(see my Tagline)
Posted on 05/19/2009 8:13:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
May 18, 2009 — Those investing credibility in the concept of “junk DNA” suffered more losses this week. Repeated hits to the paradigm that portions of non-coding DNA are useless leftovers of evolution make a recovery unlikely...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Good for you. Do you also endorse newbies spamming threads with huge cut-and-paste replies that have little or nothing to do with the original post?
Of course, they will ignore it.
Pot... meet kettle.
“Too ashamed”, I should have written. See tagline.
I like this problem in logic, too...
From the article:
“If you don’t have this junk in your genome then you can’t evolve and are stuck, thereby remaining in what is termed evolutionary stasis,” Dr Greene said.
That being the case, the first simple cell would have been ‘stuck’ and could not have evolved into anything else - micro or macro. By definition, the first life would not have had any ‘left over’ junk-DNA.
You were responding to a huge cut-and-paste reply that had next to nothing to do with the thread, not a post...do you understand the difference?
You gave me crap for reading a post, a seriously jerky move on your part, but I am totally unsurprised.
You owe me an apology, do you understand?
Watch the language and personal attacks. It is fine to debate the issues, but don’t make it personal and don’t resort to childish name calling.
If you go back and read the thread. I never once called him a name. He pinged me, I responded rationally, and then he became unhinged.
All I know is scientists keep making discoveries while you keep reaching in your diaper and flinging poo at them.
Don’t assume everyone takes the same approach as you, Moonman.
I expect you didn't enjoy "Jurassic Park" either.
Cover your eyes in the natural history museum!
Ticker symbol, please...
Yes, please.
“Repeated hits to the paradigm that portions of non-coding DNA are useless leftovers of evolution make a recovery unlikely...”
I’ve never actually heard anyone suggest that “non-coding DNA” means “useless” (at least not from a scientist). Unfortunately the media always portrays it that way. The name is surely part of the reason for the confusion - IIRC the reason for the name comes from how Ohno believed the non non-coding dna originated rather than a value judgement of its current usefulness.
Actually, if one reads the 1972 article by Dr Ohno which coined the phrase “junk dna”, he even said that much of the non-coding dna is likely important for regulating the expression of genes.
Also, it should be pointed out that after 40 years of looking, we’ve still only found a functional role for very very little of the non-coding dna. Less than 1.5% code for proteins, and we’ve found a role for a few other percent (mostly a regulating role, just as Ohno said). For the vast majority of our DNA we’ve still found no role whatsoever. Undoubtedly we’ll find roles for more and more of the DNA as we learn more.
We’re even begun removing portions of dna from organisms that are believed to have no role, and indeed no affects are seen:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03022.html
It should also be made clear that the discovery of DNA which seemed to have no role was a bit of a surprise - and not a prediction of Darwinism.
Dr Malcolm Simons: “Under Darwinistic notions you would think that junk would drop off under the theory of natural selection just like species drop off if they hit ecological niches which is incompatible with survival. If they can adapt to those niches, then those that can survive and those that can’t die. There’s the notion. If you apply that to the DNA sequence, then the coding region genes which survived have a function and by the way the non coding sequences have survived as well. So the proposition would have to be that if they’re there, they’ve got a function.”
In fact very many scientists then and now that still do not believe that DNA can survive without a function (to the chagrin of some):
Sydney Brenner (1999): “There is a strong and widely held belief that all organisms are perfect and that everything within them is there for a function. Believers ascribe to the Darwinian natural selection process a fastidious prescience that it cannot possibly have and some go so far as to think that patently useless features of existing organisms are there as investments for the future.
Even today, long after the discovery of repetitive sequences and introns, pointing out that 25% of our genome consists of millions of copies of one boring sequence, fails to move audiences. They are all convinced by the argument that if this DNA were totally useless, natural selection would already have removed it. Consequently, it must have a function that still remains to be discovered.”
IMO, about half of our DNA will be found to be useless (except as fortuitous molecular clocks), but I could certainly be wrong - this is at the very edge of current genetics after all. Even for that prediction to come true, we’d have to find uses for a WHOLE lot more DNA than we currently have till now - so we’re going to need a lot more stories like this one.
Thank you for providing threads on the subject of Evolution vs. Creationism.
They are very thought provoking, and I applaud your efforts to provide articles on both sides of the issue (regardless to which side you take).
(see my Tagline)
Now, even the (honest) Evos are being forced by the evidence to admit what a colossal mistake the Temple of Darwin made with respect to so-called "junk" DNA:
'From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA.'
--snip--
'A leading figure in world genetics, Prof. John Mattick, recently claimed that, "the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology". In the last year Genetic Technologies has signed a series of licensing deals allowing companies to use their Junk DNA patents. This is bringing in millions of dollars for the company and the profits look like they will continue to roll in. The junkyard it seems, is a goldfield.'
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
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.