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.
That is patently horse-puckey. Anyone with eyes can see bumblebees fly. Now show me an observation of a million base chain of DNA being formed without the involvement of life and you might have an argument.
"Hi, I'm Bubba Clinton...celebrating 5 years of an impeachment-free Presidency" CIRCA 1997
Same thing...
Until resistant strains render penicillin ineffective, of course.
The proofs of science are numerous and are repeatable
The DEMONSTRATIONS are numerous and repeatable, and all are potentially fallable. Proofs are not fallable, in a conventional sense. Show me an example of an infallable proof in natural science.
, and can be built upon to make new discoveries and find proofs of more things.
This is how induction works...it is NOT how rigorous proofs work.
This is how science works and how science advances human knowledge.
Correct, however, this does not make anything a proof.
Not even the skeptic/atheist Hume dared to question this.
Indeed--what he questioned, correctly, was the absurd notion of infallible proofs in natural sciences, or, indeed, anywhere.
That evolutionists cavalierly state such an absurdity shows their utter desperation in the face of scientific facts which completely refute their nonsensical theory.
What it shows is that evolutionary scientists share the philosophical notions about science that nearly all currently active scientists presently hold.
I guess you could make the argument that Henrietta Lacks' genome will now live on forever in the immortalized HeLa cells.
Than you should have no trouble pointing out to me where, other than in your fevered blue brain, Darwin suggested that because some morphology was more primative than others, that that was therefore a measure of present-day fitness, or lack thereof.
And therein lies the problem.
It IS true (in my imagination) and you can't refute it (my imagination)!!!
It is, of course, not. It is central to modern micro-biology. The theory of evolution still stands up quite nicely without reference to what micro-biologists now know.
Darwin, out of thin air
Thin air, plus three scientific predecessors who were closing in fast, plus 40 years of excruciatingly detailed observation.
, made up the 'melding' theory of genetic transmission (again, in large part due to his racism since skin color does seem to meld).
Which would seem to support the melding theory, oh, puzzling blue master of science.
Again, you need insults because my statement is true.
I need insults because your statements often appear to be willful, arbitrary, random as to verifiability, and self-serving, more in keeping with the agenda of a propagandist, than of an inquirer.
Darwin was no scientist. In addition to which it took evolutionists decades to make evolution 'seem' to conform to Mendelian genetics.
What piffle. Darwin got some details wrong because he wasn't omniscient. This is not presently considered a terminal sin in a scientist, or a scientific theory. And it in no manner refutes the theory as it presently stands. It merely demonstrates the stumbling, piecemeal manner by which science operates.
So yes, Darwinism was proven wrong by science - again.
In like manner as Einstein proved Newton wrong.
For the immune system and how it works you should look at Nobel Prize Design in DNA III which explains it quite well and gives sources for even more information.
Since you have provided a reference, you can no doubt now tell me whether or not complex anti-bodies (which are enzymes created from DNA transcription) are created WITHOUT the need for anti-bodies that were "almost exactly the same". To evolve from. Yes or no?
In short, it has nothing to do with mutations.
As usual, you ignore the point at hand. You have absolutely no evidence that "it has nothing to do with mutation". Mutation is not hardly fully understood. If a mechanism exists to create anti-bodies by some presto! method, there's no reason to think a similar mechanism might not be intervening in the mutation process. And, in fact, a fair amount of accumulated evidence to think it might be so.
Second of all, since we're on the subject, the fact is that there are many examples of n-off mutations that turn out to be perfectly satisfactory, because much of the formation for work that enzymes, in particular, are subjected to, is through the mechanisms of their folding morphology, and in many circumstances, that morphology is NOT disabled by a few random dents, just as your old car continues to work even when it's been hit and neglected.
Every mammal, I expect, shows these embryonic seed functions operating in similar manner. However, not all mammals have, upon obtaining mature form, a remaining web between their extreme appendages.
There's something hideously fascinating about self-absorbed myopia and hypocrisy on this staggering level. But in spite of that you're right; it does get old.
Hey, cut out the "Christian-bashing."
</DU mode>
Of course they can, but they can't explain how, without decades of research. Suppose all the flying insects had died before the invention of writing, and all we had were a few specimens preserved in amber. How would you go about proving their ability to fly when alive?
So what? They fly. Find a non-biogenic DNA, then we can talk about explanations.
Wonderful post, wonderful refutation of evolution!
False, completely false. There are no steps in abiogenesis. There is no gradualness possible. You either have a living thing or you do not. You need the whole enchilada - at once.
Anything you say can be true if you control the definitions of words. Fortunately, you are not in charge of the language. Are we going back to your assertion about the "moment of death?" We had fun with that one. I'll be happy to play it back for the new lurkers. Your reassertion of vitalism is quaint, but you are painting yourself into a corner.
I am not talking about language, I am talking science. You need the whole organism to live and reproduce for it to gradually change. Without reproduction you cannot change, you need the whole organism in working order to achieve that. That includes DNA, proteing synthesis, the cell, metabolism, energy production and consumption, and a reproductive system to name a few.
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.