'Inner Fish' Is Really Inner Design

ICR ^ | April 28, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

'Inner Fish' Is Really Inner Design

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Evolutionary scientists are often on the lookout for evidence that they hope will vindicate Darwin’s outdated theory of evolution. Recently, a team of geneticists discovered that although the non-coding DNA sequences of fish have “almost no” matching sequences in humans, their gene expression profiles are nevertheless similar. The researchers referred to this similarity as “a basic ancestral pattern…the so-called ‘inner fish’.”1 But this interpretation not only presupposes evolution, it also leaves critical questions unanswered...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Wacka]

Keep the comedy coming. This one was a laugh riot in ignorance.

[docbnj]

The author is pretty confused. The results are actually what one would expect: non-coding parts of the DNA sequence do not do anything, so mutations can accumulate there without any deleterious effects. Over time, those portions therefore have become very different in various branches of the vertebrates.

If you are considering the intelligent design idea, you would say the same thing in slightly different words: the nervous systems has to work, so of course it can’t just randomly change, such that it bears no similarity to humans.

So the example fits evolutionary theory quite well, and ID came be squeezed and stretched to fit the same data. This means that the observations reported are probably not that crucial, and are not going to change anyone’s mind. Maybe everyone should be happy. And anyway, it gives the website a reason to display that very nice tetraodont fish.

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, you are confusing the non-coding regions with gene expression profiles. According to Project ENCODE, at least 93% of the genome has proven functional. This directly contradicts the Evo-prediction that 97% of the same would turn out to be “junk” DNA.

[count-your-change]

You are a few years behind the research, non-coding dna has been found to have several possible functions, from providing gene regulation to providing a structural element to the nucleus.

With even a cursory search will turn several references.

[count-your-change]

My inner tuna tells me that “junk” dna is like all those parts in my computer: Just because I don’t know what they do and it’s not really obvious, doesn’t mean they have no function.

[GodGunsGuts]

Indeed, a Creationist/IDer would EXPECT them to be functional!

[Wacka]

The noncoding regions have been known to have some functions for years. It is largely structural and the sequence can vary a lot. They are learning new functions all the time. That in now way invalidates evolution.
Replication of DNA is the most important function of the cell. Yeast ARSs (Autonomously Replicating Sequences = replication origins)are not a specific sequences and are a consensus. In Humans and other mammals, the sequence requirements are very loose. Basically any long enough DNA sequence (over a threshold)can replicate with the longer the sequence, the more efficient the replication.
Here is an example of a vital function being supplied by very indistinct sequence requirements.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...My inner tuna tells me that “junk” dna is like all those parts in my computer: Just because I don’t know what they do and it’s not really obvious, doesn’t mean they have no function..."

I can take your point and analogy one step further:

If the function is not currently used by the organism, then random changes in the "junk" dna will prove to be relatively harmless.

Computer hardware examples:

I had a computer where the chip controlling the built in LPT port was damaged. The computer ran just fine, as long as I did not want to use a parallel port printer.

I had another where the USB controller was fried. Same thing, ran fine as long as I did not want to plug a USB device into it.

The point? Random changes might not be critical for an organism in a specific environment.