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.

[r9etb]

But it's a assumption that has several hundred years of results.

The results are necessarily of the mechanistic type -- cause and effect type stuff. It's not so good at answering the "why" type questions, though.

[js1138]

Science asks "how" rather than why.

[Modernman]

But we can turn that around, too. You can also make the argument that the whole thing just sort of randomly happened, in some way. But that, too, is a "theological" premise, and not a scientific one. Why would we want to introduce that debate into schools?

Teaching evolution doesn't do that, unless the teacher has a serious agenda they're trying to push. Simply describing the theory doesn't lead to a suggestion that there is no God. The proper response for a teacher, if asked what started the whole thing is to say "We don't know."

[Modernman]

But again -- if God exists and created the universe, and I'm a scientist hammering away at the idea of what caused the universe, then I've got a real problem if I don't include God among the possible causes.

There's no real way for science to go back before the Big Bang, at least not based on what we know today. I don't think any scientist is working on figuring out what caused the universe because it's clear that's a question we're incapable of answering scientifically.

[r9etb]

The proper response for a teacher, if asked what started the whole thing is to say "We don't know."

But of course, that's not the standard response.

[Modernman]

But of course, that's not the standard response.

Assuming, arguendo, that is the case, then we're talking about a problem with the public schools (and you won't find a bigger critic of publc schools than me), rather than a problem with the theory of evolution.

[r9etb]

then we're talking about a problem with the public schools (and you won't find a bigger critic of publc schools than me), rather than a problem with the theory of evolution.

Actually, I think we'd be talking about a problem with the theory of evolution itself, since the basic assumption -- which both teachers and Richard Dawkins teach -- is that bunches of molecules somehow randomly assembled themselves into living organisms.

The problem here is not that molecules became assembled, it's the assumption that they did so randomly.

[PatrickHenry]

... bunches of molecules somehow randomly assembled themselves into living organisms.

That's not quite what the theory of evolution says. Rather, it's what the theory's detractors claim that it says. But you're correct, of course. Organism certainly don't appear because zillions of stray atoms randomly fly together and then start walking around. However, you score no points for shooting down an incorrect statement of the theory.

[balrog666]

The problem here is not that molecules became assembled, it's the assumption that they did so randomly.

Complex molecules self-assemble all the time - it's called organic chemistry. Your complaint hinges upon how you define "random".

[Modernman]

the basic assumption.....is that bunches of molecules somehow randomly assembled themselves into living organisms.

I think the word somehow is the basis of the disagreement here. The theory of evolution does not seek to answer the somehow question. I don't think we CAN answer that question, barring the discovery of time travel. I would have no problem with a teacher glossing over this part and saying that this somehow happened and we can't exactly answer the question. However, the failure to answer this question shouldn't really be an obstacle to accepting evolution as a mechanistic explanation as to how species evolved.

[Modernman]

Having lurked on a lot of these crevo debates, I think the biggest conflict between the two sides is the fact that many creationists approach the topic as just a part of a bigger battle to bring religion instruction back into schools. The battle doesn't seem to be over evolution per se (or, not exclusively over religion) but rather just another skirmish against the secular nature of our society.

[r9etb]

I think the word somehow is the basis of the disagreement here.

Agreed.

he theory of evolution does not seek to answer the somehow question. I don't think we CAN answer that question, barring the discovery of time travel.

Plenty of folks are working on it, actually. (Interestingly, they always start with carefully controlled conditions -- if they're ever successful, it would be a good argument for ID....)

[r9etb]

The battle doesn't seem to be over evolution per se (or, not exclusively over religion) but rather just another skirmish against the secular nature of our society.

Agreed also. My original comment to you was simply that in some cases this is true on the other side as well.

[Ogmios]

Religion is for why, Science is for how.

[PatrickHenry]

Religion is for why, Science is for how.

And economics is for "what's in it for me?"

[Ogmios]

And economics is for "what's in it for me?"

Nah, that's capitalism, the greatest of all immaterial things ever created. What's in it for me, makes the world go round, if anyone ever tells you that that is selfish or wrong, you will know that they haven't the foggiest notion of what it actually is.

[stanz]

What happened to the agreement on the evo/creationist threads that we are supposed to civil with one another...or did that go by the wayside?

[Ogmios]

It is called the creed of the holy warrior.

Lies are not lies, truth is not truth, it is a fight for man's souls, so any and all means necassary are just fine and will be forgiven.

The holy warriors have determined that evolution is a blight, and all evil stems from it. They will do all they can to destroy the theory, and in so doing, if they destroy the very foundation which science is based, so be it.

Holy Warriors cannot be questioned, they have your soul at heart, it is for your own good.

Never trust a Holy Warrior, they are beyond guilt.

[Ogmios]

And have no shame...

[dljordan]

Or maybe they neglected to consider that God has a plan.