Posted on 03/16/2009 8:18:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
More Functional Non-Coding DNA Found
March 12, 2009 — Another finding undermines the concept of “junk DNA.” A team of scientists in Massachusetts found over a thousand functional RNA transcripts from intergenic sequences. These RNA transcripts, coming not from genes but from regions earlier thought to be non-functional, take part in diverse functions from stem cell pluripotency to HOX gene developmental processes to cell proliferation...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
How do you dare talk about genetics or Eli genetics without ever having actually stdied EITHER???)?)????????????
Wow...your science ignorance knows no bounds!!!
You DO know there ate scientists out there whose sole existence is to prove other scientists wrong...right????
Thats what I thought.
So you are completely ignorant concerning plasmids.
AWESOME!!!!
...and I know the same change in a subspecies of white-footed mouse in Yarmouth, MA to be true in a short period of time.
YOU got the answers.....why’d this subspecies turn lighter-coated on my watch?????????????
Hint: because the predators had better visibility with the 0darker mice.
Re: 107 “DAMNED THEM JOOOOOOOS!!!!!!!!!
Make that “EPI-genetics”
Damned iPod...
Well, duh. I know what adult means. But that does not negate that fact that all mammals have the ability to metabolize lactose. And you answer the why??? concerning the supposed advantage since lactose metabolism is the default condition for mammals and those with the supposed advantage are a minority of the human species not to mention of all mammals.
“I could go on and on...”
and you do.....you do.....
I’m not sure if you deliberately misrepresent science, or if you are simply not smart enough to understand how science works. Which ever it is, you certainly do go on....and on.....and on.....and on.....
Presently my genes for digestion of lactose are off. The genes cannot be said to have “disappeared”, neither has my ability to digest lactose “disappeared”. If I ate some cereal with milk my lactase genes would turn “on”.
Now if the genes to survive sulfa drugs are present in every bacteria, but merely “off”, then what would be the difference between the 99.9% of bacteria that would die when exposed to sulfa drugs and the 0.1% that would survive?
Not in adulthood. Lactaid is a thriving business, ya know.
You are joining the co-idiots?
No surprise, I guess. - Obfuscation is the only weapon you have left, isn’t it!
Well, I'm happy for you, but that does not change the common meaning of having something disappear.
Now if the genes to survive sulfa drugs are present in every bacteria, but merely “off”, then what would be the difference between the 99.9% of bacteria that would die when exposed to sulfa drugs and the 0.1% that would survive?
They don't switch the ability back on. Do you claim that each individual bacteria would be exposed to precisely the same environment and be in the same "processing cycle"?
So is Beano, but people still get nutrition from legumes. Adults still maintain the ability to metabolize lactose, but at a reduced rate.
From a paper The acceptability of milk and milk products in populations with a high prevalence of lactose intolerance.
A positive standard lactose test is not a reliable predictor of the ability of an individual to consume moderate amounts of milk and milk products without symptoms. In usual situations the quantity of lactose ingested at any one time is much less than in the lactose-tolerance test.
I see.....when your complete ignorance concerning DNA is mentioned.....you must resort to pathetic insults.
Lemme know when you’ve educated yourself.....because you simply don’t know what you’re talking about and would do better to just say “God did it” instead of saying such obviously unintelligent comments like “DNA prevents evolution”......which is laughably ignorant.
"It appears that the amount of DNA in organisms is more than is strictly necessary for building them: a large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this appears paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA."
(Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976), pp. 43-44)
[emphasis mine]
The irony of Dawkins noting that biologists were 'racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing' was that he apparently felt no need to engage in all that strenuous mental effort himself because he had already reached the conclusion that the 'surplus' DNA was 'useless'.
Cordially,
The claim is that the Creationists and ID proponents have been predicting that this "non-functional" DNA would actually be found to be functional for years.
If that's really is the case, then it's a significant consideration.
If they haven't really been making that prediction for years, but now claim they did, that's also a consideration, but of a different sort.
Insults?
I thought that was your specialty.
If you consider calling you on your attempt to diffuse the facts through obfuscation to be an insult, I can live with that.
“DNA prevents evolution” is in no way a “fact”....it’s a false claim based in ignorance, nothing more.
Bla, bla, bla...
You have such exciting tantrums.
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.