Posted on 06/15/2007 8:42:04 AM PDT by Sopater
A massive international study of the human genome has caused scientists to rethink some of the most basic concepts of cellular function. Genes, it turns out, may be relatively minor players in genetic processes that are far more subtle and complicated than previously imagined.
Among the critical findings: A huge amount of DNA long regarded as useless -- and dismissively labeled "junk DNA" -- now appears to be essential to the regulatory processes that control cells. Also, the regions of DNA lying between genes may be powerful triggers for diseases -- and may hold the key for potential cures.
The research, published in a set of papers in today's editions of the journals Nature and Genome Research, raised far more questions than it answered -- and in a sense was a rallying cry for more and deeper research into the functioning of the genome, often referred to as the "blueprint" for life.
"The instruction manual for life is written in a language we are only just beginning to understand," Francis Collins, director of the federal government's National Human Genome Research Institute , said at a news conference yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I have a feeling that IF we ever do finally understand the encoded language of life, the very last sentence will say something like "WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?" :-)
I find it interesting that every time man “discovers” some new technology that is supposed to give god like awareness ... it only opens up even more questions
and to me, reveals more of God’s hand in the universe.
From the article: "The instruction manual for life is written in a language we are only just beginning to understand."
Sounds more like a metaphor to me.
Just like the "junk" appendix.
This is an example of human pride impeding good science.
ID theory is certainly very broad, and it may not be especially useful for scientific investigation, but it does rule out the idea that our Creator made junk.
When I was a graduate student in molecular biology, the “current wisdom” was that a large part of the DNA was what scientists called “non-sense DNA”. I remember my major professor refusing to call it that, rather he called it “non-coding” and added that, just because we did not know what it did, that did not make it “non-sense”. To this day, when I teach biology, I make it very clear to my students that there are long segments of DNA whose function we do not know, and I emphasize that as our knowledge grows we will find out the function.
Francis S. Collins, The Language Of God
That whole “junk DNA” thing always rubbed me the wrong way.
Kinda like “you only use 10% of your brain”. Tell me, anyone ever heard this one: “Bob took 7 slugs to the brain, fortunately, they all hit the 90% of his brain he doesn’t use, he’ll be out this afternoon”
A metaphor, however apt, has limits.
There is nothing that we know to be designed that resembles the spaghetti code in the genome, except perhaps, the source code for MS Windows.
Both codes appear to have been incrementally created by adding one bit at a time, by designers who never saw or understood the overall structure.
The second paragraph is old news. We’ve been kicking it around on FR for the last 6 years.
The article is so poorly written its hard to tell what the point is.
Yup, just like much of the internal organs were considered by scientists to be ‘vestigial’, so was the DNA they couldn’t figure out what it did, so THAT was lefotver junk too.
Science seems to think that if something is present but not understood, it’s vestigial, or worthless, remnants, leftovers - because THEY haven’t figured out what it does. That theme seems to be repeated over and over again, the arrogance of some scientists (but somehow this becomes broadly accepted - ie think appendix or tailbone).
As a scientist, my favorite personal observation is that the more we learn, the more we learn how much we don’t know.
I love discussions like this on FR. It shows what a bright and thoughtful (and often argumentative) virtual community this is. And we are reminded that “we see through a glass darkly.”
Only 10% of the brain is neurons, the rest supports their function. You use 100% of your brain, really.
> ... and dismissively labeled “junk DNA” ...
I considered that phrase to be an error from
the first time I heard it, decades ago.
“We don’t know what this is, so it’s not important”
is really poor science.
My guess has always been that the “junk DNA” was
holographically encoding some important stuff.
I was an designer of electrical circuits/systems. And we would on occasion design systems that contained what would appear to the untrained eye as useless circuitry. But in-fact was intended for a possible future needed function.
Instead of a costly new design we could merely "throw a switch" and the circuit's function could be changed. In this way we could economicaly evolve our systems overtime as the circumstances dictated.
Bottom line......this article fits in with the synthesis of ID and Evolution quite nicely.
----excerpt from article----
....other portions of the genome are believed to be on standby, as a toolbag to be utilized as humans evolve.
I've always had a problem with this term. Just because we don't understand it, it must not be important. If evolutionary theory is correct, there could be blueprints for earlier species in our development hidden in that "junk DNA". We may not understand it, but that doesn't make it unimportant.
Same with "dark matter/energy". It's only dark and mysterious to the point that we simply don't understand it. That don't make it worthless.
I've always had a problem with this term.
Ditto.
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.