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.

[exmarine]

I can accept humor, but quite frankly, you aren't known for posting humor, and there are private replies for posts that aren't intended for everybody. At least one freeper posted the opinion that Conservatism required Christianity -- just moments before being banned, so it is a hot button issue. Sorry if I overreacted.

Why would someone be banned for stating an opinion like that - even though it is wrong? Is Free Republic Free? Is there truly a marketplace of ideas where anyone can post their opinion? If there is, tell me where it is so I can take refuge there. I know it isn't in the universities, and it isn't in politics, where can I find it outside my home?

[Ogmios]

The house is burning, grab whatever you can and head for the yard. lol

[js1138]

No one was banned for that particular opinion, but someone who truely believes that non-christians cannot be conservatives is likely to say a lot of other things.

[PatrickHenry]

Ya' know, Number Two, I've been troubled for months, watching the creationists sling the unjustified accusation of "Christian-bashing" against the science advocates. It's something they started doing after the disruptors from the shamefully secret DU website arrived. We know it's an untrue accusation, and they never back it up with any clear examples. Further, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution, and it just ends up getting the threads moved to the backroom, and sometimes pulled. Yet the accusation keeps coming. Now, after much reflection, it occurs to me that it's the creationists who are the Christian-bashers around here.

Why do I say that? Unlike the creationists, I will carefully explain my statement. I say it because, by linking what they insist is "true" Christianity with the unscientific doctrine of creationism, they are creating a totally unnecessary barrier whereby no scientifically literate person would want to be associated with Christianity if it meant accepting their "creation science" in order to embrace it.

We've told them, over and over, that one can be a theistic evolutionist. They reject that. We've explained how the issue of scriptural literalism was put to rest in the 1630s during the Galileo affair. They ignore that. We've shown them the Message from the Pope in 1996, which indicates there need be no incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. They reject that.

We've shown them, over and over, that evolution doesn't lead to Hitler, or to communism, or to crime, notwithstanding their insistence that there is an inevitable linkage. But they endlessly repeat their demonstrably false claims.

So I've come to the conclusion that it's the creationists, by their unrelenting, unwarranted behavior, who are bashing Christianity, every bit as much as if they insisted that the only true Christians must belong to the Flat Earth Society .

[DittoJed2]

I'm not going to debate or get into this issue any more than this statement. The Catholic church does have a different Bible than the rest of the Christian world as it includes the apocrypha. While the apocrypha was revered through the ages, it was not included as part of the canon of Holy Scripture until the council of Trent. It was included as a reaction to Luther's refusal of those particular books. Jerome included them in the Vulgate as interesting literature- however, they were not considered part of the canon of Scripture until the 1500s.

As for Catholics not being Bible-believing Christians, I think you would have to go to individual Catholics and, indeed, individual doctrines concerning that. Catholicism takes its authority partially from the Bible (they do believe most of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith- just have a little thing like salvation by grace through faith alone off and believe that their works are meritorious in attaining their salvation), mostly from church authority (many Catholic doctrines such as their emphasis on Mary have arisen post-Scripture and, indeed, are not found in Scripture.)or, ultimately from the Pope (though many in the American church don't totally follow his teachings either). So, do Catholics have a different Bible? Yes. Do they believe the Bible? On some things, but it has been my experience with most Catholics (and sadly with most protestants) that they can't point out WHY in scripture they believe what they believe - so, ultimately, most people, including Catholics, believe what they are told to believe. My Catholic cousins had never heard of John 3:16, that is how bad the biblical illiteracy is around here. I have found this to be the case with most Catholics that I know- whereas, most protestants do have some biblical knowledge even if a lot of it is weak.

[js1138]

The house is burning,..

It's definitely smoking. That's quite an accomplishment after 500 posts.

[exmarine]

Well, obviously, someone can be a conservative without being a Christian. On the other side of that coin, it is less likely that a non-Christian would be a social conservative (which was the primary issue in the recall debate). Anyone can be a fiscal conservative - people like to keep their money.

[VadeRetro]

... the only true Christians must belong to the Flat Earth Society .

It is the bigotry that becomes the issue. I refer to ugly bigotry hiding behind puerile double-entendres of the form: My younger sister is in the fifth grade. All the other kids in her class can count to ten. (Show me where I insulted my sister! Show me!)

Take this post.

The Pope is not THE anti-Christ, however, those homosexual pedophile catholic priests are certainly doing the bidding of the anti-Christ and should not only be defrocked (mild punishment) but should be put to death for the crimes against humanity.

Nice to know JP II isn't THE anti-Christ. Also, that one founding father was a Catholic and most of the rest were bible-believing Christians. And "non-christian conservative" is an oxymoron. (That one was posed as a question, and besides ... it was a joke!)

[VadeRetro]

Ya' know, Number Two ...

Also--talk about puerile!--no bathroom humor, please!

[js1138]

I see no correlation whatsoever between churchgoing, professed belief, and good behavior. Nor is one necessary, since works are not the ticket to heaven. I know I'm exaggerating here, but I just don't see much cause and effect between faith in a particular interpretation of the Bible and living a moral life.

[DittoJed2]

I see no bigotry in the post you listed. I see a person who believes that pedophiles need to receive extremely harsh punishment.

[DittoJed2]

Aso, he's not all that keen on homosexual priests.

[DittoJed2]

He did not say that all priests are homsexual, or pedophiles, and explicitly said the pope is NOT the antichrist.

[balrog666]

I see no correlation whatsoever between churchgoing, professed belief, and good behavior.

Well, if you view "good behavour" from the context of a willfully ignorant, God-FEARING, Holy-Warrior fundamentalist (not that ALL fundamentalists are that), then just thinking about science, morality, or the age of the earth is probably a sin. Then "morality" consists of nothing more than not doing those things that cause you to think, or ask questions, or enjoy your life in any way, or...

[balrog666]

I see no bigotry in the post you listed.

Oh, yeah, no pig-ignorant bigotry there! Does it read better this way?

DittoJed2 is not THE anti-Christ, however, those homosexual pedophile catholic priests are certainly doing the bidding of the anti-Christ and should not only be defrocked (mild punishment) but should be put to death for the crimes against humanity.

[DittoJed2]

The Pope is not THE anti-Christ, however, those homosexual pedophile catholic priests are certainly doing the bidding of the anti-Christ and should not only be defrocked (mild punishment) but should be put to death for the crimes against humanity.
Which part of the statement do you consider pig-ignorant bigotry? Considering your screenname, do you think it would be less bigotted to say the pope WAS the antichrist? Or do you think it is bigotted to say that homosexual pedophile catholic priests should be severely punished?

[balrog666]

Considering your screenname attitude, do you think it would be less bigotted to say the Pope DittoJed2 WAS the antichrist?

[Ogmios]

It's going to be a total loss here in a bit, burned right down to the ground.

Staying aloof placemarker

[DittoJed2]

And gee, balrog, you don't have the least bit of a bad attitude around here. You all didn't show where that statement was bigotted, not even by inserting my screename. Just bluster. I'm gone.

[balrog666]

I'm gone.

Good. This time, stay "gone".