Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"The case for junk DNA"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Jorge,

    In what sense, other than philosophical, is creationism a "model"? Same deal for ID.

    K54
    You need to 'hit' them-there books, Santa.

    Creationism is not a "model" in the technical sense of the word - it is an ideological position, a worldview. Exactly in the same way as is Atheism, Humanism, ...

    I was using the term "model" loosely (in the sense that I clarified above) but I forgot that you guys like to strain on gnats while swallowing the entire camel. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Could you provide some of this confirming evidence?

    Separately, the paper linked in the OP indicates that a very significant fraction of many eukaryotic genomes is in fact junk. Could you point out the flaws in the paper's arguments? My PhD is in molecular and cell biology, so feel free to get as technical as you desire.
    I'm on travel now but I can think of no better source to give you than The Myth of Junk DNA by J. Wells. Any reasonable, fair-minded person reading that book would immediately and forevermore abandon the notion of DNA being "junk" in whole or in part.

    Also, and quickly, I'm likely nowhere near your level of expertise in molecular and cell biology. I'm more versed in information theory and it is on that basis that I've determined that the notion of "junk DNA" is unsupportable. Specifically, you are aware, I presume, of the multiple codes in the DNA - also known as poly-functional DNA. Trifanov identified no fewer than twelve separate codes in DNA (1-2). In a paper that I co-authored (3) we listed sixteen codes with others possible.

    BOTTOM LINE: I believe that anyone promoting any significant portion of the DNA as "junk" will find egg on their face in the future. Yes, an insignificant portion of DNA may become "junk" due to deleterious mutation(s) but, overall, there is no "junk" in the DNA due to an Evolutionary history. Future scientific observations will falsify or support this claim.


    (1) Trifanov, EN (1989) Multiple Codes of Nucleotide Sequences, Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417-432
    (2) Trifanov, EN (1997) Genetic Sequences as Products of Compression by Inclusive Super-position of Many Codes, Mol Biol 31:647-654
    (3) Montanez, Marks, Fernandez & Sanford, Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation, Biological Information: New Perspectives, Symposium Proceedings, World Scientific, 2013, pp. 139-167

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Jorge,

    In what sense, other than philosophical, is creationism a "model"? Same deal for ID.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    So I expressed this to the Atheist and made a falsifiable prediction: I said, "Based on my model (Creationism), I predict that in the upcoming years - as more and more is learned about this "junk DNA" - it will be discovered to be as significant, if not more significant, than the coding DNA."

    The rest is history - my prediction is becoming more and more confirmed.
    Could you provide some of this confirming evidence?

    Separately, the paper linked in the OP indicates that a very significant fraction of many eukaryotic genomes is in fact junk. Could you point out the flaws in the paper's arguments? My PhD is in molecular and cell biology, so feel free to get as technical as you desire.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    ********************************

    I told this story before (in the 'old' TWeb) that now, thanks to Roland, bears repeating:

    Back in the early 1990's (going on memory here) I was debating an Atheist on Evolution v. Creation. At that time, "junk DNA" was being loudly touted by Evolutionists as "clear proof of Evolution". This Atheist brought the argument up proudly and loudly. As a Creationist, I of course think that that claim is nonsense. IMO, they call it "junk" because, (1) it supports their ideological beliefs and, (2) they are clueless as to its function.

    So I expressed this to the Atheist and made a falsifiable prediction: I said, "Based on my model (Creationism), I predict that in the upcoming years - as more and more is learned about this "junk DNA" - it will be discovered to be as significant, if not more significant, than the coding DNA."

    The rest is history - my prediction is becoming more and more confirmed.

    Of course, there are Die-Hard-Fanatical Evolutionists that refuse to give up. In spite of the large and growing body of evidence that the "junk DNA" claim is, well, JUNK, some Evolutionists will continue promoting this concept. This article that Roland brings up testifies towards that fact.

    I will merely repeat my falsifiable prediction: watch as the drama unfolds - as the body of scientific observations continues to mount - and you'll see the notion of "junk DNA" take the route of the Dodo Bird.

    Then, also predictably, the Evolutionists will continue parroting their other beliefs.

    Jorge
    Jorge,

    Regardless of "junk" DNA (terrible term that should never have been coined), DNA is still not your friend. Clades are determined by it as well as evolutionary history in general.

    Put some of your slobber in a vial and send it to 23andMe.com for a little shocker. I'm 2.7% Neanderthal. I'll wager your percent is higher than that.

    https://www.23andme.com/

    K54

    P.S. Oh, and how about that nasty (2p, 2q) thingy and that darn mutated GLO gene in humans and other primates?

    I know it's slightly off topic, but it's high time somebody put you in your place.

    Whadda ya think, Boss?

    Another notch down...
    Last edited by klaus54; 05-14-2014, 07:56 AM. Reason: grammar

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Thanks to Steviepinhead at TR for bringing this to our attention.

    An online article from PLoS Genetics which puts junk DNA back into context:-

    The Case for Junk DNA

    "With the advent of deep sequencing technologies and the ability to analyze whole genome sequences and transcriptomes, there has been a growing interest in exploring putative functions of the very large fraction of the genome that is commonly referred to as “junk DNA.” Whereas this is an issue of considerable importance in genome biology, there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers and science writers to proclaim the demise of junk DNA on a regular basis without properly addressing some of the fundamental issues that first led to the rise of the concept. In this review, we provide an overview of the major arguments that have been presented in support of the notion that a large portion of most eukaryotic genomes lacks an organism-level function. Some of these are based on observations or basic genetic principles that are decades old, whereas others stem from new knowledge regarding molecular processes such as transcription and gene regulation."
    ********************************

    I told this story before (in the 'old' TWeb) that now, thanks to Roland, bears repeating:

    Back in the early 1990's (going on memory here) I was debating an Atheist on Evolution v. Creation. At that time, "junk DNA" was being loudly touted by Evolutionists as "clear proof of Evolution". This Atheist brought the argument up proudly and loudly. As a Creationist, I of course think that that claim is nonsense. IMO, they call it "junk" because, (1) it supports their ideological beliefs and, (2) they are clueless as to its function.

    So I expressed this to the Atheist and made a falsifiable prediction: I said, "Based on my model (Creationism), I predict that in the upcoming years - as more and more is learned about this "junk DNA" - it will be discovered to be as significant, if not more significant, than the coding DNA."

    The rest is history - my prediction is becoming more and more confirmed.

    Of course, there are Die-Hard-Fanatical Evolutionists that refuse to give up. In spite of the large and growing body of evidence that the "junk DNA" claim is, well, JUNK, some Evolutionists will continue promoting this concept. This article that Roland brings up testifies towards that fact.

    I will merely repeat my falsifiable prediction: watch as the drama unfolds - as the body of scientific observations continues to mount - and you'll see the notion of "junk DNA" take the route of the Dodo Bird.

    Then, also predictably, the Evolutionists will continue parroting their other beliefs.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    started a topic "The case for junk DNA"

    "The case for junk DNA"

    Thanks to Steviepinhead at TR for bringing this to our attention.

    An online article from PLoS Genetics which puts junk DNA back into context:-

    The Case for Junk DNA

    From the overview (highlighting mine):-

    Originally posted by link above
    With the advent of deep sequencing technologies and the ability to analyze whole genome sequences and transcriptomes, there has been a growing interest in exploring putative functions of the very large fraction of the genome that is commonly referred to as “junk DNA.” Whereas this is an issue of considerable importance in genome biology, there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers and science writers to proclaim the demise of junk DNA on a regular basis without properly addressing some of the fundamental issues that first led to the rise of the concept. In this review, we provide an overview of the major arguments that have been presented in support of the notion that a large portion of most eukaryotic genomes lacks an organism-level function. Some of these are based on observations or basic genetic principles that are decades old, whereas others stem from new knowledge regarding molecular processes such as transcription and gene regulation.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 12-02-2021, 09:14 AM
1 response
14 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by Roy, 12-02-2021, 06:58 AM
9 responses
64 views
0 likes
Last Post mossrose  
Started by rogue06, 12-01-2021, 08:26 AM
25 responses
104 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by lee_merrill, 11-30-2021, 08:03 PM
21 responses
80 views
0 likes
Last Post TheLurch  
Started by shunyadragon, 11-30-2021, 08:10 AM
2 responses
16 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X