Posted on 03/16/2009 8:18:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
More Functional Non-Coding DNA Found
March 12, 2009 — Another finding undermines the concept of “junk DNA.” A team of scientists in Massachusetts found over a thousand functional RNA transcripts from intergenic sequences. These RNA transcripts, coming not from genes but from regions earlier thought to be non-functional, take part in diverse functions from stem cell pluripotency to HOX gene developmental processes to cell proliferation...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Either you’re playing stupid to disrupt the thread, or you really are stupid, which is it?
Yeah, I agree that the "Origin of the Species" does not belong in science classrooms. Of course, it is never taught directly. That way the inconsistencies of that book (as evidenced by the modern re-working of evolutionary theories by its leading proponents) need not be addressed.
Clearly you are not coherent.
We are called mammals because we nurse as young.
Only humans and their domesticated species have made milk drinking a way of life past infancy.
Can you name a single wild mammal that drinks milk?
==A link that apparently you don’t understand enough to explain on your own.
I provided the link in the hopes that you might take it upon yourself to read the whole thing.
==I am assuming common descent BASED UPON DATA. It is the best explanation for the data.
Creation scientists disagree.
==Your ‘common features means common DNA’ leads you to such ignorant assertions as that chimps and humans being more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla being a “logical impossibility”.
I have never maintained that it would come down to DNA alone, as you very well know (as mentioned before, the neo-Darwinian beads-on-a-string conception of the genome is rapidly giving way to a much more dynamic and complex understanding of the same). And yes, I still maintain what causes chimps to be morphologically and functionally more similar to gorillas than to humans cannot at the same time be closer to humans than to gorillas. It’s a logical impossibility, and I expect to be fully vindicated as science begins to dig out the answers to this obvious paradox. Needless to say, study after study is pushing humans and chimps ever further apart. Indeed, if taken together, they may have already unwittingly produced enough evidence to show why chimps are closer to gorillas than to humans.
==Functionality of unconserved regions? Source please.
There are many examples. A quick search turned this up. Surely, you were aware of this, no?
“We also found that three of five unconserved Ndt80 binding sites show Ndt80-dependent effects on gene expression. Together these data imply that although sequence conservation can be reliably used to predict functional TFBSs, unconserved sequences might also make a significant contribution to a species’ biology.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1088298
==What use is the GULO pseudogene?
As Project ENCODE is discovering, there may be dozens of uses for the GULO pseudogene that have nothing to do with synthesizing vitamin C.
There “might” be a function for the GULO pseudogene. But lack of vitamin C synthesis sure can cause scurvy.
The entire context that you “called B.S.” on was DNA similarity. The context of the long-running discussion was DNA similarity. The “logical impossibility” was that DNA was more similar between chimps and humans than between either and gorillas. Nice to admit that you were at least wrong on that point of fact after about a hundred posts; but now GGG revisionist history has it that we were not even discussing DNA similarity.
==The entire context that you “called B.S.” on was DNA similarity. The context of the long-running discussion was DNA similarity...but now GGG revisionist history has it that we were not even discussing DNA similarity.
How quickly you forget, Allmendream (for historical purposes only...not trying to open up an old can of worms):
November 25, 2008 10:06:49 AM by GodGunsGuts (to Allmendream):
“If you are arguing that that (genome, epigenome, etc) which is responsible for making chimps closer to gorrilas than to humans in terms of body plan and functional needs is at the same time closer to that (genome, epigenome, etc) which makes humans diverge from the body plan and functional needs of chimps relative to apes, then I say you and all your materialist coreligionists are full of it.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2135997/posts?q=1&;page=201#235
Can either of you tell me the difference between evolutionarily conserved and evolutionarily constrained?
The entire discussion was about DNA. Now you cite one proviso about epigenome and think that absolves the ignorance of claiming that humans and chimps being more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla was a “logical impossibility”? Not hardly GGG.
Humans and chimps are more similar in DNA, than either is to a gorilla. It is only deluded Creationist thinking that would make you so certain that it was a “logical impossibility”.
Evolutionary conservation means that a sequence is more highly conserved between closely related species than other sequences that do not show evolutionary conservation. Genes and regulatory sequences show the highest evolutionary conservation. Most ERV’s and pseudogenes and repeat sequences show the lowest evolutionary conservation.
It is thought that things that show low evolutionary conservation, are thus not under any evolutionary constraint, because they have no essential function, and can be changed without any ill effect.
Actually, have been mentioning genetics, epigenetics, etc (i.e. the totality of what makes them similar and different) for some time now. As I have said many times, I do not subscribe to the reductionistic (and largely outdated) neo-Darwinian beads-on-string understanding of genetics.
==Why don’t you read it, and then tell me how it answers my question? There “might” be a function for the GULO pseudogene.
I have no idea what you are referring to here. Read what?
==Most ERV’s and pseudogenes and repeat sequences show the lowest evolutionary conservation.
From what I am reading, this is rapidly changing. They are finding all kinds of conserved ERVs and pseudogenes that are highly conserved.
==It is thought that things that show low evolutionary conservation, are thus not under any evolutionary constraint, because they have no essential function, and can be changed without any ill effect.
So how does the neo-Darwinian ToE explain functional sequences that are not constrained?
I suggest you get hold of and read the textbook “DNA Replication” by the late Arthur Kornberg, a Nobel Prize winner. It explains what was known to the early 90s (when it was written) on the subject. I am cited in it and even have a diagram of a method I developed. I have put enough info on FR that you might even figure who I am.
Of course if you creationists read anything but the bible, you’ll burn in hell.
Try it, you may even learn something.
The question to you was not how something was going to get something else. The question was whether something had a use(function) or not? I really don't care whether something avails itself of the use of something, since the question was whether that something had a use or not. A tiger or raccoon or rat can get milk from a teat, whether they choose to or not. And we are called mammals due to the mammary glands possessed by the class. The point being that mammals by default possess the ability to utilize lactose. The just-so story about advantage "How about mutations in the proximal region to the lactase gene that allows people to continue drinking milk into adulthood? Not an advantage?". Well since I don't have a herd of cows, and I enjoy milk and ice cream, I don't quite think I need an "accidental" mutation to continue drinking milk. You yourself have stated that as fact, "Only humans and their domesticated species have made milk drinking a way of life past infancy."
What I do consider as an explanation for difference in lactose metabolism by certain individuals is something along the lines of this analysis within a paper by Dr. James Shapiro.
A 21st Century View of evolution, James A. Shapiro
The importance of the organization of the various lac regulatory sites is that they permit the molecular computations that allow E. coli to discriminate glucose from lactose � that is, to control expression of the lactose metabolic proteins so that they are only synthesized once glucose is no longer available. The basic biochemical reactions and molecular interactions involved in this computation can be stated as logical propositions that can then be combined into partial computations (Table III). These partial computations illustrate the molecular logic allowing the cell to execute the following overall computation: "IF lactose present AND glucose not present AND cell can synthesize active LacZ and LacY, THEN transcribe lacZYA from lacP."
I really care not who you are; the fact that you are an author of deception is sufficient reason to disregard your utterances, and propaganda.
Just because you have a ridgidly held opinion does not make it fact.
Ever actually, you know, READ the book you’re trashing?
You DO understand that his book was only a starting point and that as new discoveries are made the science is adjusted......right?
I don't even say "God didn't do it" (really, who the hell am I to tell anyone that their God doesn't exist just because I don't share their belief? Too bad some believers aren't so accomodating)....only that the empirical evidence that "your God did it" is limited to......a book.......I'll also add the bit of humor that if God created us in "His image".........He is one UGLY God, because Homo habilis was one UGLY dude.
I am never on an anti-religious crusade (heck....been to religious worships more than some that ARE "religious") and only want your religion to be kept out of a science room.....period....it does not belong in a science room. Teach it in any one of the religious studies classes that were available to me.
What’s “fairly easy” to discern is that you have limited knowledge concerning DNA, natural DNA sequence mutation rates, genes, base-pairs, amino acids, proteins, etc....which leads you to make the absurd statement that “DNA is there to prevent evolution.”
“I suggest you get hold of and read the textbook “DNA Replication” by the late Arthur Kornberg, a Nobel Prize winner.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]Which proves I guess, that Kernberg's work was at least as good as that of Albert 'The Earth's gonna boil!' Gore.
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.