Posted on 10/06/2003 4:34:06 PM PDT by 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.
We are down to insults. I try to bring back the thread to a scientific discussion but when the evolutionists cannot refute my statements they just insult. Thanks for the insults, they prove my statements to be correct.
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors.
2., 2a - While evolutionists made some kind of peace with Mendelian genetics, it took them decades to do so. Darwin's original explanation of change through melding of traits was proved completely false. In fact, for a long time evolutionists denied that Mendels genetics applied everywhere. Evolution was proved wrong and it had to be completely recast into Neo-Darwinism to survive.
3. The answer is an insult so therefore my statement is correct. Because DNA shows that mutations are small changes and cannot accomplish much thereby, it disproves evolution. It shows the impossibility of creating completely new genes which are totally essential for evolution.
4. More insults. That it takes not just a gene, but DNA outside the gene to control its operation - turning it on/off, saying how much to produce, when, etc. shows quite well that a single mutation cannot produce a new faculty, function, or whatever. It would take the co-ordinated mutation of numerous things to accomplish a change. Since evolution states that changes can be accomplished piecemeal and that they can be beneficial at each change, this disproves that claim. Until all the pieces are in place - including the controlling mechanisms, a mutation in DNA will not be useful.
A perfect example of evolutionist doubletalk -gore3000
Speaking of doubletalk.....
From: Science on TV Evolves thread, posted by Aric2000
Science does NOT prove anything, and Dimensio will be the first to tell you that.
It takes the scientific evidence at hand and comes up with a hypothesis to explain that evidence, when the hypothesis is taken through the ringer by THOUSANDS of scientists, it's evidence verified, it's logic checked, it's main hypothesis checked to point of insane for it's effectiveness in explaining the evidence, etc, it is then taken to the next step, it is then called a theory. (snip)
Science is NEVER 100%, you never know what piece of evidence may be laying about unnoticed that would disprove the theory that was supposedly Proven. And you never know, it could happen, someday god could appear and say, "hah, fooled all of you" or we could find a species that shouldn't be where it is, and if it was verified, it would stand the theory on it's head.
BUT, right now, the Theory of Evolution, is the best theory to explain the available evidence, but it does NOT prove anything, just as Science never, PROVES anything.
From this thread:
There is no such thing as a scientific fact.
Scientific evidence, scientific hypothesis, scientific theory, scientifically verifiable evidence, but no Scientific facts, they don't exist. Not in real science anyway, not sure about the science you practice.
********************
Now I ask you....is it Yippy....or is it Memorex??
Yes, because the supernatural defies the rules of nature- science can only hope to describe phenomenon that follow certain rules- the supernatural exists outside of the realm of nature and doesn't follow the rules of the natural world. Science is not capable of studying something like that. If something can be described scientifically, it no longer falls into the supernatural and becomes just another part of the natural world.
If God exists, is it not likely that there would be some scientific evidence for that existence?
If God could be described scientifically, then He wouldn't be God anymore- he would be just another species to be classified.
I am curious how science would deal with the existence of God, if it were true.
I don't think the existence of God would change anything when it comes to science or the scientific method. Whether the universe was created by God or not, it still follows certain rules that we need to discover in order to advance as a species. If God himself appeared tomorrow, there would certainly be major ramifications for the world. However, the study of science would still continue using the same methods used today.
We have a winner.
I agree! It's time the folks he is talking about get a clue and straighten-up!
1. The evolutionists can deny it all they wish but Darwin's racist use of the brachycephalic index is plain as day in the Descent of Man, Chapter II:
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors.
Just as some people have pronounced veriform appendixes, and some do not, some people have O type blood and some do not. Evolutionary order indicators are not the same thing as contemporary fitness indicators. Nowhere does Darwin suggest this, and nowhere but in your fevered blue brain does history record Darwin's fierce racist leanings. Darwin was well-known for, and articulate in, his aversion to racist arguments.
2., 2a - While evolutionists made some kind of peace with Mendelian genetics, it took them decades to do so. Darwin's original explanation of change through melding of traits was proved completely false. In fact, for a long time evolutionists denied that Mendels genetics applied everywhere. Evolution was proved wrong and it had to be completely recast into Neo-Darwinism to survive.
More blue history. Darwin hadn't glommed onto the mechanism of change, because Mendel's work was very long in coming to the attention of the scientific community, and where everyone naturally glommed onto the notion that change was miniscule, it was counter-intuitive to an un-computered world that the mechanism of change could be discrete, which is what the pea experiments demonstrated. Darwinian theory was not "compromised" by Mendel's experiments, it was explained by them.
3. The answer is an insult so therefore my statement is correct.
That is, of course, illogical gibberish. An insult neither confirms nor refutes an argument.
Because DNA shows that mutations are small changes and cannot accomplish much thereby, it disproves evolution. It shows the impossibility of creating completely new genes which are totally essential for evolution.
Indeed. Than what is the immune system doing?
4. More insults. That it takes not just a gene, but DNA outside the gene to control its operation - turning it on/off, saying how much to produce, when, etc. shows quite well that a single mutation cannot produce a new faculty, function, or whatever. It would take the co-ordinated mutation of numerous things to accomplish a change. Since evolution states that changes can be accomplished piecemeal and that they can be beneficial at each change, this disproves that claim. Until all the pieces are in place - including the controlling mechanisms, a mutation in DNA will not be useful.
Oh? Than what is the immune system doing? How could it be creating complex new anti-bodies from scratch? What you have done here is assumed a very simple-minded uber-controller for the genetic system for which there isn't a scintella of available evidence, and a fair amount of counter-evidence, not least of which is the immune system.
As usual, you are just winging it, and hoping the feets-don't-fail me now strategy will preserve your specious arguments yet another day.
Note to our new anti-blue crusaders: you would be smart to retain html references to arguments you've spent some fair amount of energy on, because the blue guy is non-retentive, and will be making these exact same arguments the next time you meet him.
Could you point to the scientific proof of the present utility of the webbing between my thumb and first finger?
I found this:
Looks like the proteins in the cells within the 'web' provide instructions to the digits while a human fetus is in development mode within the womb. Combined with 'programmed' cell death messages, you have a pretty efficient system that produces quite the engineering marvel.
Thank God you are spending your time moderating forums instead of doing something important like designing bridges or flying commercial aircraft.
That may be the stupidiest thing you said since you gave us your theory of abiogenesis. Give it up A2.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.
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.