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
as to:
…the neutral theory regards protein and DNA polymorphisms as a transient phase of molecular evolution,,,
Huge problem, there is no evidence that protein 'polymorphisms' are 'transient'!:
Following the Evidence Where It Leads: Observations on Dembski's Exchange with Shapiro - Ann Gauger - January 2012 Excerpt: So far, our research indicates that genuine innovation, a change to a function not already pre-existent in a protein, is beyond the reach of natural processes, even when the starting proteins are very similar in structure. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/observations_re055171.html Wheel of Fortune: New Work by Thornton's Group Supports Time-Asymmetric Dollo's Law - Michael Behe - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: Darwinian selection will fit a protein to its current task as tightly as it can. In the process, it makes it extremely difficult to adapt to a new task or revert to an old task by random mutation plus selection. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/wheel_of_fortune_new_work_by_t051621.html Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009 Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975 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. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide Why Proteins (Protein Domains) Aren't Easily Recombined - Ann Gauger - May 2012 Excerpt: each particular helix or sheet has a distinct set of side chains sticking out from it, requiring a distinct set of chemical interactions with any nearby protein sequence. Thus, helices and sheets are sequence-dependent structural elements within protein folds. You can’t swap them around like lego bricks. This necessarily means that when you bring new secondary structure elements into contact by some sort of rearrangement, they will be unlikely to form a stable three dimensional fold without significant modification. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/22595615671/why-proteins-arent-easily-recombined "Why Proteins Aren't Easily Recombined, Part 2" - Ann Gauger - May 2012 Excerpt: "So we have context-dependent effects on protein function at the level of primary sequence, secondary structure, and tertiary (domain-level) structure. This does not bode well for successful, random recombination of bits of sequence into functional, stable protein folds, or even for domain-level recombinations where significant interaction is required." http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/23170843182/why-proteins-arent-easily-recombined-part-2
bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
lol. What do you think neutral theory is BA?wd400
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
So yes, I think wd400 has a point.
In so far that neutral theory has any point worth considering, it is the fact that neutral theory makes it clear that Darwinism is complete pseudo-scientific tripe that refuses to submit to any rigid falsification criteria!bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
...I don't usually read the BA spam. But even the mutational load argument is about among-species polymorphism (that there are more of them than we'd expect if selectoin was responsible for most changes), not function, which is the error Eric made and I was trying to correct.wd400
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
...the neutral theory regards protein and DNA polymorphisms as a transient phase of molecular evolution and rejects the notion that the majority of such polymorphisms are adaptive and maintained in the species by some form of balancing selection. - Motoo Kimura
So yes, I think wd400 has a point.Mung
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
wd400 you claim :
Neutral theory was built on observations about polymorphism
No it wasn't:
Haldane’s Dilemma Excerpt: Haldane was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift – creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors – it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane’s dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation – but has obtained identical results. John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 159-160 Kimura’s Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most ‘evolution’ must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom’s (neo-Darwinism’s) very validity. John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 161 – 162 A graph featuring ‘Kimura’s Distribution’ being ‘properly used’ is shown in the following video: Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial - David Berlinski - November 2011 Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura's The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura's theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. "A critique of neo-Darwinism," the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, "can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science." By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/berlinski_on_darwin_on_trial053171.html Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012 Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years). My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be." Doug Axe PhD. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html Here is a Completely Different Way of Doing Science - Cornelius Hunter PhD. - April 2012 Excerpt: But how then could evolution proceed if mutations were just neutral? The idea was that neutral mutations would accrue until finally an earthquake, comet, volcano or some such would cause a major environmental shift which suddenly could make use of all those neutral mutations. Suddenly, those old mutations went from goat-to-hero, providing just the designs that were needed to cope with the new environmental challenge. It was another example of the incredible serendipity that evolutionists call upon. Too good to be true? Not for evolutionists. The neutral theory became quite popular in the literature. The idea that mutations were not brimming with cool innovations but were mostly bad or at best neutral, for some, went from an anathema to orthodoxy. And the idea that those neutral mutations would later magically provide the needed innovations became another evolutionary just-so story, told with conviction as though it was a scientific finding. Another problem with the theory of neutral molecular evolution is that it made even more obvious the awkward question of where these genes came from in the first place. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-completely-different-way-of.html Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: “For the first decade after the paper [Punctuated Equilibrium] was published, it was the most controversial and hotly argued idea in all of paleontology. Soon the great debate among paleontologists boiled down to just a few central points, which Gould and Eldredge (1977) nicely summarized on the fifth anniversary of the paper’s release. The first major discovery was that stasis was much more prevalent in the fossil record than had been previously supposed. Many paleontologists came forward and pointed out that the geological literature was one vast monument to stasis, with relatively few cases where anyone had observed gradual evolution. If species didn’t appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain relatively unchanged, then biostratigraphy would never work—and yet almost two centuries of successful biostratigraphic correlations was evidence of just this kind of pattern. As Gould put it, it was the ‘dirty little secret’ hidden in the paleontological closet. Most paleontologists were trained to focus on gradual evolution as the only pattern of interest, and ignored stasis as ‘not evolutionary change’ and therefore uninteresting, to be overlooked or minimized. Once Eldredge and Gould had pointed out that stasis was equally important (‘stasis is data’ in Gould’s words), paleontologists all over the world saw that stasis was the general pattern, and that gradualism was rare—and that is still the consensus 40 years later. … In my dissertation on the incredibly abundant and well preserved fossil mammals of the Big Badlands of the High Plains, I had over 160 well-dated, well-sampled lineages of mammals, so I could evaluate the relative frequency of gradualism versus stasis in an entire regional fauna. … it was clear that nearly every lineage showed stasis, with one minor example of gradual size reduction in the little oreodont Miniochoerus. I could point to this data set and make the case for the prevalence of stasis without any criticism of bias in my sampling. More importantly, the fossil mammals showed no sign of responding to the biggest climate change of the past 50 million years (the Eocene-Oligocene transition, when glaciers appeared in Antarctica after 200 million years). In North America, dense forests gave way to open scrublands, crocodiles and pond turtles were replaced by land tortoises, and the snails changed from those typical of Nicaragua to those of Baja California. Yet out of all the 160 lineages of mammals in this time interval, there was virtually no response.”,,, In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature
bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
You are all over the place on this one Eric. Neutral theory was built on observations about polymorphism - not so much function. These precasive RNAs are not conserved (only about 5% of our genome appears to be subject to negative selection). The idea that selection can get rid of every weakly expensive variant is hyper-selectionist (it's amusing how Dawkins-like most creationists are when they talk about evolution acutally...). What do you think the cost of one more transcript is? Evolution doesn't give you a chance to compare a pristine genome with a junky one - just the differences between one genome and another. That's a recipe for a ratchet that could easily end up with a genome that is complex as in bureaucracy not complex as in a machine. I just think you have a long way to go form "makes RNA" (as Paul points out that's every base of every intron!) to "has a function"wd400
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Anyone have any thoughts on this? (and then you list the onion test) My thoughts are that human ignorance for why the genomes are the specific varying sizes they are is not a argument for the Darwinian origin of those specific 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.html
bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Anyone have any thoughts on this> http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2012/09/birney-thinks-onion-test-silly/wateron1
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
as to:
every single discovery of new function moves the needle toward my end of the bet!
this:
Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html Francis Collins's Junk DNA Arguments Pushed Into Increasingly Small Gaps in Scientific Knowledge - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/francis_collins_junk_dna_argum046251.html
bornagain77
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
paulmc, good to see you back (and wd400) and to know you are lurking. :) So the evolutionary estimate of "real" function is around 10% and my estimate is 90%+. Hmmm . . . The strange thing is that we already know (per your and wd400's acknowledgement) of about 10% worth of function. So saying that about 10% (plus or minus a couple points) is functional is asserting that we already have figured out essentially all the functional aspects of DNA. Sorry, but that is just laughable. Particularly when we know there are literally thousands of functions that occur in our bodies for which we have not yet identified the source of the information for that function. A fair amount may be epigentic to be sure, but much is likely genetic in origin. Pervasive, massive quantity junk DNA was more believable and made more sense to the evolutionary story when it just sat there quietly behaving itself and did nothing (you know, the whole "neutral" catch-all idea it was largely based on in the first place). Now we know that the vast majority of DNA is transcribed, so here's your theory: "At least 70% of the entire genome is transcribed, even though it has no function and is complete junk." Talk about selection pressure! Not only is DNA awash in junk we are told, but now the cell expends massive resources and energy transcribing 7x more junk than functional strings, and is left to deal with all the transcribed junk literally clogging up the cell. That is a pretty remarkable viewpoint and one that is flatly in opposition to the idea that "conserved stuff is conserved because it has function." I know you will stand fast in your belief that DNA is mostly junk, so we probably won't get anywhere for now. We'll just keep the friendly bet open. Remember, though, that, by definition, every single discovery of new function moves the needle toward my end of the bet! :)Eric Anderson
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
paulmc- future uses, as I told you before. As I said you don't understand how to design and how to design such that you have viable and helpful variation for possible future requirements. Just because YOU don't understand the design requirement for introns does not mean there isn't one. YOUR position can't explain introns nor alternative gene splicing. So perhaps you guys should focus on your position for a while, at least until you can get it sorted out. How many proteins does the human genome produce vs how many genes?Joe
September 7, 2012
September
09
Sep
7
07
2012
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
On junk-DNA I've been called a liar for Jesus by many. 6 September 2012 I can finally say..... I told you so!Andre
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Paul, I see what you are saying. And I think it's probably true. But, do you know what it teaches me? With words like junk be ascribed to "somewhat functional DNA" and function being ascribed to " somewhat functional DNA" that scientists SUCK at the English language. This is ridiculous, why would ANYONE use the words Junk when it has function? Even if it is a little bit...and why would these scientists use the words "80 percent functional" if it's not really. Scientists really need some help with their correct word usages. For the commoner like myself, it's no wonder we have a hard time understanding this kind of literature, it's just like the news!ForJah
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Hey paulmc, Even though I take the ID side, but I wanted to thank you for coming here to engage us in debate. It would be a boring monoculture without dissenting opinions :)JoeCoder
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
Firstly, a few dozen base pairs are needed for alternative splicing, not entire introns (typical length: 3500 bp). Secondly, few genes reliably produce multiple transcripts, so their introns do not function (except in the ENCODE sense). Thirdly, of those that do produce an additional transcript, an exon is usually skipped - yet a typical human gene has eight introns, meaning most introns are not involved in producing alternative mRNAs even in genes that do exhibit alternative splicing.paulmc
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
paulmc- Introns ARE functional- ie they do something for the organism- they allow for alternative gene splicing. Take them out and see what happens. And blind and undirected processes can't account for any level of biological activity. So your position still has some 'splainin' to do...Joe
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
wd400- Yeah, it explains everything. even the stuff that surprises the heck out of biologists. BTW evolution is supposedly all historical accidents- nothing was planned. As for an evidenced-based approach, well that is why I infer Intelligent Design.Joe
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Joe, Yeah, actually, evolutionary can explain quite a lot of variation in genome-size and genome-junkiness. Selection is a weaker force in small populations than large ones, since a little extra junk DNA is likely to be nearly-neutral in a small population we can't control it. There are many other things that contribute to the junkiness of a genome, and some of them are probable historical accidents. It's quite an interesting question when you take an evidence-based approach to it - you should try that out.wd400
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Are you sure that 'functional' means what you think it means? And, if it does, do you really want to adopt this definition of function consistently in biological discussions? Mung in #3 asks, "isn’t it a claim of modern evolutionary theory that we can reliably determine evolutionary relationships from sections of non-functional DNA precisely because they are non-functional?" Neutrally evolving sequences are certainly useful in estimating phylogeny, but ENCODE's definition tells us nothing about whether sequences are freely accumulating mutations, or if they are tightly constrained by evolution. Now, every bp in every intron is 'functional' under ENCODE's definition, simply because they are initially transcribed - not because they "do something" for the organism or have any actual biological consequence. This is not what 'functional' means to most people (hence the errant claims about the death of junk DNA - again - in the media). ENCODE's definition of functional tells us exactly nothing about the biological necessity of such sequences or how they evolve, only that on some level they show evidence of biological activity. Hence the bar is very low: ENCODE still only have evidence of function under traditional definitions in 9% of the genome - which is what was predicted long before ENCODE began. The coordinator of ENCODE has quite a telling discussion about this on his blog.paulmc
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Well wd400 it is a given that natural selection doesn't do anything in a meaningful sense. Can you reference any evidence that your position's mechanisms can construct something functional, in a meaningful sense? But anyway- are there species with little to no junk DNA? Are there varying degrees from "lots" to "zero"? Does "evolution" explain all of that from lots to zero? Then it explains nothing...Joe
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson, Lot's of evolutionary biologists have given estimates for the amount of junk DNA. I think it's unlikely that much more than 10% of the genome is functional in meaningful sense, and that's after reading the ENCODE papers (well, the big ones). Have you read them? Do you understand what the definition of "functional" is for the classes ENCODE uses?wd400
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
to reiterate what Sal has alluded to, non-functional Junk DNA is not so much 'predicted' by Darwinism as it is 'required' by it. i.e. No Junk, No Darwinism! Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists
Haldane's Dilemma Excerpt: Haldane was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift - creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors - it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane's dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation - but has obtained identical results. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 159-160 Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' being ‘properly used’ is shown in the following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video, the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument, that is still used by many Darwinists, can be traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno's work in the late 1950’s, 60’s through the early 70’s:
What Is The Genome? It's Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 Kimura (1968) developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma” is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional. The slow, painful death of junk DNA: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work....Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation...Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties. http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death Susumu Ohno, a leader in the field of genetics and evolutionary biology, explained in 1972 in an early study of non-coding DNA that, "they are the remains of nature's experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?"
Richard Sternberg, who has a PhD. in Evolutionary Biology, traces how the junk DNA argument developed through the mid 1970’s to the early 80’s and beyond in the following article:
How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980 - Richard Sternberg - October 8, 2009 Excerpt: Two papers appeared back to back in the journal Nature in 1980: "Selfish Genes, the Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution" by W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza and "Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite" by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick. These laid the framework for thinking about nonprotein-coding regions of chromosomes, judging from how they are cited. What these authors effectively did was advance Dawkins's 1976 selfish gene idea in such a way that all the genomic DNA evidence available up to that time could be accounted for by a plausible scenario. The thesis presented in both articles is that the only specific function of the vast bulk of "nonspecific" sequences, especially repetitive elements such as transposons, is to replicate themselves -- this is the consequence of natural selection operating within genomes, beneath the radar of the cell. These junk sequences, it was postulated, can duplicate and disperse throughout chromosomes because they have little or no effect on the phenotype, save for the occasional mutation that results from their mobility. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/how_the_junk_dna_hypothesis_ha026421.html
bornagain77
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
These developments are deadly to Darwinism (well as a theory it's already a corpse, but propped up by its supporters despite the stench.) Kimura said the majority of the genome is selectively neutral. For humans that would mean most of the 4 giga base pairs were not under the influence of selection. Now that we find most of the 4 giga base pairs are functional, we have to deal with the fact that they are functional without the influence of selection. Hence we find complex features of biology that exist that cannot in principle be attributed to selection. It's not an argument from igorance, but a proof by contradiction.scordova
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
@JLAfan2001 In those cases, I would imagine those genes perform more than one function, otherwise they wouldn't be conserved for tens to hundreds of millions of years. According to wikipedia (typically hostile to our views):
The yolk sac is a membranous sac attached to an embryo, providing early nourishment in the form of yolk in bony fishes, sharks, reptiles, birds, and primitive mammals. It functions as the developmental circulatory system of the human embryo, before internal circulation begins.
So the "yolk gene" is not a vestigal remnant. According to Whale 'sense of smell' revealed, 2010:
The whales' sense of smell was revealed when scientists dissected their bodies and found olfactory hardware linking the brain and nose, and functional protein receptors required to smell. Previously, whales and dolphins were thought to lack the ability. "Upon taking a brain out, I noticed that there were olfactory tracts, which, in other mammals, connect the brain to the nose," Prof [Hans] Thewissen told the BBC. "I followed those to the nose, and noted that all the olfactory hardware is there."
Searching for the quote from Dennis Venema leads to Rachel Held Evans blog, which was published over a year after the BBC whale article. Why is he still using that argument?JoeCoder
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
"Humans have the remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk production in our DNA in exactly the place that evolution would predict." Note the 'would' predict. I presume he doesn't have an actual citation of someone predicting that long beforehand. And any instances of confirmed predictions are more a product of luck than any knowledge flowing from evolutionary theory. What typically happens is that we learn something new in biology that is interpreted in the paradigm of evolutionary thinking. Then if it matches, evolutionists say, "See, that's what evolution would predict." If it doesn't match, the response is that evolution is messy, non-linear, makes changes all the time, and -- surprise -- that we shouldn't expect to see the particular feature survive. This kind of illogic has been used over and over. The simple fact is that evolutionary theory makes very few bona fide predictions. Some things will evolve, some won't; some features will be preserved, others won't; some will survive, others won't. Under the evolutionary paradigm, there is no reason for thinking that any feature of any species will survive through long periods of time. Evolutionary theory can be largely summed up with the following statement: Stuff happens.Eric Anderson
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs.
I thought that both air and water are fluids. I wonder what he thinks the difference is between fluid-based (air) olfaction and fluid-based (water) olfaction.Mung
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Here is a another video announcement of the ENCODE work:
ENCODE: Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3V2thsJ1Wc
bornagain77
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
The following ia a quote from Dennis Venema at BioLogos: “For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs. Humans have the remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk production in our DNA in exactly the place that evolution would predict.” This is yet another prediction verified for evolution through common ancestry. I know that some on this board are not against evolution or common ancestry so I fail to see why the celebrations. ID proponents are saying this but so do Darwinists. It seems that ID believes it and yet celebrates when there is evidence against it. After all, wasn’t the prediction of pseudo genes a result of evolution through common ancestry? So if this is proof that it may not be the case, isn’t ID refuted too? I guess what I’m trying to say is that this is just proof to knock of a tip of the evidence iceberg but ID accepts the rest of the iceberg anyway. So what did this accomplish in the end?JLAfan2001
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
A few thoughts after reading the reportage of the literature. (a) The headline "80%" refers to "some chemical reaction", and the Morans of this world are poining to a much lower 20% figure for "selectable function", which is still far higher than expected. The authors, though, defend their terminology on the basis that much genuine function will prove non-selectable, and that one can't decide something is not useful until you know what it does. So the argument looks more dispassionate if one understands and quotes both figures, since they both do the job of refuting "Junk DNA" (Of course, we all know that no biologist has use that inaccurate term for a DECADE or so. Francis Collins only used it in 2007 for theological reasons ;-). (b) If protein-coding genes are now a very small minority of the redefined genes, most of which are non-selectable switches for codong genes shared amongst many species, does population genetics actually mean anything much mathematically now? (c) If the size of the genome has been swelled to comprise mainly near-neutral elements, does there remain any significant role for natural selection? How can selection handle speciation if speciation is mainly switch configuration? (d) Much of the extended-genome is not conserved ... ie it's species-specific. What does that do for the rate at which evolution could happen, say between apes and man?Jon Garvey
September 6, 2012
September
09
Sep
6
06
2012
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply