymorphisms, whether in DNA or proteins, without observations? Why do you place 'transient polymorphisms' in quotes? Who are you quoting? fyi, I do not claim that polymorphisms were the sole basis for the neutral theory. Anyone who has actually read Kimura would know better. But you completely poo-poo the idea, and you're wrong. You do no favors for the cause of ID by denying evident facts. I've both defended and criticized Sanford. So what do you hope to gain there?Mung
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Mung, the point on neutral theory NOT being based on 'observation of 'transient' polymorphisms' is, as far as I can tell, valid since there is in fact no observational evidence that 'transient' proteins exist. i.e. wd400 claimed: "Neutral theory was built on observations about polymorphism" and you cited: …the neutral theory regards protein and DNA polymorphisms as a transient phase of molecular evolution,,, ,,,Thus since there is no observational evidence of 'transient polymorphisms' then the claim is irrelevant, or worse yet, a lie! Moreover, my references from Sanford stand unchallenged even though they should shut the debate down if unchallenged!bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
How much you want to bet Salvador has even posted on the subject, lol? That's really testing my memory.Mung
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
wd400:
…I don’t usually read the BA spam.
BA sort of operates in his own sphere. Mostly I am content to just let him do his thing (he's ID friendly, so am I. I think he's a believer, so am I - sure, I'll admit the bias). But sometimes, when scrolling down a page, trying as I might not to wade though all the copy-paste-spam, something catches my eye that makes me say, HUH? I can't tell you how long it's been since I've had Kimura's book in front of me, but that thing about polymorphism's struck a nerve, so I checked ...Mung
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
So no actual evidence (a molecular machine) to support your position, and then, ironically, right after presenting no actual evidence for your position, you issue a denial that you are playing games! Dog, Tail, Chase! Then after such blatant inanity, you state:
it would be good if you understood it.
I understand it well enough to know that Dr. Sanford has rigorously shown it to be false.,,, But what I REALLY would like to know is how could you ever truly know if YOU ever understood it to be true if neo-Darwinism were actually true? You simply have no way of establishing 100% certainty in your atheistic/materialistic worldview
Self-Refuting Belief Systems - Cornelius Hunter - September 2012 Excerpt: Relativism states that there are no absolute truths, but if true then that statement is an absolute truth. Likewise the statement that evolution is a fact, if true, means that we cannot know evolution to be a fact. Why? Because with evolution our minds are nothing more than molecules in motion—an accidental biochemistry experiment which has yielded a set of chemicals in a certain configuration. This leads to what Darwin called “the horrid doubt”: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind." Darwin to Graham, William - 3 July 1881 Today evolutionists agree that while a random collection of chemicals doesn’t know anything, nonetheless over long time periods and under the action of natural selection, phenomena which we refer to as knowledge, will and consciousness will spontaneously emerge. And how do we know this? Because evolution occurred and we know that it occurred. Therefore evolution must have created the phenomena of knowledge. The proof is left to the student. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/09/self-refuting-belief-systems.html The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?); Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html Related article: Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-now-saying-their.html Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism. ~ Alvin Plantinga Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998
bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
read what I said. You can't compare a pristine junk-free genome to a very junky one, because evolution would never get that chance. I don't really think junk DNA has much to say on design, but I do fight against the sort of mischracterisation of the genome that sees it as a well oiled machine.wd400
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
wd400: You're missing the point. How is it possible that there is so much junk DNA hanging around in our genome for generations? Certainly not because it is being selected for. Instead precisely because, so the thinking goes, it is neutral. The idea of vast amounts of junk DNA in the genome was at least made more believable and palatable by the idea that it was neutral. As long as it sat there and minded its own business there could be tons of it -- the cell wouldn't care.
The idea that selection can get rid of every weakly expensive variant is hyper-selectionist . . . What do you think the cost of one more transcript is?
Now, however, we know that it doesn't just sit there. It gets transcribed. Pervasively so. So now we are being asked to believe that the vast majority of the transcription work in the cell (7/8th of the genome), and the subsequent sorting, breakdown and recycling work of all those RNA strands, is utterly, completely, without function and useless. In fact it is much worse than useless. It uses up much of the cell's transcription and RNA recycling work. I'm certainly not being hyper-selectionist. I have never argued that 100% of DNA has function. No-one is talking about "one more transcript." We're talking about the vast majority of the genome. So are you really going to stick with the position that fully 70% of the genome is transcribed (with all that entails in terms of materials and transcription resources, later sorting and identification of RNA strands, breakdown, etc.), even though it is utterly, completely useless? And that such a massive use of resources would not result in any selection pressure? And that it would not interfere in any way with the small transcribed amount that is functional? Sorry, but that is just laughable. And based on what evidence? That we haven't identified a particular function yet? I don't get it. Even if you don't accept design, why fight so tooth and nail against the idea of more DNA function? Why not embrace new developments as interesting evidence that might lead us to understand more about how much function DNA really has?Eric Anderson
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
I'm not the one playing games. You did whatever it is that you did to create these copy-paste-spam things without even understanding what neutral theory is (as far as I can tell). (Nearly) Neutral theory is pretty relevent to the ENCODE results, so it would be good if you understood it.wd400
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
lol. What do you think neutral theory is BA?
science fiction! Tell you what wd400, let's quit playing games and just cut to the chase, and you go ahead and produce actual evidence for Darwinian evolution producing just one molecular machine? I know I will be waiting a long time for you to produce any substantiating evidence, since you have no actual evidence,
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist
and you will try to play stupid games instead of producing actual evidence (because Darwinism is not about what the evidence actually says for you is it?),, but on the other hand I can produce actual evidence of Intelligence producing a molecular machine:
(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot - video https://vimeo.com/36880067
Why do you play games wd400?bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply