Ping
Very interesting, even it a bit over my head. I'll bookmark for later. Thanks.
The more we know, the more we know we don't know.
This cuts both ways. Unless some other portion of the genome "takes over" for the deleted portions, the usefulness of the deleted areas are questionable. On the other hand, the fact that they are ultra-conserved and seem to convey no survival advantage is a severe blow to RMNS. In that case, even if another portion of the genome "took over", there would be no reason for the deleted region to be ultra-conserved under the RMNS paradigm.
Maybe the DNA is able to self-replicate in a recursive process.
Kind of like how a group of programmers made a complete 3d first person shooter game with bleeding edge graphics and levels, but it all packs down to an extremely small file size. Every time you run the game it goes through an algorithm where it actually generates all of the graphics using some kind of recursion.
If you think about it, that would appear so. The vast majority of the world seems to have some kind of fractal pattern in it (just look at tree branches/leaves, alveoli branches in the lungs, fjords cut out of cliffs, etc).
YEC INTREP
Such as?
It wouldn't surprise me to find similarities with how the brain stores information.....
Now, if somebody can figure out how to store all of that "life info" on a bit of DNA, think how it will revolutionize data storage/data handling in the computer world.
The implication is that the junk DNA is indeed junk DNA. Quite astounding, isn't it?
pingity ping
I thought it was creationists who didn't like the term "Junk DNA." This study vividly demonstrates that there's every bit as much slop and junk in the genome as we ever suspected.
Now we're getting into interesting stuff.
They created democRATS!
Astonishing! So the question shifts from why is this region conserved to how is this region conserved.
Hypothesis: There exists a biochemical toolkit (see, e.g. The Wisdom of the Genes by Christopher Wills) for preserving specific regions of DNA, which prevents mutations from happening on those segments, rather than simply having death weed out changes to those segments. The map of where the toolkit is applied, however, is subject to change through evolution. Some changes to the map are weeded out through natural selection (i.e., changes that withdraw protection from certain vital segments), while others are not (i.e., changes that extend protection over unimportant segments).
God made critters with DNA expansion boards for future upgrades.(evolution)......Shock!...Gasp!
Yeah, but human genes are more complicated than mouse genes
and human behavior more complicated than rodent behavior.
Loss of this genetic material may have no material effect ni rodents simplly because they are incapable of writing a symphoney, building a car, wiring an electical connection., etc. They basically eat, fornicate, give birth, nurse young, defecate and sleep.
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.That is a surprising result! Now what they should do is, raise these knockout mice on a farm. See if they're just as good at surviving in the wild - facing periodic bouts of disease, cats & starvation. After all, their ancestors faced these challenges successfully. But the knockout mice haven't had to worry about those things in the lab.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."
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.