"The case for junk DNA"

[miked570]

Isn't it ironic Jorge? You clearly don't understand how science works very well, yet you claim science supports your beliefs.

Isn't that the explanation for most YECs*?




*the rest being purposefully dishonest

[miked570]

I didn't "duck" anything, you Yo-Yo.

I commented directly to the point of "Wells does not reliably present science in his book."
I also clearly stated - "clearly" except to the comprehension-impaired as yourself - that I have to
wait until I'm home where I will have access to Wells' book and evidence contained therein.

Jorge

If wells' junk DNA book is as sloppy and dishonest as his 'Icons' was, then there is good reason to dismiss it.

Looks like it IS as bad as 'Icons':

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/10...han-wells.html

But since you have no biology background, I'm sure you found it totally groovy.

[miked570]

********************************

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".

I find it hard to believe that science proponents were claiming anything as "proof."

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.

Or, it could have been observation.

Both Ryan Gregory and Larry Moran have cataloged a number of publications explaining how much noncoding DNA is non-functional.

Even the ENCODE crew is backing off of their hyperbolic extrapolations (which, even then, left 20% of the genome as "junk").



I never really understood the ideological revulsion that creationists have to the notion of junk DNA. Considering the fact that there are many species with much more DNA than us, you'd think the folks that want to place humanity on a pedestal solely because ancient middle eastern tall tales tell them to would have embraced it.

YECs are not known for their consistency or scientific logic.

[oxmixmudd]

**********************************************

Just returned home from my marathon business trip. I have a ton of catch-up things to do before it's back to "routine" again. So when I checked my email I found a source regarding -- would you guess it? -- "junk DNA".

Here's an excerpt: "Some of the primary candidates for being labeled "Junk DNA" have been the highly repetitive regions of the genome that, after years of study, seemed to have no discernable function despite the fact they were found to be actively copied (transcribed) into RNA. However, new research¹ has shown that the RNAs encoded by these regions are key players in promoting genome stability and function."
1. Hall, L.L. et al. 2014. Stable C0T-1 Repeat RNA Is Abundant and Is Associated with Euchromatic Interphase Chromosomes. Cell.

So Jorge,

You haven't even read the paper? So you don't really know much about it now, do you? Yet, you are willing to say "look here, see I was right after all!". Based on what?

Here is what is reality. "Junk DNA" is a term that is a lot like "Big Bang". If you don't take anytime to understand what is going on, you will likely develop silly ideas about what it means, or what it is about it that makes sense or doesn't make sense. (I remember sitting through one lecture back in the day where an 'expert' sat there and spent an hour telling us why a massive explosion just couldn't produce the universe we see. Basing his entire lecture on what he though "big bang" meant based on the words themselves and a few cursory looks at a few articles that didn't happen to help his 'interpretation')

That is basically all you've done Jorge. Does 'junk DNA' mean, has it EVER meant there could not possibly be an ancillary function for these regions, that they are 'totally' and 'completely' inert material??

But there is one thing that is primary about what we call Junk DNA. It is 'leftover' material.

And as you have so far avoided, it HAS BEEN SHOWN that at least some of this material is clearly regions which at some time in the past coded for characteristics seen in the evolutionary history of current life! This is HUGE Jorge. And yet you sweep it under the rug each time it is mentioned (and as I am sure you will again).

But I understand Jorge.

Isn't it ironic Jorge? You clearly don't understand how science works very well, yet you claim science supports your beliefs.

But the sad thing is. Not only do you claim to have a superior version of science w/o understanding it, you do the same for faith. You really don't understand how faith works any better than how you understand how science works. You think you are being faithful and having faith by putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen or look. But that is not faith. That is purposefully blinding yourself to what could cause you to doubt. You refuse to see by refusing to understand how what is challenges what you believe. Faith is the evidence of things NOT seen, the substance of things hoped for. Faith is believing even though there are things that could cause you to doubt. Even though you don't understand. Even though it seems like the evidence is against you. Faith isn't blindness Jorge. You practice willful blindness so you can't doubt. It sort of looks like faith on the outside, but that is not what faith really is Jorge.



Jim

[Ucchedavāda]

See my post # 73 ... just for starters.

I just returned from a lengthy trip so I'll be on-off for a while. But you do have something to munch on in # 73.

Jorge

Well, that paper does not really contradict anything I have written. Yes, some things thought of as "junk" end up having a biological function, as I also acknowledged may be the case for some (parts of) numts and nupts. But given the progressive degradation of such inserts in the genome, which is not countered by selection as would be expected for functional sequences, it does not appear to be the case for the majority of those inserts.

[rwatts]

**********************************************

Just returned home from my marathon business trip. I have a ton of catch-up things to do before it's back to "routine" again. So when I checked my email I found a source regarding -- would you guess it? -- "junk DNA".

Here's an excerpt: "Some of the primary candidates for being labeled "Junk DNA" have been the highly repetitive regions of the genome that, after years of study, seemed to have no discernable function despite the fact they were found to be actively copied (transcribed) into RNA. However, new research¹ has shown that the RNAs encoded by these regions are key players in promoting genome stability and function."
1. Hall, L.L. et al. 2014. Stable C0T-1 Repeat RNA Is Abundant and Is Associated with Euchromatic Interphase Chromosomes. Cell.

Yes Jorge. The paper acknowledges these kind of things. It even acknowledges that when the term "junk" was first used, some evolutionists did object to it.

We have been telling you this.

So far, you have yet to offer anything of substance.

[klaus54]

**********************************************

Just returned home from my marathon business trip. I have a ton of catch-up things to do before it's back to "routine" again. So when I checked my email I found a source regarding -- would you guess it? -- "junk DNA".

Here's an excerpt: "Some of the primary candidates for being labeled "Junk DNA" have been the highly repetitive regions of the genome that, after years of study, seemed to have no discernable function despite the fact they were found to be actively copied (transcribed) into RNA. However, new research¹ has shown that the RNAs encoded by these regions are key players in promoting genome stability and function."
1. Hall, L.L. et al. 2014. Stable C0T-1 Repeat RNA Is Abundant and Is Associated with Euchromatic Interphase Chromosomes. Cell.

Jorge,

At the best you've got some so-called "junk" that's not quite "junk".

Are you gonna pin your hopes on all?

Even if you get all, DNA is still not your friend (~cough) cladistics (~cough).

Chew a little piece of paper, pick up a straw, and shoot another spitwad.

Santa

[Jorge]

There does seem to be quite large amounts of literal junk in eukaryotic genomes, with more being added as old junk disappears. For example, both plant and vertebrate genomes contain many fragmentary (and in some cases complete!) inserts of organelle genomes (mitochondria and plastids, termed numts and nupts respectively), which slowly disintegrate over time due to various other genomic processes, only to be replaced with new inserts going through the same process (see e.g. Michalovova et al. 2013). While it is certainly not implausible that some (parts) of these inserts ends up having a biological effect, that still leaves most inserts as effectively neutral and simply eroding through drift, until they are completely lost.

So if those are not junk, what are they?

See my post # 73 ... just for starters.

I just returned from a lengthy trip so I'll be on-off for a while. But you do have something to munch on in # 73.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Interesting thread, but it is being screwed up by too many people feeding the TROLL (Jorge).

You wouldn't know "interesting" if it slammed you across the face with a four-by-four.

Jorge

[Jorge]

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):-

**********************************************

Just returned home from my marathon business trip. I have a ton of catch-up things to do before it's back to "routine" again. So when I checked my email I found a source regarding -- would you guess it? -- "junk DNA".

Here's an excerpt: "Some of the primary candidates for being labeled "Junk DNA" have been the highly repetitive regions of the genome that, after years of study, seemed to have no discernable function despite the fact they were found to be actively copied (transcribed) into RNA. However, new research¹ has shown that the RNAs encoded by these regions are key players in promoting genome stability and function."
1. Hall, L.L. et al. 2014. Stable C0T-1 Repeat RNA Is Abundant and Is Associated with Euchromatic Interphase Chromosomes. Cell.

[shunyadragon]

You pretty well inferred it when you stated that I needed to stay out of conversations that I knew nothing about. So would you like to try this one again? Prove that I know nothing about Jim's personal life.

Do you know his mind? Are you his mind? How do you know what he thinks? How do you know his belief on YEC's. I told you I do, and you appear to be calling all three of us liars, so prove to me how I do not know any of this information.

You pretty well made the accusation. Now you've gone into cherry picking the words in order to get out of it. Throwing out the words anti-Biblical in front of any title or idea some how implies that a person believes that Scripture is not true. Now I asked you to prove it. How are we who do not interpret of this part Genesis in a matter of literal 24 hour periods somehow being "anti-Biblical" in this regard. I want to know why you cast these stones, and why you put fingers in your ears when you've been shown many times alternatives that are reasonable to the scriptures in question. Also I'd be interested in your ideas to the prior two stated. Please prove this.

Interesting thread, but it is being screwed up by too many people feeding the TROLL (Jorge).

[Catholicity]

Logically, Jorge must have at least three hands. One for casting the stones and two for putting a finger in each ear while he casts the stones.

I'm trying to picture this but yes.

[rwatts]

\ I want to know why you cast these stones, and why you put fingers in your ears when you've been shown many times alternatives that are reasonable to the scriptures in question. ... Please prove this.

Logically, Jorge must have at least three hands. One for casting the stones and two for putting a finger in each ear while he casts the stones.

[Catholicity]

I never claimed you didn't. Is that reading comprehension impairment getting the best of you again?

You pretty well inferred it when you stated that I needed to stay out of conversations that I knew nothing about. So would you like to try this one again? Prove that I know nothing about Jim's personal life.

I don't think that HE HIMSELF knows/understands the deep psycho-trauma that he has regarding YECs.

Do you know his mind? Are you his mind? How do you know what he thinks? How do you know his belief on YEC's. I told you I do, and you appear to be calling all three of us liars, so prove to me how I do not know any of this information.

Yup, definitely your reading comprehension impairment rearing its ugly head once again! I never said "anti Biblical". I said, "anti-Biblical Creationists". Simply go back and read again - this time concentrating for comprehension.

The rest of your rant is ... ahem ... ignored.

Jorge

You pretty well made the accusation. Now you've gone into cherry picking the words in order to get out of it. Throwing out the words anti-Biblical in front of any title or idea some how implies that a person believes that Scripture is not true. Now I asked you to prove it. How are we who do not interpret of this part Genesis in a matter of literal 24 hour periods somehow being "anti-Biblical" in this regard. I want to know why you cast these stones, and why you put fingers in your ears when you've been shown many times alternatives that are reasonable to the scriptures in question. Also I'd be interested in your ideas to the prior two stated. Please prove this.

[Ucchedavāda]

There does seem to be quite large amounts of literal junk in eukaryotic genomes, with more being added as old junk disappears. For example, both plant and vertebrate genomes contain many fragmentary (and in some cases complete!) inserts of organelle genomes (mitochondria and plastids, termed numts and nupts respectively), which slowly disintegrate over time due to various other genomic processes, only to be replaced with new inserts going through the same process (see e.g. Michalovova et al. 2013). While it is certainly not implausible that some (parts) of these inserts ends up having a biological effect, that still leaves most inserts as effectively neutral and simply eroding through drift, until they are completely lost.

So if those are not junk, what are they?