Posted on 10/06/2003 4:34:06 PM PDT by 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.
I've never encountered anyone who believes that, to tell you the truth. All of my experiences with teachers and professors on this subject have been pretty God-neutral-they give an explanation of the theory and how it works and don't even discuss how this relates to God.
Well, Richard Dawkins would probably be the best example of one who marries evolutionary theory with an aggressive atheism.
I think if you look up your local "Free Thinkers Society," you'll find a number of people who hold that view.
All of my experiences with teachers and professors on this subject have been pretty God-neutral-they give an explanation of the theory and how it works and don't even discuss how this relates to God.
Well, I think that's a matter of underlying assumptions. There's no need to address God in a lecture, because the underlying assumption is that God plays no role. If you were to scratch beneath the surface, though, I think in some cases you'd get a different response.
One man's junk, is another man's chromosome...
Atheism is a minority view in our country and, I would wager, also in science. I would be curious to see if there is any data out there on religiosity among scientists.
Well, I think that's a matter of underlying assumptions. There's no need to address God in a lecture, because the underlying assumption is that God plays no role
I don't know if I buy that- I think the more likely reality is that, in today's PC environment, professors and teachers prefer to leave a contentious topic like God out of the classroom.
The chipping type junk DNA research won't be glamour science until there is some very exciting breakthrough.
I've seen creationists on this site call evolution a "religion", which is just plain silly. I think their goal is to label evolution as a religion so they can either get it out of the schools or demand equal time in school for creationism (which clearly is religious).
For fundamentalists, creationism is part of a bigger agenda: getting their particular brand of radical protestantism taught in public schools. Attacking evolution is just one step in that direction.
There probably is a "religiosity survey," someplace. However, in the case of evolution, one need only look at the derision with which Intelligent Design is treated, to understand that even the possibility of God is not acceptible to the "evolution mainstream." (I recognize that a lot of the derision is probably due to the taint of Biblical literalists having glommed on to the idea.)
I don't know if I buy that- I think the more likely reality is that, in today's PC environment, professors and teachers prefer to leave a contentious topic like God out of the classroom.
I can see your point, but I still think it's because it would not even occur to these folks to bring God into the discussion. If it did occur to them, though, I think their considerations of PC would be more directed to the response from other science people, rather than the ACLU.
The problem with ID is that there really is no way to apply the scientific method to it. I personally believe that God created the universe. However, that's an article of faith- there's no way for me to scientifically prove that. We shouldn't even try to prove the existence of God scientifically because God exists outside of our rules of science. All we can hope to do with science is explain how the rules created by God actually work when it comes to, for example, evolution.
I agree.
On a personal note, the more I learn about human biology--the more I see an argument for intelligent design.
I also personally believe that God is behind creation. However, that is a question of faith that is irrelevant to science.
I'll go with that.
I would like to hear the other options.
When I think of a single cell, I can't help but be reminded, in some ways, of a computer component.
True. But some of us short on faith, look to science to fill some holes.
Do you mean you look to science to prove the existence of God? I think that's probably unproductive since science doesn't have the tools to do something like that.
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.