'Junk DNA' Debunked

The deepest look into the human genome so far shows it to be a richer, messier and more intriguing place than was believed just a decade ago, scientists said Wednesday.

While the findings underscore the challenges of tackling complex diseases, they also offer scientists new terrain to unearth better treatments. …

Encode succeeded the Human Genome Project, which identified the 20,000 genes that underpin the blueprint of human biology. But scientists discovered that those 20,000 genes constituted less than 2% of the human genome. The task of Encode was to explore the remaining 98%—the so-called junk DNA—that lies between those genes and was thought to be a biological desert. That desert, it turns out, is teeming with action. Almost 80% of the genome is biochemically active, a finding that surprised scientists.

In addition, large stretches of DNA that appeared to serve no functional purpose in fact contain about 400,000 regulators, known as enhancers, that help activate or silence genes, even though they sit far from the genes themselves. …

But I thought scientists can never be wrong.

They can be wrong, but will also fight for a groupthink paradigm harder than any other group of people. If a new theory comes about, they will fight against it very hard, destroying careers and lives if they feel they have to, but then ultimately give in and adopt the new theory later, after enough critical mass of information appears. Then they will pretend it has always been like that. I love science and scientists, but there are a boatload of pathologies in how science is debated in real life, which is far from the ideal benign portrayal.

Where did you get that idea? The whole design of research in the natural (i.e., “real”) sciences is to prove a hypothesis wrong. The allegations of group-think among scientists (as opposed to, say, the IPCC, which was a collection of government activists, presstitutes and Delphi masters) is often very misplaced.

Yes, it can be hard to convince scientists that very-well accepted theories are wrong, but that’s usually when numerous corollaries have taken root: If a scientific theory has accepted, and five hundred corollaries have been accepted, you need to do more than refute what you may perceive as the root theory. If you do that, the 500 other corollaries will lead most scientists to think you’ve discovered an exception or an ancillary phenomenon. An out-of-place dinosaur is hardly going to make a scientists accept the Young-Earth Hypothesis. Rather, he’s going to look for how the dinosaur may have been misplaced. If you want to demonstrate the Young-Earth hypothesis, you also have to refute continental drift, the incredible distance of stars (or the speed of light), radioactive decay rates, and about 1,000 other explanations for natural phenomenon.

And if you try to do that all at once, you’ll convince scientists that you’re not being a scientist, but an apologist. A scientist might spend his whole life working on suggesting an alternate explanation for half-lives, or the mechanics of wearing away the Grand Canyon in a fairly short timespan. You can’t hold so many theories so contrary to science at once and be considered a scientist, because you can’t be that much of an expert to confidently refute so much scientific work in so many fields.

I, personally, question that the Earth is so old, by the way, but from an epistemological perspective, not a scientific one. I firmly believe the Earth legitimately seems old. Adam was formed as a man, not a blastocyst or a baby. He probably looked 20 years old. Maybe 30. But he didn’t look 1 day old, because one day-olds don’t tend gardens very well. (And of course, even then, a one-day-old looks like one who has spent 9 months maturing already!) Why should not the Earth and the universe have been formed in a mature-seeming state? In fact, what is the alternative? What does an Earth that shows no signs of aging processes even look?

Adam? He must have gotten lonely really quickly, what "day" of creation did Eve come into being? And awfully busy, to have had time to get lonely while name everything

Personally, I believe Adam's body existed, and his Spiritual birth is being describe As the breath of life.

There is no real conflict in reality only our understanding of it and it's relationship to the Creator.

Why is it so easy to believe in the eternal Creator and not in the old, old, old, creation?

I wonder if the Creator got bored? Well, not anymore as he is here within and without, with a great big shout out to the world

"LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU".

If only we would listen. 8>(

My post was largely about evolution, actually, and I explained how it is not mere group think.

“Global warming” on the other hand is the product of science coming from a new department, “climatology.” That is not a science. If the papers written about global warming came from meteorologists, paleontologists or physicists, they’d’ve been laughed out of the department. So they formed their own department, where they could be independent of reasonable people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe

Thanks Olog-hai. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. Human Genome Is Much More Than Just Genes To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.