It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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."
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.
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!
reply to post by john_bmth
Oh yeah, you're not, you're enjoying the same luxuries and privileges of modern scientific discovery as every one else. Hypocrite.
Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by john_bmth
Oh yeah, you're not, you're enjoying the same luxuries and privileges of modern scientific discovery as every one else. Hypocrite.
Citation for this claim, please.
Anyway, you still haven't backed up any of the unsubstantiated claims you have made.
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 first
You are not making any sense. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
I like the last part of that article:
Originally posted by squiz
The media has picked up on the story.
Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome
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.
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."
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.
For the record.
Maybe you didn't notice the source for the last video in the OP is from an anti-evolution organization?
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.
What's with all the faith based creationist nonsense? This is about DNA. Please take the religious debate over to religious forums.
Originally posted by kennyb72
Why wouldn't the OP present the fact that this little nugget of information strengthens the case for creationism.
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.