Posted on 11/01/2013 3:26:45 PM PDT by EveningStar
“FYI, junk DNA is still junk.”
“What we learned from ENCODE is how complicated the human genome is, and the incredible choreography that is going on with the immense number of switches that are choreographing how genes are used,” Eric Green, director of NHGRI, told reporters during a teleconference discussing the findings. “We are starting to answer fundamental questions like what are the working parts of the human genome, the parts list of the human genome and what those parts do.”
Read more: Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/#ixzz2kSQFh4dm
Well, yes. I had other things to do than sit here at my computer. Actually it isn’t random. It only appears so because of a large number of variables and a lack of understanding of the underlying principles regulating the interaction.
The mixing up of chromosomes and swapping of segments between chromosomes is entirely random, as are sporadic mutations. However, we do understand the underlying mechanisms quite well--we know exactly how the random shuffling of genes occurs. When you cross plant (or animal) A with B, you not only do not know which sets of genes the offspring will receive, there is a fairly high chance that they will contain new genes that neither parent had (because of the random swapping of chromosome segments).
well enjoy your career creating mutants for monsato
I like that..
Mutants for Monsanto..
remember, .. Life without chemicals would be impossible?
Yeah cyanide makes a nice after dinner drink
The Japanese are as prone to superstitious mistrust of the unknown as anyone else. And, unfortunately, too many people think of science as some arcane mystery, practiced by weird people in white coats who speak some incomprehensible language. So they tend to avoid it, which is a real shame--science really is not all that difficult.
I want to know when you treat my beef with ammonia to get that last bit of use out of what used to be crap food that no one could sell. I’m not in the food markets of a third world country, if the price goes down after I find out how it’s made, that is strictly economics.
Ammonia: NH4. It is the "amino" part of "amino acid", which takes the form of HOOC-C(RH)-NH2. That means that a large fraction of protein, by weight, is ammonia. Ammonia is an absolutely essential nutrient, and can be used directly to feed some microorganisms. When you know and understand biochemistry (which I do, thanks to getting a PhD in the subject), the fact that ammonia is used in the processing of a meat product becomes rather ho-hum. You might want to read up on how some other foods are processed--the extraction of sugar from cane or beets, in particular, is harsh and uses some very strong and caustic chemicals.
Scientists lie, journalists lie, and pretty much everyone lies. Trying to find out why, how and when are the issues. Scientific lies can be the typical, I did this experiment and it clearly shows that x is the cause for y. The further the distance from tautology in the realms of x and y, the more important it is to clearly show the epistemology of the statements.
Scientists can be wrong about things, but that does not make them liars. In many cases, I see studies published where some MD--not a trained scientist--does an observational study, and wrongly concludes that the study "proved" something when it only showed a correlation. That does not mean the MD is a liar; it only means that he was not trained as a scientist. Other times, the scientist simply makes the wrong conclusion about the data, which is later shown to be erroneous. Again, that is not a lie. Scientists who actually lie and falsify data get in a lot of trouble for doing so, since scientific integrity is a big concern in our profession. A scientist caught committing fraud will never work as a scientist again. Don't make the blanket claim that "scientists lie" unless you have specific evidence that we do.
You have said GMO are for the most part safe. Is the actual statement “We have seen no effect on studies with 200,000 rats livers compositions that were exposed to varying levels of GMOs in a double blind study.” Implicit in that is that rats are similar to people, the important effects are seen by the experimenters etc.
What I said is that there is no reason to assume that a targeted GMO would be any less safe than a non-targeted GMO. By "targeted GMO", I mean a GMO made by identifying and changing one or more genes in a controlled manner; by "non-targeted GMO", I mean GMOs created in haphazard fashion by selective breeding or radiation mutation. In the case of Bt, for instance, the Bt protein is one that people often consume, since it is made by soil bacteria that very often are found on edible plants. There is no conceivable mechanism by which consuming Bt protein made by a corn plant would have a different effect than consuming the Bt made by the bacteria.
I cannot imagine that a study would be done on 200,000 rats--the expense and manpower would be astronomical. But if it were done, and no effect could be seen in that size study, we would be certain that whatever we are testing has no effect. True, rats are not people, which is why we always test drugs in multiple species and cells from multiple species. It is easy enough to do toxicology screenings using human cells. If a substance is toxic or mutagenic, it will cause specific and measurable changes in gene expression.
When scientists overstate the studies, because of their bias on how the population will react is a problem. Conflated in the GMO arguments are: They are proven safe, there is not difference between splicing a gene and Mendellian meddling, you’re all too stupid to understand so we won’t just tell you...
I really don't know what you mean by "overstate the studies"--that seems to me like something which is very context specific. Do you have a specific "overstated" study in mind?
FYI, *all* the techniques used in genetic engineering in the lab are natural, and have existed for billions of years. Organisms routinely swap DNA with other organisms and move pieces of their own genomes around. Our own genomes contain thousands of viruses, which put themselves into our DNA using the same techniques that we have learned to use ourselves. When I want to do a new genetic engineering project, I have a freezer full of natural enzymes from bacteria and other organisms to choose from. Those enzymes are my tools--they cut and they glue exactly where I want the DNA cut or glued.
As for your impression that we scientists automatically assume that everyone is too stupid to understand--why do you think that? I am not alone in attempting to explain so that laypeople can understand; many scientists do that and try to educate the public about science. Now, if you do not understand what we explain, and you do not ask for clarification, you have no cause to blame the scientist. Within my field of study, I can explain anything--but I cannot know if my explanation is understood unless I have feedback.
If you cut a sound are the wrong place, it does not continue to be music. How do you know that a gene cut is not the same? What is a clear interference of the pattern that makes it work and does the splicing interfere with that pattern? We know some of what makes music special to us, but we really are a the very beginnings of genetic cut and paste. Variety in the environmental testing over millennia is not replicated in genetic cut and paste. We don’t do that but that does not mean it is unimportant or that species did not suffer from those changes.
First of all, living organisms are not precision machines. You can do a heck of a lot to the DNA and not affect an organism's health. In fact, drastic DNA alterations occur every time we reproduce. Perhaps you are aware that all of our cells contain two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. However, you will not find an exact copy of any of your chromosomes in either your parents or your children. That is because chromosomes swap whole segments with each other, a process called "chromosomal crossing over." You can Google that. Nature is a master of altering DNA; what we do in the lab is paltry in comparison. Chromosomes swap whole sections; chromosomes assort randomly; smaller pieces of DNA are removed from one chromosome and inserted into another chromosome; random mutations change the DNA letters (so that A could become G, G could become C, etc.); pieces of DNA are deleted, while other pieces are randomly repeated; viruses insert themselves into chromosomes and take up permanent residence, etc. With all of that happening spontaneously all the time, why on earth worry about the intentional insertion of a bacterial gene (whose properties were studied for decades and which is known to be safe) into corn? That's like standing next to a waterfall and worrying that pouring out your bottle of water is going to upset the natural balance.
This is your money statement. You know you don’t know what is required in an “optimal” diet, so you recommend variety. You don’t know what is required in an optimal diet, so you hedge your bet by saying just eat a bunch of different stuff. As a nutritional tout, that is an interesting bet. So you would not recommend someone eat only GMO foods, even though it is “safe”?
I was actually saying that an optimal diet does not exist, not that I don't know what is an optimal diet. As long as you eat a variety of foods, your body will be able to extract what it needs from the food. An optimal diet cannot exist, because our needs change, depending on our environment. Injury, illness, heat, cold, etc., etc., all change our nutritional requirements.
We knew long before the human genome was sequenced that genes have multiple control systems. That doesn't change the fact that most DNA is still junk.
I'm not sure if Monsanto would have any use for my mutant bacteria or mice. However, I could take the mutant yeast and open a microbrewery near Monsanto, maybe the employees would enjoy pink beer...
We knew long before the human genome was sequenced that genes have multiple control systems. That doesn’t change the fact that most DNA is still junk.<<
I really appreciate the above. Whenever I am trying to teach someone about the arrogance of intellect vs real knowing, having them supply the exact example is perfect.
You are not distinguishing between what you know, what you believe, and what you cannot know through rationalism. Your belief that most DNA is junk is strictly an opinion, that you portray as a fact. That is not a minor mistake, but a central issue. If you went through your discourses...and I do appreciate them for what they are...the logical fallacies abound.
Feynman was one the first tier scientists that was actually comfortable enough in his own greatness to say he did not know, when he did not understand something. Rest in Peace Right Wing Professor, but he was a first tier scientist on FR before he lost it with his arrogance.
I would mistrust ANY scientist that says you don’t need to know something about your food, trust me. For that matter, any scientist that argues for less information rather than more, is questionable in their attitude. It is human, but is NOT scientific.
Thanks for your opinion.
DK
I really appreciate the above. Whenever I am trying to teach someone about the arrogance of intellect vs real knowing, having them supply the exact example is perfect.
As always, I never post anything that cannot be confirmed and verified by anyone who cares to fact-check me. Stating a fact that has been demonstrated by countless lines of evidence is hardly an exercise of arrogance. If you can find a bona fide scientific reference that proves me wrong, feel free to post it.
To me, stating an obvious fact like "most of DNA is junk" is as benign as stating "the sun is made of hydrogen" or "the bond angle in a water molecule is 104 degrees." Why does it upset you that most of the DNA we are packing around is not actually used for anything?
BTW, if you care to know more about the history of junk DNA, look up Phillip Sharp. He won the Nobel Prize for his discovery that very little of a gene in DNA is actually used to make protein. Over 90% of the gene is cut out and discarded during processing to make a usable protein template. I know from experience that the extra DNA is not needed if you just want to make the protein. The protein I studied during graduate school has a DNA template--called cDNA--of about 2500 nucleotides. On the chromosome, however, its junk-filled gene is about 45,000 nucleotides. Whether a cell makes that protein starting with the gene on its chromosome, or using the junkless cDNA template, the protein is exactly the same. Moving on from the great work of Dr. Sharp (whom I was lucky enough to meet in person), only about 2-3% of DNA is associated with genes or regulatory elements.
You are not distinguishing between what you know, what you believe, and what you cannot know through rationalism. Your belief that most DNA is junk is strictly an opinion, that you portray as a fact. That is not a minor mistake, but a central issue. If you went through your discourses...and I do appreciate them for what they are...the logical fallacies abound.
As I said just above, I do not state anything that is not supported by solid experimental evidence, or is not a logical consequence of what is shown by evidence. The lay press may not run many articles about junk DNA and the countless observations and experiments that demonstrate its presence, but the information is easily available if you take the trouble to look it up yourself.
Furthermore, do not judge the accuracy of anything I say by what you may have read in the lay press, or--worse yet--in pseudoscience websites (whether they are food-related, creationist, UFOlogist, or other). There are plenty of places to find solid scientific information, and actual scientific information will *not* validate or even match what you may have read in the pseudoscience websites.
It is more than a little curious to me that some people should have such a visceral reaction to the statement of a simple fact. Why do you dislike the fact that most of our DNA does nothing? Why does that upset you?
Feynman was one the first tier scientists that was actually comfortable enough in his own greatness to say he did not know, when he did not understand something. Rest in Peace Right Wing Professor, but he was a first tier scientist on FR before he lost it with his arrogance.
I usually see one of two complaints about scientists. Either we are arrogant, because we state with confidence facts that are supported by mountains of evidence, or we must not know anything because we hedge discussions about new discoveries with words like "might, could, possibly" before the evidence to solidly support the discoveries has been compiled. It is *not* arrogant to make a statement of evidentiary fact, nor is it a statement of ignorance to convey that we don't have all the facts.
In my experience, we scientists are fairly quick to acknowledge when something falls outside of our area of expertise.
I would mistrust ANY scientist that says you don’t need to know something about your food, trust me. For that matter, any scientist that argues for less information rather than more, is questionable in their attitude. It is human, but is NOT scientific.
Do you have a reference for any scientist who says that you don't need to know about your food? I know I didn't say that, and I have never seen any other scientist say that. Food safety is such an important area that there are two federal agencies dedicated to ensuring a safe food supply--FDA and USDA--and even the CDC has a role in the issue. It certainly is an important topic to me--I have posted many times about food safety here on FR.
FYI, there is a whole branch of science dedicated to the study of food--it is called nutrition science--and many scientists trained in biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, and other fields also work in the area of nutrition science. It is hardly a neglected area of study.
To me, stating an obvious fact like “most of DNA is junk” is as benign as stating “the sun is made of hydrogen” or “the bond angle in a water molecule is 104 degrees.”
Three statements...two are supportable as facts, one is a theory. Confusing the measurement with the theory is...
Of course the sun is made of mostly hydrogen, with fusion byproducts also present. Did you run the DNA through a “Junk Detector” to get your “scientific opinion”?
I’m sure you know your techniques, but your science is a little lacking when it comes to philosophy. People do get what you are saying. They just don’t believe you. You aren’t convincing enough because you are hiding your own lack of certainty with false examples. Take a little more time studying the the way of how do you know what you know, it will help other people believe you. They don’t now. And it’s not their problem.
Thanks again!
DK
-——the bond angle in a water molecule is 104 degrees.”——
Witch is why there are 52 cards in a deck
104/2=52
Doesn’t a witch deck have 78?
DK
156 as the angle, no wonder witches floated!
A theory in science is a framework that ties together all the facts about a specific area. The existence of junk DNA is a simple fact, not a theory. The theory would address why there is junk DNA.
I have to say that I find it very curious that such a simple fact should evoke such an emotional reaction. Since you refused to say why you are so emotionally opposed to this fact, I had to do a bit of research on my own. And I found this blog post, which sheds a little light on the issue. Apparently, the existence of junk DNA threatens some deeply held tenet of Creationism.
I’m sure you know your techniques, but your science is a little lacking when it comes to philosophy. People do get what you are saying. They just don’t believe you. You aren’t convincing enough because you are hiding your own lack of certainty with false examples. Take a little more time studying the the way of how do you know what you know, it will help other people believe you. They don’t now. And it’s not their problem.
First of all, science is not philosophy, nor is it even remotely similar. Philosophers can speculate about anything they want, and they do not have to produce evidence because philosophy is not a reality-based discipline. OTOH, scientists must support anything they say with evidence because science is the profession of describing reality.
I have noticed that you have not factually discredited anything I have said, despite my active encouragement to do so. I have even described many times where and how to find the information to show that I am wrong. I am guessing that you now call what I have said "false examples" and otherwise disparage science because you cannot actually find anything to prove me wrong. The reason I think that you do not believe me is that the science is too challenging to your pseudoscience beliefs--it is not that I haven't "taken a little more time studying the way of how do I know what I know" or whatever. Nor is it a matter of you being unable to understand, because I think that you actually do understand. Scientists are trained through studying and discussing the seminal experiments that revealed fundamental principles of reality, and, in many cases, by going into the lab and repeating those experiments and seeing the results for themselves. When I said that a particular protein functions identically whether it was made using a chromosome template containing junk DNA, or a cDNA template with all the junk DNA discarded, I spoke from the experience of having conducted hundreds of experiments with that protein.
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.