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

A "junk DNA" discussion

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    This is why I posted links to the "function wars", wherein various authorities struggle with various definitions of "function". These vary from "required for the fitness of the phenotype" (includes perhaps 10% of the human genome) to "does something, even if only transcribed" (ENCODE estimates about 80% of the human genome). The problem is, it's often hard to determine a specific function. Some sequences surely have no function, others are clearly critical, but there are sequences that have been conserved for very long periods but whose function is not known. So "function" here is defined indirectly - IF a given sequence is conserved (or almost exactly conserved, where variations are few and synonymous) for long enough, THEN it's functional even if the function has not been determined.

    But even so, consider a sequence that functions as a "spacer", doing (apparently) nothing more than using up enough space to prevent frame shift errors between chromosomes during reproduction. This function is important, BUT the spacing sequence is free to mutate quite drastically, so long as it does not change size. So non-conservation isn't a sure indication of non-function either.
    yeah,
    I hesitate to use the term non-functional though,
    the next day it might be 'oh guess what, somebody just discovered a 'regulatory' function or something there after all.
    To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Method View Post
      Non-coding DNA/RNA is not a synonym for junk DNA.
      That is correct. But let's not do as is the norm, namely, dishonestly practice REVISIONIST history - something that the Evo-Faithful do time and time and time again, ad nauseum.

      Just check the factual history to the time that non-coding DNA was termed "JUNK" because it was seen as "the remnants of an Evolutionary progression". The Evo-Revisionists have now moved the goalposts (via revised definitions) with the objective of retaining their Sacred Cow.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        That is correct. But let's not do as is the norm, namely, dishonestly practice REVISIONIST history - something that the Evo-Faithful do time and time and time again, ad nauseum.

        Just check the factual history to the time that non-coding DNA was termed "JUNK" because it was seen as "the remnants of an Evolutionary progression". The Evo-Revisionists have now moved the goalposts (via revised definitions) with the objective of retaining their Sacred Cow.

        Jorge
        As usual you added nothing useful to this interesting discussion.

        What's the Jorgian YEC definition of "function" in genetic material?

        C'mom, let's have it.

        Set us all straight once and for all.

        K54

        Comment


        • #34
          Regarding the history. . . The earliest reference to "junk DNA" I've seen anyone find is here, from 1960. Researchers were groping to understand how DNA sequence information was transferred to amino acid composition; they were puzzled by the fact that ribosomal RNA, which they though carried the information, looked too uniform, in contrast to the DNA and the proteins. Large amounts of non-functional DNA is raised as a possibility, but not an attractive one since, "it seems unlikely that such an inefficient mechanism would have survived through evolution..."

          So apparently nonfunctional DNA was being considered (possible) junk not because it was the remnants of evolutionary progression, but in spite of evolutionary expectations.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            That is correct. But let's not do as is the norm, namely, dishonestly practice REVISIONIST history - something that the Evo-Faithful do time and time and time again, ad nauseum.

            Just check the factual history to the time that non-coding DNA was termed "JUNK" because it was seen as "the remnants of an Evolutionary progression". The Evo-Revisionists have now moved the goalposts (via revised definitions) with the objective of retaining their Sacred Cow.

            Jorge
            Science is, alas, inherently revisionistic. That's because science keeps learning and discovering, and old ideas must be continuously revised in the light of new evidence. So it's trivial that any current explanationof anything is hostage to tomorrow's new discovery. The important issue here is, how do people react to revisions based on new data? Some people say "hey, we know more now, our ideas are probably more accurate." Other people say that scientists have "moved the goalposts", apparently because evidence is actually collected and understood.

            Personally, I'd be delighted if every last single base pair in all genomes was found to do something useful. I'd be equally delighted if much of it was eventually found to be useless. What would NOT delight me is if people should stop wondering, stop researching, stop hypothesizing in order to protect obsolete misunderstandings.

            Comment


            • #36
              Maybe it is inline data?
              1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
              Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              "when the church no longer teaches its people why they believe what they believe, the world will often step in and fill in the gaps." Ryan Danker

              "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by phank View Post
                Science is, alas, inherently revisionistic. That's because science keeps learning and discovering, and old ideas must be continuously revised in the light of new evidence. So it's trivial that any current explanationof anything is hostage to tomorrow's new discovery. The important issue here is, how do people react to revisions based on new data? Some people say "hey, we know more now, our ideas are probably more accurate." Other people say that scientists have "moved the goalposts", apparently because evidence is actually collected and understood.

                Personally, I'd be delighted if every last single base pair in all genomes was found to do something useful. I'd be equally delighted if much of it was eventually found to be useless. What would NOT delight me is if people should stop wondering, stop researching, stop hypothesizing in order to protect obsolete misunderstandings.
                I never said Revisionist "science", I said Revisionist HISTORY. Read slower.

                Like most people, you fail to accept that the main issue here is NOT science, it is ideology. The Evolutionary Paradigm is as essential to Materialism as excluding God is to Communism. As such, everything and anything has been and shall continue to be done in order to uphold Evolutionism.

                History is routinely revised by the Evo-Faithful because that is one of their defense mechanisms so that Evolutionism isn't exposed for the pseudo-scientific garbage that it is. Stalin did the same; e.g., he had certain people totally erased from some photographs so as to rewrite certain historical events towards his and the Communist Party's "acceptable revised version". Sadly, today we are seeing our own U.S. history being revised in certain areas to serve ideological agendas.

                Such actions are a common ploy amongst intellectually dishonest / criminal individuals.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
                  Regarding the history. . . The earliest reference to "junk DNA" I've seen anyone find is here, from 1960. Researchers were groping to understand how DNA sequence information was transferred to amino acid composition; they were puzzled by the fact that ribosomal RNA, which they though carried the information, looked too uniform, in contrast to the DNA and the proteins. Large amounts of non-functional DNA is raised as a possibility, but not an attractive one since, "it seems unlikely that such an inefficient mechanism would have survived through evolution..."

                  So apparently nonfunctional DNA was being considered (possible) junk not because it was the remnants of evolutionary progression, but in spite of evolutionary expectations.
                  The above is worse than nonsense - it is false!

                  Knowing of your "attitude" in these matters, I'll just strongly advise (and leave it at that) that you get a copy of J. Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA and read it very carefully. The historical facts tell a different story.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    The above is worse than nonsense - it is false!

                    Knowing of your "attitude" in these matters, I'll just strongly advise (and leave it at that) that you get a copy of J. Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA and read it very carefully. The historical facts tell a different story.

                    Jorge
                    What's false about it? I provided a link to the work I was quoting. Read it yourself.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      That is correct. But let's not do as is the norm, namely, dishonestly practice REVISIONIST history - something that the Evo-Faithful do time and time and time again, ad nauseum.

                      Just check the factual history to the time that non-coding DNA was termed "JUNK" because it was seen as "the remnants of an Evolutionary progression". The Evo-Revisionists have now moved the goalposts (via revised definitions) with the objective of retaining their Sacred Cow.

                      Jorge
                      The only revisionist history I am aware of is the creationist claims that all non-coding DNA was considered junk DNA by scientists in the past. Non-coding regulatory sequences were well known at the time "junk DNA" was first coined.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Like most people, you fail to accept that the main issue here is NOT science, it is ideology. The Evolutionary Paradigm is as essential to Materialism as excluding God is to Communism. As such, everything and anything has been and shall continue to be done in order to uphold Evolutionism.
                        What does this have to do with determining whether or not DNA is junk?

                        The only ideology I see is on the creationist side where DNA can't be junk because of their theological beliefs that God would not waste DNA.

                        Scientists are just fine with genomes that are almost entirely functional, such as the bladderwort genome.

                        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture12132.html

                        There is no ideological need for junk DNA in the theory of evolution. It just so happens that the evidence indicates that there is junk DNA in genomes.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          I never said Revisionist "science", I said Revisionist HISTORY. Read slower.

                          Like most people, you fail to accept that the main issue here is NOT science, it is ideology. The Evolutionary Paradigm is as essential to Materialism as excluding God is to Communism. As such, everything and anything has been and shall continue to be done in order to uphold Evolutionism.

                          History is routinely revised by the Evo-Faithful because that is one of their defense mechanisms so that Evolutionism isn't exposed for the pseudo-scientific garbage that it is. Stalin did the same; e.g., he had certain people totally erased from some photographs so as to rewrite certain historical events towards his and the Communist Party's "acceptable revised version". Sadly, today we are seeing our own U.S. history being revised in certain areas to serve ideological agendas.

                          Such actions are a common ploy amongst intellectually dishonest / criminal individuals.

                          Jorge
                          There's been extensive discussion of both scientific information and historical development in here. You can either choose to take part in that or not participate in the thread. Drive-by accusations without any supporting information, as exemplified by this post, are not welcome.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            I never said Revisionist "science", I said Revisionist HISTORY. Read slower.

                            Like most people, you fail to accept that the main issue here is NOT science, it is ideology. The Evolutionary Paradigm is as essential to Materialism as excluding God is to Communism. As such, everything and anything has been and shall continue to be done in order to uphold Evolutionism.

                            History is routinely revised by the Evo-Faithful because that is one of their defense mechanisms so that Evolutionism isn't exposed for the pseudo-scientific garbage that it is. Stalin did the same; e.g., he had certain people totally erased from some photographs so as to rewrite certain historical events towards his and the Communist Party's "acceptable revised version". Sadly, today we are seeing our own U.S. history being revised in certain areas to serve ideological agendas.

                            Such actions are a common ploy amongst intellectually dishonest / criminal individuals.

                            Jorge
                            Are you sure you want to use Joe Stalin as an example?

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Method View Post
                              What does this have to do with determining whether or not DNA is junk?

                              The only ideology I see is on the creationist side where DNA can't be junk because of their theological beliefs that God would not waste DNA.

                              Scientists are just fine with genomes that are almost entirely functional, such as the bladderwort genome.

                              http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture12132.html

                              There is no ideological need for junk DNA in the theory of evolution. It just so happens that the evidence indicates that there is junk DNA in genomes.
                              I've never understood why (some) creationists latched onto the idea that God wouldn't waste DNA. It's not like they have any problem with the existence of vast numbers of planets that serve no function, or vast numbers of more or less redundant species. If anything, I would expect them to use junk DNA as a club to beat evolution with, rather than denying its existence.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
                                I've never understood why (some) creationists latched onto the idea that God wouldn't waste DNA. It's not like they have any problem with the existence of vast numbers of planets that serve no function, or vast numbers of more or less redundant species. If anything, I would expect them to use junk DNA as a club to beat evolution with, rather than denying its existence.
                                If you are looking for a consistent argument from creationists, I think you will be waiting for a while.

                                At the heart of the argument is the idea that ID/creation is obvious because of how "perfectly" designed life is. Junk DNA, vestgial organs, redundant species, developmental atavisms, and extra space junk seem to contradict this claim. This would also seem to indicate that the Universe that God supposedly created is incapable of producing life and humans all on its own, or that being part of a natural process is somehow anethema to being created by God. When Jorge pits christianity against evidence and reason, I don't think he fully understands how silly he looks.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 10:47 AM
                                0 responses
                                5 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 08-11-2022, 04:15 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by TheLurch, 08-10-2022, 08:05 PM
                                10 responses
                                34 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 08-01-2022, 09:59 AM
                                1 response
                                12 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-28-2022, 08:09 AM
                                18 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X