So non-protein coding DNA is now “widely recognized” to be not junk?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 8, 2014

'Junk DNA', News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Special Issue on microRNAs – the smallest RNA regulators of gene expression

It is now well recognised that the majority of non-protein-coding genomic DNA is not “junk” but specifies a range of regulatory RNA molecules which finely tune protein expression. This issue of CDD contains an editorial and 5 reviews on a particular class of these regulatory RNAs, the microRNAs (miRs) of around 22 nucleotides, and which exert their effects by binding to consensus sites in the 3’UTRs of mRNAs. The reviews cover the role of miRs from their early association with CLL to other forms of cancer, their importance in the development of the epidermis and their potential as disease biomarkers as secreted in exosomes. In addition, we publish a News and Commentary on CRISPR, a technology which is not only revolutionising genetic manipulation in the lab, but which has the potential to treat genetic disease in vivo.

Oh? Does anyone remember when BioLogos founder Francis Collins was fronting “junk DNA”? So we were all suppose to rush to believe that. But hey, now we aren’t.

Comments

@33 Zachriel
We pointed out that nearly all of those hardworking biologists support evolutionary theory.
why did you write “We” instead of “I” in the above quoted sentence? Are you one person or a group of people?Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Obviously, evolutionary science is now done by consensus, however it's not a simplistic democratic vote, but rather a carefully managed process by the de facto elite in the field, who carefully fit any new discoveries into the continually evolving theory of evolution---a very demanding process that requires the best minds in science! However, there's an evolving grass roots movement that asserts that what was formerly considered junk DNA, is actually junk after all! Here's why this is necessary. Firstly, according to Dr. Ohno, the presence of "junk" DNA is actually evidence for evolution. That non-coding DNA is actually a "fossil record" of evolution, thus vital for the theory. Secondly, if all DNA were functional, then any mutations would most likely be deleterious. You need non-coding DNA to serve both as a scratch pad and a buffer against excessive changes. This proves that a significant portion of DNA must undeniably be junk, regardless of apparent evidence to the contrary. ;-) -QQuerius_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

wd400- Is science done via consensus or evidence? You can have all of the scientists and it wouldn't give you any supporting evidence for evolutionism.Joe_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

We’d be happy to look at their published research debunking evolutionary theory.
We have to see this alleged evolutionary theory first. Darwin's contribution, natural selection, has proven to be impotent and nothing else has been offered as a materialistic alternative. So what is there to debunk?
Lenski’s E. coli long-term evolution experiment.
Ah yes. The experiment that demonstrates the severe limits of evolutionary change. That is some great evidence that unguided evolution cannot get past prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. Not sure why you brought that up. As for Shubin if the tetrapod tracks that were found in Poland were found before Shubin started planning his trip, according to him he wouldn't have gone to where he found Tiktaalik. Either that or Tiktaalik would have been dated to 400+ million years ago...Joe_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

Dionisio, The first paragraph describes it pretty well -- it's a response to a particularly silly creationist gambit. If you want something less tongue in cheek, then ~97% of scientists agree that humans evolved, 87% that we did so "due to natural processes"wd400_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

@37 Zachriel
We could start with scientists named Steve. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
What is that web site supposed to tell me?Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: When I asked them directly to explain how we humans and the rest of the living creatures we see around got here, they humbly admitted they don’t have any coherent comprehensive explanation. That's not what you indicated above. What are their specialties, by the way? We'd be happy to look at their published research debunking evolutionary theory. If they just mean there are unanswered questions, then sure, there are plenty of unanswered questions when determining historical events.Zachriel_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

@37 Zachriel
I don’t recall them making any reference to any evolutionary theory at all.
When I asked them directly to explain how we humans and the rest of the living creatures we see around got here, they humbly admitted they don't have any coherent comprehensive explanation. Most probably you and your comrades would have answered very differently, but that's expected. BTW, humility is a rare virtue, very much appreciated in many circles, including scientific ones. It may go along with honesty and courage too. :)Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

@35 Zachriel
They’re professional interest isn’t in finding unanswered scientific questions.
They’re? Did you mean Their?Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: How do you know what nearly all of them really support? We could start with scientists named Steve. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve Dionisio: how do you know that my friends haven’t expressed an opinion on the subject? Dionisio: I don’t recall them making any reference to any evolutionary theory at all.Zachriel_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

@33 Zachriel
You noted the many hardworking biologists. We pointed out that nearly all of those hardworking biologists support evolutionary theory. For some reason, you then brought up your biologist friends, who haven’t expressed an opinion on the subject.
Well, first, I don't recall seeing your answer to my question in post #23: How do you know what nearly all of them really support? Second, why did you write "We" instead of "I" in the above quoted sentence that starts "We pointed out that..."? Third, how do you know that my friends haven’t expressed an opinion on the subject?Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: What do you mean by “Scientists extend it“? Engineers apply known science. Scientists work on the edges of knowledge in order to increase the sphere of what is known. Dionisio: Can you provide an example as illustration? Darwin's studies when he circumnavigated the globe. Shubin's adventures in the Canadian Arctic. Taking close-up pictures of a comet. Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment. Dionisio: How does that relate to what I wrote? Dionisio: BTW, in my professional field, software development, I don’t recall ever meeting anyone who would say they don’t know where to find the answers to any serious questions related to the given profession. Software development is a field within engineering. Nothing wrong with that, but the purpose of engineering isn't to extend human knowledge, but to apply what is already known. They're professional interest isn't in finding unanswered scientific questions.Zachriel_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

@31 Zachriel
That’s the difference between engineering and science. Engineers apply existing knowledge. Scientists extend it.
What do you mean by "Scientists extend it"? Can you provide an example as illustration? How does that relate to what I wrote?Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: authoritative source of what? You noted the many hardworking biologists. We pointed out that nearly all of those hardworking biologists support evolutionary theory. For some reason, you then brought up your biologist friends, who haven't expressed an opinion on the subject.Zachriel_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

@31 Zachriel
Your biologists friends, who may work in tangentially related fields, who didn’t even express an opinion, is your authoritative source?
authoritative source of what?Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: My biologist friends confessed that the answers to some fundamental questions in their profession aren’t known to anyone yet. That’s why they have to work so hard. Your biologists friends, who may work in tangentially related fields, who didn't even express an opinion, is your authoritative source? Dionisio: BTW, in my professional field, software development, I don’t recall ever meeting anyone who would say they don’t know where to find the answers to any serious questions related to the given profession. That's the difference between engineering and science. Engineers apply existing knowledge. Scientists extend it.Zachriel_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Is most of the genome functional, or is biological function restricted to tiny islands of sequence space? Given how mutations we each have it can't be both.wd400_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

@25 Mapou
It’s in the same category as “random mutations”, the flat earth hypothesis and the tooth fairy.
Well, my children claim that they had tangible evidences that the tooth fairy was real. :)Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

@24 Mung
No one ever claimed that there was any such thing as junk DNA.
Well, the concept seems related to the biblical claim of the spiritual fall of mankind at the beginning of human history and the mess that followed, hence maybe the name was coined by some religious people to prove their case? :)Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Mung 24
No one ever claimed that there was any such thing as junk DNA.
Evolutionists predict that whatever they say about DNA will be fully correct until or unless they say something different about it in the future.Silver Asiatic_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Putative cis-regulatory drivers... doi:10.1038/nature13602 The cis-regulatory effects responsible for cancer development have not been as extensively studied as the perturbations of the protein coding genome in tumorigenesis. Collectively the integration of genome and the transcriptome reveals a substantial number of putative somatic and germline cis-regulatory cancer changes that may have a role in tumorigenesis. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13602.html
have not been as extensively studied? Why?Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

AVS @3:
Don’t worry, there is still a significant amount of non-coding DNA that is still classified as “junk” and will likely remain so.
Wishful thinking by mental midgets.
Yes, the initial “junk” label was probably premature (shame on us!), but there is still a large portion of the genome simply made up of single sequence repeats.
Premature? It's just plain stupid. How much do you want to bet that junk DNA is a superstitious Darwinist myth through and through. There never was such a thing. It's in the same category as "random mutations", the flat earth hypothesis and the tooth fairy.Mapou_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

No one ever claimed that there was any such thing as junk DNA.Mung_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

@21 Zachriel
And nearly all of those hard workers in biology support evolutionary theory.
How do you know what nearly all of them really support? FYI - The serious ones don't have time to squander on the type of discussions we see here and in other blogs out there. They have challenging issues to resolve. The Polish, Scandinavian and Spanish scientists I know personally are serious biologists who don't seem to care much about any evolutionary theory, because they are working (sometimes outside their original countries) on leading-edge biomedical research in order to understand and find cures for diseases that affect many people. They analyze the current system in front of them, using the available technology and information, in order to answer many questions they have. At least that's the impression I got when I spoke to them and they told me about the work they do. I don't recall them making any reference to any evolutionary theory at all. Obviously when they explained their work to me, they knew they had to make their explanation understandable to an ignorant like me. :) However, in some occasions they humbly admitted to not knowing where to find the answers to some of my questions. BTW, in my professional field, software development, I don't recall ever meeting anyone who would say they don't know where to find the answers to any serious questions related to the given profession. All the answers are written somewhere out there. Perhaps some of the proprietary information is confidential, hence unavailable to some of us, but it is there. My biologist friends confessed that the answers to some fundamental questions in their profession aren't known to anyone yet. That's why they have to work so hard. BTW, those friends and I may not be necessarily on the same page regarding worldview positions. Actually, probably we are pretty far apart in some philosophical/theological areas. But those differences did not hinder our friendly conversations. :)Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

And nearly all of those hard workers in biology support evolutionary theory.
I bet they cannot reference this alleged theory.Joe_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: Researchers work hard trying to figure out how things work and what they do. And nearly all of those hard workers in biology support evolutionary theory. In any case, one way to determine whether a sequence is neutral or not is to look at its history. If it is not under selection, then it will drift at a known rate.Zachriel_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Perhaps it would make sense that some parts of the DNA have no beneficial functions, because through history our biological components have been exposed to hostile conditions and processes that could have messed up many parts of the system. But jumping into conclusions prematurely is not prudent. Researchers work hard trying to figure out how things work and what they do.Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

@10 Box
The futile search for the master regulator :) SLT: “When regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates?”
Interesting observation indeed. Thank you.Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

@5 awstar
Next we’ll probably hear that evolutionary biologists are pushing the name of Jonathan Wells as a nobel laureate candidate.
Well, perhaps within a hypothetical 'multiverse' context that event took place already? :)Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

On a related note, here's an interesting comment posted by gpuccio in another thread (post # 805): https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-535236Dionisio_{December 9, 2014
December
12
Dec
9
09
2014
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply