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.
I rarely get involved in crevo discussions because of the very reasons you've cited.
Every now and then I gotta put my $0.02 in, though
Can you point out those posts? I have checked throughout this forum from the date of your joining it and found nary one question to you about your religion. You did, however, bring up the Holy Warrior epithet at post 98 on this thread. Can you clear up the mystery?
It refutes it due to your example with insulin. If you split a gene, to make the proteins it made before you have to add the system that takes out the introns and splices it back at the correct place. As you said, it is very specific to each gene so you would need to have a very specific system set up for each split gene, impossible.
Have you ever indulged the theory about mitochondria?
Mitochondria has its own DNA, can replicate independently of the eukaryotic cell, is absent from prokaryotic cells.
Yet, it's DNA is circular, remarkably similar to prokaryotic DNA.
I have a few problems with what evolutionists say about mitochondria. First of all it has a different DNA code from the rest of living things - including prokaryotes and plants. Prokaryotes and plants had to have come first so calling them 'most ancient' is false. Yet, they clearly because of the different DNA code could not have descended from either. My view is that there is a very specific reason for the different DNA code and for the way it works. The work of the mytochondria is essential to animal life, it provides all the energy for life. The process by which it does it is extremely involved and may have required the specific code it has.
Of course, this is no big surprise to some of us. :)
I'm still waiting for A2K's coming out party.
And yes, space/time is relative. Here's a great link with animation for Lurkers interested in getting the feel of it:
Retentive tonight on the old camp ground.
I research claims. He made a claim. I called him on it. "Holy Warriors" was his epithet on this thread. Now there has been a thread pulled, so he can reasonably claim that it was on that thread, but he does so at the risk of someone having a copy of the thread which might prove to belie such a claim. I do not know, but I find it odd that no one has asked him about his religion on the extant threads.
No, restriction enzymes are specific, but not gene specific - only code specific
For example: A-T-G-G-*-*-* Binds With: C-T-C-*-*-*
C-C-G-A-G -*-*-*
It doesn't matter what gene, or even what organism - just that base pairing rules are followed.
But that example doesn't refute evolution, not to me, anyways.
What refutes evolution, in my book, is the lack of "randomness" that purists embrace.
I have a few problems with what evolutionists say about mitochondria. First of all it has a different DNA code from the rest of living things
Every organism's DNA is unique, not just mitochondrial DNA. I never said it was most ancient, though. Just that it bears striking resemblance to bacteria. Could it not, over time, have evolved to it's very specific purpose of providing the life energy of ATP?
Here's another example of similarity - the Heme group in Hemoglobin (which binds Oxygen), and the structure, is uncannily similar to porphyrin rings that exist in plants - the "light capturing" unit that lends itself to photosynthesis.
The point of this is, we, as humankind, simply do not know. Nor will we ever (I don't think). But it is fascinating to develop ideas of our origins, based on similarities between us (man) and our environment.
To speculate is not to deny our Divine origins (as many evo-purists believe). To me, it promotes solidarity and comfort in the thought that we (all life) are God's creation, each to be treasured and admired in both similarities and differences.
I'm reminiscing now - old games (MUDs), FTP before it was FTP.
haha - 12 years later, nothing's changed, only the size and scope. Oh yeah, and being able to talk on the phone at the same time.
I used to do the alt-dot newsgroups, too!!
oj blood evidence science ... keep golfing - self scoring --- all your balls are hole in ones - aces !
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.