Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Junk No More! 80% of the Genome Functional

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
A groundbreaking paper has been published by Nature titled "An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome."

The study finds an "unprecedented number of functional elements," where "a surprisingly large amount of the human genome" appears functional. The paper concludes that 80% of the human genome is now known to be functional.


The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation.

www.nature.com...

The media has picked up on the story.

Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome

Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role

ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome

And what of the other 20%? From the Discover article.


And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described "cat-herder-in-chief". He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. "It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent," says Birney. "We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful."


For the record.




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Why did you have to try and use a genuine scientific discovery to support your pseudo-scientific creationist agenda? It's been speculated for a long time now that "junk" DNA is not just junk, the word fell out of fashion some time ago. How does this in any way support your creationist agenda?

Why are you trying to use legitimate science to discredit other, unrelated legitimate science and support creationist pseudo-science?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

It would appear that atheists like Dawkins have for long time used the argument that a large proportion of DNA is junk to hint that evolution rather than intelligent design came up with life. Why wouldn't the OP present the fact that this little nugget of information strengthens the case for creationism.

Just because scientists are too dumb to to get a handle on the magnificent creation of the human genome they declare whatever they don't understand as junk, Ha!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by squiz
 

It would appear that atheists like Dawkins have for long time used the argument that a large proportion of DNA is junk to hint that evolution rather than intelligent design came up with life.

Citation for this claim, please.


Why wouldn't the OP present the fact that this little nugget of information strengthens the case for creationism.

Citation for this claim, please.


Just because scientists are too dumb to to get a handle on the magnificent creation of the human genome they declare whatever they don't understand as junk, Ha!

Sure... those "dumb scientists" who have decoded the human genome. How's that cave you're living in? Oh yeah, you're not, you're enjoying the same luxuries and privileges of modern scientific discovery as every one else. Hypocrite.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   


Oh yeah, you're not, you're enjoying the same luxuries and privileges of modern scientific discovery as every one else. Hypocrite.
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Citation for this claim, please.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Well, I guess its a step forward that science finally, in 2012, realize that all DNA is needed. Kind of a doh moment for me, but...


john_bmth: Please provide peer reviewed scientific evidence for all your current and historic claims, otherwise you cannot be taken seriously. Im sure you understand.
edit on 9-9-2012 by PrimitiveWorld because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72



Oh yeah, you're not, you're enjoying the same luxuries and privileges of modern scientific discovery as every one else. Hypocrite.
reply to post by john_bmth
 



Citation for this claim, please.

You are posting on the internet using a personal computer for starters. That also requires electricity, so you're clearly on the grid. Do I really need to continue pointing out the glaringly obvious?

Anyway, you still haven't backed up any of the unsubstantiated claims you have made.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Surely you must be aware that computers are completely naturally occurring phenomena and are a result of natural selection. Whilst it is perfectly obvious that many parts of a computer don't actually do anything, it still is an amazing accident of nature.

ETA Oh and so is electricity




Anyway, you still haven't backed up any of the unsubstantiated claims you have made.


You first
edit on 9-9-2012 by kennyb72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Surely you must be aware that computers are completely naturally occurring phenomena and are a result of natural selection. Whilst it is perfectly obvious that many parts of a computer don't actually do anything, it still is an amazing accident of nature.

ETA Oh and so is electricity


You are not making any sense. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?


You first

...except I have, one post above yours. The fact you and others in this thread are using the internet is self-evident of this.

Now, are you going to offer any supporting evidence for your unsubstantiated claims or are you going to keep pushing this thread off-topic?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 




You are not making any sense. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?


If you can't see the relevance in my comments, considering that a computer is primitive toy compared to the complexity of the human body and mind, then you are not tuning into our natural gift for sardonic whit. My comments are certainly on topic if you care to think about it.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


Your comments are off-topic non-sequiturs. You don't get to redefine well understood terms to suite your argument. Now, I've backed up my assertions (that to any rational person are glaringly self-evident) yet you have failed to provide any sources for yours. Are you actually going to back up your claims or are are you going to continue dancing round in circles?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
The media has picked up on the story.

Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
I like the last part of that article:


Birney says that the decade since the publication of the first draft of the human genome has shown that genetics is much more complex than anyone could have predicted. "We felt that maybe life was easier beforehand and more comfortable because we were just more ignorant. The major thing that's happening is that we're losing some of our ignorance and, indeed, it's very complicated," he says. "You've got to remember that these genomes make one of the most complicated things we know, ourselves. The idea that the recipe book would be easy to understand is kind of hubris. I still think we're at the start of this journey, we're still in the warm-up, the first couple of miles of this marathon."
If anyone thought we understood the genome after the first pass at mapping it, that was pretty silly. We are still taking baby steps in understanding our genome.


For the record.
You had a nice story...did you really have to spoil it with that? I guess Dawkins may have one less argument than he had if he accepts these findings? But that's the risk you take when you cite from a branch of science that is still in its infancy. In another decade we'll know a lot more.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
What's with all the faith based creationist nonsense?

This is about DNA. Please take the religious debate over to religious forums.


To the OP, thank you, this is a wonderful find, and very cool.

It'll be nice to see what we can DO with this information, and what possibilities the other 20% as yet undiscovered might hold on offer.

If creationists still want to barge in; I'm all for what this research could indicate on the horizon - RE-creation of ourselves.
Once we know how all the puzzle pieces fit, and how many different ways they fit together, we can work on re-engineering ourselves to FIX all the flaws in this beautiful, but horrible design we've been stuck with.

Have all the biological keys to the kingdom, we very well could redesign ourselves to grow wings, and literally fly, or any number of things much more worthwhile like eliminating diseases, halting and reversing aging, eliminating mortality except where it occurs through accident, or voluntary expiration, re-engineering ourselves to be smarter, faster, stronger, more adaptable, and less prone to the hazards of natural biology.

In that respect, I'm perfectly fine with creationism as it applies to us recreating ourselves.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

What's with all the faith based creationist nonsense?

This is about DNA. Please take the religious debate over to religious forums.


To the OP, thank you, this is a wonderful find, and very cool.
Maybe you didn't notice the source for the last video in the OP is from an anti-evolution organization?

I had no problem with the other links though.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Sorry, Cant be bothered to research all the rubbish that Dawkins spouts just to provide you with an argument. His stance is well understood as a left brained closed minded atheist and he has used this argument as part of his assault on Intelligent design.
Please try to move on as your last few threads have nothing to do with the OP
Thanks.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


So you admit to "not being bothered to research all that rubbish Dawkins spouts" yet you make bold claims about Dawkins, evolution and the scientific community at large? How incredibly ignorant of you.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 




What's with all the faith based creationist nonsense? This is about DNA. Please take the religious debate over to religious forums.


Religion has nothing to do with intelligent design and depending on what you believe, it has nothing to do with science and technology. Science is just trying to make sense of what amounts to magic and not doing a particularly good job at it. How can you have a discussion about DNA and not consider the implications arising from this new understanding ?

As far as recreating ourselves, I shudder to think of the horrific failures that science will create and the souls that will go through hell at the hand of mad scientists like Doctor Moreau. I guess that's OK though as it is all in the name of Science.
edit on 9-9-2012 by kennyb72 because: clarity



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
Why wouldn't the OP present the fact that this little nugget of information strengthens the case for creationism.



It does? All I see is that it strengthens the claim that there is no junk DNA. Plus, do creationists really want to lay the blame for the cancer gene on a competent creator? How about the faulty genes that cause mental retardation, deformities, and all the other genetic diseases. No, you guys don't want to go there.

edit on 9/9/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
While I do support some of the proposals of ID, the reason I posted the video was simply because of the quotes within it, for historical context. I don't agree on everything Wells has to say. In this case he is vindicated. So are many others.

Spin it however you want.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 




do creationists really want to lay the blame for the cancer gene on a competent creator? How about the faulty genes that cause mental retardation, deformities, and all the other genetic diseases. No, you guys don't want to go there.


I'll go there! I blame that bit on natural selection and the environment. Not really
, but every design, if it reproduces itself continuously will introduce errors, I don't think they used Thalidomide or Fluoride in the water or Electromagnetic radiation, or the thousands of scientifically created unnatural substances when the first models came out






top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join