Scientists Vie To Break Junk DNA's Secret Code

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | Roger Highfield

[blam]

Scientists vie to break junk DNA's secret code

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 06/10/2003)

Huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised "genetic grammar", making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought.

The discovery is of potentially huge significance, since it could lead to an entirely new explanation for certain diseases and symptoms. A race is now on among teams of scientists worldwide to investigate this cryptic code.

While the genetic recipe of a human being is spelt out with three billion letters of DNA code, only about two per cent of these correspond to the genes - the DNA that describes the proteins that build and operate bodies.

In the latest issue of the journal Science, Prof Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School, Dr Ewen Kirkness of the Institute of Genomic Research, Maryland, and colleagues have reported compelling evidence that up to three per cent of our genetic material has a crucial role that is not understood.

They made the unexpected discovery that some DNA regions of humans, dogs and species as distant as elephant and wallaby are nearly identical. These regions of what were once called junk have been dubbed "conserved non-genic sequences", or CNGs, a reference to how they are not conventional genes.

Prof Antonarakis said: "I suspect that mutations in CNGs may contribute to numerous genetic disorders." Defects in CNGs could result in illness while the symptoms of Down's syndrome, caused by an extra copy of a chromosome, might be linked to the presence of additional CNGs.

"Many laboratories are now working on identifying pathogenic mutations," he said.

[Ogmios]

See, there it is again, Yipper?

What is that, what does it mean to you?

Are you frustrated? Are you upset?

Here, let's do this, since you didn't ask me, I will ask you, since you are so convinced that there are "scientific facts", find me a scientist, any accredited scientist will do, that uses such a term.

Creation pages do not count, evo pages by layman do not count, we are talking about real science here, not laymans science, etc.

I want you to prove to me that "scientific facts" exist in real science. Go to whatever science institutions you can find, go through their search engines and find me an instance where an accredited scientist uses "scientific" and "fact" together, one after the other. I want to see the phrase "scientific facts" used as you claim it is used in real science. Just once will do, but more would be better.

Please provide links, proofs etc, just as I did.

You seem so convinced, I wish to see the evidence for such a conviction.

Thank you in advance.

[PatrickHenry]

If you don't learn to ignore some of the posters around here, you may find yourself goaded into a flame war -- the very thing you guard against on other forums. Virtual Ignore is your friend.

There is nothing more pathetic than a tractionless troll.

[PurVirgo]

sok... happens to the best of us.

I dunno - I'm not really a "qualified scientist", but I'm studying to be one. I've seen some real inflammatory remarks from self-proclaimed "scientists", so the name doesn't really hold much clout for me.

I beleive I'll go back to talking to simpletons - less hot air ;)

No offense to you, of course.

< /sarcasm >

[Ogmios]

I was just sarcastic, I also backed up my claims with evidence, something that he neglected or cannot do.

I posted evidence and backed it up, I have yet to see anything remotely similar in any of his posts.

I see claims, I see opinions, but I see no scientific, or any other type, of evidence, so I have not sunk to his level. If I had sunk to his level, I would have posted my opinions and my claims, without any evidence whatsoever. Oh, and I would have viciously attacked all creationists before they had a chance to look at the thread.

So, no, I have not sunk to his level, as a matter of fact, I would say that I am in the stratosphere somewhere, while he is down near the core.

[Ogmios]

Patrickhenry, are my posts becoming emotional? Am I getting out of line somewhere?

If I am getting emotional or angry in your view, please tell me so, because a flame war is not what I am asking for here.

I want them to give me evidence of their claims, I have been kind enough to back up my claims with evidence, I am asking for the same in return, it is not my fault if it angers and upsets them, but I will not respond in kind.

But, being involved in the discussion, could be blinding me to what I am actually doing, am I getting emotional, or angry per se in any of my posts?

Thank you

[PatrickHenry]

being involved in the discussion, could be blinding me to what I am actually doing, am I getting emotional, or angry per se in any of my posts?

So far, you're doing fine. But I've been here longer than you, and I've seen what goes on. You haven't. So I'm more attuned to the way these things get started. It's been my experience that debating the tactics of certain posters is a no-win situation.

The conduct you're complaining about is precisely what they like to do. It's why they're here. They won't change, and if you argue with them about what they're doing it almost always ends up in a silly shouting match about which side is behaving worse, who started it, etc. After you've been here long enough, you'll understand how futile and nonsensical it all is.

[f.Christian]

To: Ogmios

Evolution is a specific scientific study or discipline

Not really (( gettin IT )) ... any details --- differences ?

Help me out ... Science is stable - predictable --- evolution is changing ?


415 posted on 10/09/2003 4:36 PM PDT by f.Christian

You have the unified theory (( power )) of science and you are keeping it secret --- for yourself ... shame on you !

[balrog666]

I want them to give me evidence of their claims, ...

If they had any, they wouldn't have to try to shout you down and intimidate you. Of course, if they understood what evidence was, they wouldn't be the trolls they are. So it goes.

[Ogmios]

Thank you Patrickhenry, I appreciate the walkthrough, I will keep it in mind as the discussion continues.

There are a couple of posters so far that will deserve to be ignored, but there are others that look like they may hold some promise.

[HalfFull]

What a damning quote. No one but Aric ever uses that phrase, except that I found at least 378 hits on google

Good going...you found 378 hits. I found 2 hits, same style, same methods. You know it, and I know it.

[RightWingNilla]

Nonsense. Humans have some 100 trillion cells which replicate numerous times during a lifetime.

You didnt read what I wrote. There is no need for eukaryotic cells to replicate their DNA quickly.

But the proof that it is not junk is that we keep finding uses for more and more of it every day. We found that 10% of, the ALU sequences which evolutionists said was junk for a long time did have a use. Real science has found that the appendix, and tonsils do have a use in the immune system. Each time that the evolutionists have claimed that something in an organism is a 'fossil' remnant of old, they have been proven wrong.

The analogy to tonsils is a poor one. It is clear that most of the junk DNA were once active retrotransposable elements. Now it is possible that organisms could have exapted some of this for its own uses, but there is little doubt the SINEs and LINEs are of a primitive viral origin.

Then there is the issue of pseudogenes. The Vitamin C GLO gene is an example of one...I challenge you or anyone else to come up with an explanation for what possible use this could have in the human genome. Not to mention the 10,000 or so reverse transcribed processed pseudogenes in there as well.

[f.Christian]

Is evolution like a rubber check ... you use over and over again --- kiting ?

[Boiler Plate]

A2,
In spite of your terrific ability to do google searches your lack of education still seems to haunt you. IF there were no fundamental scientific fact such as the properties and strength of materials it would be next to impossible to build anything but the simplest structures. Even the ancients knew the strength of their materials and when they went beyond their knowledge or simply extrapolated they met with serious disasters such as the collapse of Colossus.

Since you do not have a scientific background then it is easy to understand why you look at science as philosophical instead of purposeful. Scientific facts such as how disease is spread, the effects of sound waves on aircraft approaching the speed of sound, impurities in metals and on and on have allowed you to live that the life you lead and even allow you to try and communicate your hair brained philosophical nonsense to anyone willing to listen. That philosophical nonsense being in part your wacky notion that there are no scientific facts and that there is something worthwhile about your nutty crusade against the mythical “Holy Warriors”.

So then answer the question. Are you the same person who formerly posted as Aric2000? Yes or no? Is that too tough a question?
Honest Truly Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Ogmios]

Are you going to answer my question in #421 or continue with this obsessive behavior?

I would enjoy seeing you prove me wrong, see what you can do. You seem so convinced, well, convince me.

Evidence, give me the evidence that has convinced you so utterly and completely that "scientific facts" exist.

[f.Christian]

Is evolution like a public con - hoax - scam ... you use over and over again --- tricks - STING ?

The hand is quicker than the eye ?

[Sentis]

BTW I have not nor will I ever sign the agreement not to attack Creationists until they begin to answer the simple questions I ask of them. Until they are willing to be upfront about their beliefs especially those beliefs that are utterly ignorant and foolish I will continue to lambaste them. Defenders of real science on this board are doing themselves no favor what so ever to debate them. They are beneath debate because they are willing to lie, obfuscate, and duck any questions that they can't or wont answer. Instead of debate ask simple direct questions such as what is the age of the earth or universe?

[Ogmios]

Please see #421, and then the post above, perhaps you can convince me as you are so convinced?

Show me where, within the realms of natural science, real science, not laymans science, where the term "scientific facts" has been used by an accredited scientist.

Just once will be enough, more would be better.

And I used Google, because it is one of the search engines that I know anyone has access to, I felt that it would be unfair to use a search engine that you would have unavailable.

Evidence, give me the evidence that would convince me, as strongly as you are convinced.

[Ogmios]

I am beginning to understand your frustration more and more.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

What do you think of Gould, Rennie, and other 'famous' evos calling evolution a FACT?

We all know there are no facts in science! /sarcasm off

(By the way, I have the quotes and references if you'd like)

[Ogmios]

Please, do so, But they must be in context, no out of context quotes.

Thank you