Scientists Vie To Break Junk DNA's Secret Code

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | Roger Highfield

[gore3000]

Thanks for the great quote. Loved the guy when I read his Nobel Lecture, perhaps the most readable and human of them all Lecture.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - of course, all of this came about by chance, so there can't be any rhyme or reason behind it < / sarcasm >

[Old Professer]

When they figure this out, maybe I can put them to work on the junk drawer in my kitchen.

[cyborg]

even then you still won't be able to find the screw driver when you need it

[Old Professer]

LOL

Back in the 1980s, my cousin was proudly displaying his landscape contractor's license and explaining how many courses he had to take and all the stuff about plants he had to learn to earn it; I asked him what a weed was and he said, without blinking an eye, "An undesirable plant."

[Old Professer]

That's a nice thought, but what does it say about the future?

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Stultis]

Translation: In our arrogance we dismissed as meaningless that which we could not understand.

Only evolutionists, real scientists knew very well that the rest has tremendous importance.

You're both conveniently overlooking the fact mentioned in the article that only 3% of the non-coding DNA has been found to be "conserved" (IOW varies less among organisms than it should if evolving without functional constraint, therefore suggesting that it has some sequence dependent function).

This leaves the vast majority of "junk" DNA as still, to all appearance, junk.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Modernman]

If he did then it was certainly not Darwinian evolution. If God did it then life and the species were intelligently designed.

A scientific theory should not be called upon to prove or disprove the existence of God. Evolutionists, like most scientists, are uncomfortable taking a scientific theory and applying it to theology.

The best science can, and should, do is explain how the universe started (big bang etc.) and how we got to where we are today as a species (evolution). The question of WHY this happened and WHO, if anyone, was behind it is a question best left to priests and rabbis. The Bible is not a physics or biology textbook.

[PatrickHenry]

The Bible is not a physics or biology textbook.

Yes. But you will soon be exposed to the views of those who think otherwise. Brace yourself.

[r9etb]

Translation: In our arrogance we dismissed as meaningless that which we could not understand.

Or, to put it in Orwellian terms: DNA is more than Duckspeak.

If you'll pardon a bit of schadenfreud, I always love it when scientific smugness is shown up for what it is.....

I much prefer scientists who are humble about what the do and don't know.

[Nebullis]

Consider that the Y chromosome has proportionately more junk DNA that the other chromosomes.

[r9etb]

Huge tracts of human DNA

A different quote comes to mind: Huge ... tracts of land....

[Modernman]

Yes. But you will soon be exposed to the views of those who think otherwise. Brace yourself.

I've never really understood this need by Biblical literalists to be, well, literal about the Bible. Especially when faced with real-world evidence to the contrary. The way I see it, Genesis is a creation story as told to a technologically primitive people who had a very limited understanding of physics, biology, chemistry etc. As our understanding of science increases, we can flesh out the very general description of the Beginning given to us in Genesis.

[Nebullis]

This leaves the vast majority of "junk" DNA as still, to all appearance, junk.

Only if this article is taken in isolation. We know of the importance of telomeres, centromeres, LINES, SINES, GATAs, GC-rich regions, etc., all "junk DNA". Actual junk has dwindled to about 40% of the genome. But that term "junk" is catchy and appealing.

[r9etb]

I've never really understood this need by Biblical literalists to be, well, literal about the Bible.

I think it's pretty much the same impulse that drives those on the other side of the fence to tout evolution as "proof" that there is no God.

Speaking for myself, I don't have any problem with the idea that God and evolution (in some form or other) are compatible.

[Nebullis]

If you'll pardon a bit of schadenfreud, I always love it when scientific smugness is shown up for what it is.....

If there actually was any of that "scientific smugness" there wouldn't be any research. We'd know it all.

[js1138]

I thought I read 5% somewhere, but that still leaves 95% without portfolio.

[r9etb]

If there actually was any of that "scientific smugness" there wouldn't be any research. We'd know it all.

Sure there's smugness -- look at all those scientists who "know" all about global warming, for instance. Or, for that matter, those who dismissed those huge tracts of DNA as "junk."

Scientific smugness is very real, and you're right about its effects: there have always been lots of areas of research that are "not respectable," because the best scientific minds "know better."