Scientists Vie To Break Junk DNA's Secret Code

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | Roger Highfield

[blam]

Scientists vie to break junk DNA's secret code

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 06/10/2003)

Huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised "genetic grammar", making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought.

The discovery is of potentially huge significance, since it could lead to an entirely new explanation for certain diseases and symptoms. A race is now on among teams of scientists worldwide to investigate this cryptic code.

While the genetic recipe of a human being is spelt out with three billion letters of DNA code, only about two per cent of these correspond to the genes - the DNA that describes the proteins that build and operate bodies.

In the latest issue of the journal Science, Prof Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School, Dr Ewen Kirkness of the Institute of Genomic Research, Maryland, and colleagues have reported compelling evidence that up to three per cent of our genetic material has a crucial role that is not understood.

They made the unexpected discovery that some DNA regions of humans, dogs and species as distant as elephant and wallaby are nearly identical. These regions of what were once called junk have been dubbed "conserved non-genic sequences", or CNGs, a reference to how they are not conventional genes.

Prof Antonarakis said: "I suspect that mutations in CNGs may contribute to numerous genetic disorders." Defects in CNGs could result in illness while the symptoms of Down's syndrome, caused by an extra copy of a chromosome, might be linked to the presence of additional CNGs.

"Many laboratories are now working on identifying pathogenic mutations," he said.

[gore3000]

did that go by the wayside?

It certainly did. The agreement had barely taken effect when the evos started with the insults, the Christian bashing, and the destruction of people.

BTW - I know you are thrying to start an argument and assassinate my character, notice how fast an evo takes you up on it (the very next post), but I did not insult any poster in the post you are answering.

[Ogmios]

then much of that DNA should be just about exactly the same in all species in the same 'branch' of the evolutionary tree.

Sometimes there is a little wheat in all that chaff.

And guess what, this statement is exactly correct and on the mark. Good for you Gore3000!!

[gore3000]

According to evolutionary theory there ought to be all kinds of junk within DNA.

Junk makes an organism less fit. To replicate over and over in a lifetime 90-95% of DNA which is total junk in some 100 trillion human cells is a tremendous waste of resources and only totally uninformed and/or totally dishonest evo 'scientists' would say such a stupid thing.

[Ogmios]

No, you just insulted all posters that disagree with you on the actual evidence of evolution.

No, you didn't just want to insult one poster, you're much better then that, you insult a whole group of posters in just one sentence instead.

That's what happens when you deal in generalities the way you do.

[Ogmios]

Please, get over yourself. LOL

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[gore3000]

then much of that DNA should be just about exactly the same in all species in the same 'branch' of the evolutionary tree.-me- Sometimes there is a little wheat in all that chaff.-aric-

Yup, usual evo dobletalk. The article says that only 3% of 'junk' DNA is the same in different species which destroys the claims of evolutionists of junk DNA as a sort of 'fossil' evidence of evolution.

[JusPasenThru]

Is being a Democrat inherited or acquired? Could any of the junk DNA be responsible for their voting record?

[gore3000]

It is obvious that a certain poster here is just here to destroy the thread and indulge in personal attacks. This is the way of Communists, Nazis, Clintonites and other adherents to numerous tyrannies which all conservatives and people who believe in freedom utterly despise. Science is not their game, character assassination is their game and they are out to destroy everyone and anyone who dares to give out the facts against their theory.

The evolutionists have destroyed some dozen threads since they supposedly agreed to be civil - including the threads discussing the agreement. This thread was doing fine until a certain poster and his hangers on came into it. You can be sure that they will destroy it because their purpose is to silence the truth and those who tell it.

[AndrewC]

Junk makes an organism less fit.

I agree, however, I expect some "junk" in the genome, since it appears to be a part of a "computing" device.

[VadeRetro]

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

A hothead is a snothead placemarker.

[Ogmios]

From the article...

While the genetic recipe of a human being is spelt out with three billion letters of DNA code, only about two per cent of these correspond to the genes - the DNA that describes the proteins that build and operate bodies.

Are we reading the same article here?

Are we reading the same article? from your response.

The article says that only 3% of 'junk' DNA is the same in different species

Where did you come up with that line? It was not from this article, that is for certain.

Care to try that again, or to back up that statement in any way shape or form?

That sort of misunderstanding is kind of hard for me to relate to or to understand, care to enlighten me?

Probably not, because you cannot back up that statement with any article of any sort, because it is totally false.

[RightWhale]

Darwin, Haeckel, Huxley, Dawkins, Eldredge, Gould - all atheists.

Not all. Huxley had high praise for Teilhard.

[Ogmios]

Ah, I see, crying victim when confronted for evidence or facts to back up your claims.

Well, if I am not mistaken Mr Gore3000, you started attacking with post #13 and #14.

Or did you not mean what you said in post #14?

That is the kind of arrogance and uninformed nonsense that evolutionists have been spewing and has been completely refuted by science. Only evos would be so stupid and/or dishonest to claim that 95% of DNA is junk just there so they could prove their stupid theory. Evolution has done more harm to science and consequently killed numerous people with their dishonest arrogance.

Only evos would be so stupid, arrogance and uniformed nonsense, dishonest, consequently killed, etc, etc.

Did you or did you not say these things? and you call my post an attack?

Your credibility gap is growing in leaps and bounds, just in this one thread, care to dig any deeper?

[gore3000]

Huxley had high praise for Teilhard.

You are speaking of the wrong Huxley and anyways I doubt that Aldous was not an atheits.The whole Huxley clan have been atheist for generations. Thomas Huxley was a complete atheist.

[DittoJed2]

Why did they let you back in here, Aric? First, you tried to sign on to designeduniverse.com and got banned there, then you tried to sign on here as jaguar, and got banned again, now you're back as Ogmios. And don't bother denying it. Your earlier posts show you are no newby and you're not even trying to hide your identity any more.

[RightWhale]

Julian Huxley. Is that a different Huxley?

[DittoJed2]

Julian was Thomas's grandson, right?

[gore3000]

I agree, however, I expect some "junk" in the genome, since it appears to be a part of a "computing" device.

We are pretty certain that part of the purpose of introns is a timing device during protein synthesis - to slow down the process. We probably will not know in our lifetimes whether all DNA has a use or not, but fact is that everyday we keep finding out what some DNA not in genes is there for.

[gore3000]

Julian Huxley. Is that a different Huxley?

Yes, the big bud of Darwin which I was speaking of was Thomas Huxley, a generation before Aldous and one or two generations before Julian. I have heard something about the latest Huxley somewhat breaking with the atheist tradition of the family, Julian may be the one that is doing that.