Posted on 06/04/2004 8:08:18 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
It is not often that the audience at a scientific meeting gasps in amazement during a talk. But that is what happened recently when researchers revealed that they had deleted huge chunks of the genome of mice without it making any discernable difference to the animals.
The result is totally unexpected because the deleted sequences included so-called "conserved regions" thought to have important functions.
All DNA tends to acquire random mutations, but if these occur in a region that has an important function, individuals will not survive. Key sequences should thus remain virtually unchanged, even between species. So by comparing the genomes of different species and looking for regions that are conserved, geneticists hope to pick out those that have an important function.
It was assumed that most conserved sequences would consist of genes coding for proteins. But an unexpected finding when the human and mouse genomes were compared was that there are actually more conserved sequences within the deserts of junk DNA, which does not code for proteins.
The thinking has been that these conserved, non-coding sequences must, like genes, be there for a reason. And indeed, one group has shown that some conserved regions seem to affect the expression of nearby genes.
To find out the function of some of these highly conserved non-protein-coding regions in mammals, Edward Rubin's team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California deleted two huge regions of junk DNA from mice containing nearly 1000 highly conserved sequences shared between human and mice.
One of the chunks was 1.6 million DNA bases long, the other one was over 800,000 bases long. The researchers expected the mice to exhibit various problems as a result of the deletions.
Yet the mice were virtually indistinguishable from normal mice in every characteristic they measured, including growth, metabolic functions, lifespan and overall development. "We were quite amazed," says Rubin, who presented the findings at a recent meeting of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.
He thinks it is pretty clear that these sequences have no major role in growth and development. "There has been a circular argument that if it's conserved it has activity."
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
101 placemarker.
The more we know, the more we know we don't know.
by "/~robroy/"
Such non-sequiturs is why I don’t play much anymore. If scientists would have approached the research from an ID perspective in the first place
True scientists CAN’T approach the research from an ID perspective without committing 2 serious fallacies:
1. the design is INTELLIGENT.
2. the DESIGN is intelligent.
Both are, a priori assumptions, prior to evidence, BY DEFINITION. Both are demonstrably false.
Since evolution is about long term survival of a given species, the real question would be:
Would the genetically altered rats be able to survive in a natural environment and transmit their altered genetic make up, 5000 years from now, or would the transmitted flaws eliminate them?
Finally, there is junk science and there is junk science, on both sides. The question is: What does the evidence lead one to conclude?
Suppose for a second, (a mere second) that both ID and Evolution are wrong. What then is the conclusion from the evidence? Something none of you have considered yet?
The more we know, the more we know we don't know.
Why then is everyone trying to force a conclusion? We don’t know. You don’t know. The Pope doesn’t know. It is all fantasy. Come back in a couple thousand years, maybe.
Yes, the fugu is another demonsration of the same thing. It also proves that not all fish products are good for you.
Yes, there's evidence that he did. But when I read it, I didn't get what he got.
READING.ne.UNDERSTANDING
Are not Dennett and Dawkins Darwinian scientists?
But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry.
Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth,
--- which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
-Shapiro-
_____________________________________
--- Hmmmm, seems to me that Shapiro's concluding line, just above, is flawed by the reactions of the scientists as described in the article.
Can you agree, AndrewC?
88 tpaine
_____________________________________
For these particular scientists described in this article, yes absolutely.
It is heartening to understand that they had recognized something quite profound.
But his "accusation" was aimed at those mentioned at the beginning of his article, Dennett and Dawkins.
91 andyC
_____________________________________
No, it was aimed at Darwinian scientists, as both you & he clearly wrote, just above.
100 tpaine
______________________________________
Are not Dennett and Dawkins Darwinian scientists?
107 andy
______________________________________
You make my point. Shapiros conclusion is flawed, -- a fact petty wordplay can't change.
No less flawed an "opinion" than Physicist concerning my "change". Your point is valid only in general application and Dr Shapiro's article was an opinion article in "Boston Review", not a paper in "Nature". Nevertheless, your prancing about in search of some demeaning vulnerability is a perfect example of "Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth".
Your point is valid only in general application
Yep. That was my point. Thanks again.
and Dr Shapiro's article was an opinion article in "Boston Review", not a paper in "Nature".
Immaterial. You're just objecting to save face.
Nevertheless, your prancing about in search of some demeaning vulnerability is a perfect example of "Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth."
Me? I'm "prancing"? -- Infantile comment my boyo.
You're ticked cause you got caught hyping the issue. Learn to control yourself.
You're a mind reader too? I'm not ticked at all. I'm practically laughing a body part off. Your prancing around your irrelevant point is a sight to behold. First, I merely cited Dr. Shapiro in answer to the assertion that "but the description you provided is essentially the same as evolution in its particulars.". I also noted quite plainly, that "This is what Dr. Shapiro, in part, had to say concerning Darwinians". Your "great" </sarcasm> discovery that opinion sometimes involves hyperbole seems to have you hallucinating. I answered you plainly, "For these particular scientists described in this article, yes absolutely". Yes it was hyperbole.Go ahead and continue prancing about. You provide humorous relief. And provide ample evidence that " they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science".
Hey, I'm as amused as you are..
Well, I'm glad that you can laugh at yourself.
The Fairy Troll |
Bump for later reading by my homeschooled teenagers!
How derivative. [Yawn]
There is a "Far Side" cartoon or two in this thread......one of the ones with lab-coated scientists beating each other up.......
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.