Junk No More! 80% of the Genome Functional

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

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.



Wow you'd really rather waste your own time than try a quick Google search? Is it so hard, or do you just enjoy being arrogant. I googled it and found several relevant sources linking Dawkins and his opinion on junk DNA, don't be so stupid purely for arguments' sake. And don't tell people they have an agenda, I mean, what the f do you know? You're just some chump on a computer thats too lazy to look for himself.

As for the second citation you require (I mean, you couldn't look at it objectively, right?), I'm not sure if you're aware that it is in favor of the creationist view, but as it was previously (by people like Dawkins, google it) used as an argument AGAINST creationism and FOR evolution, then why can't it being proven wrong be in favor of the creationist argument? I'm not sure exactly what citation you are looking for, but an ounce of common sense could have saved us both time.
edit on 9-9-2012 by BelowLowAnnouncement because: spelling




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BelowLowAnnouncement

Wow you'd really rather waste your own time than try a quick Google search? Is it so hard, or do you just enjoy being arrogant.

So it's "arrogant" to expect people to support their claims with evidence? What an enlightened world you inhabit...


I googled it and found several relevant sources linking Dawkins and his opinion on junk DNA, don't be so stupid purely for arguments' sake. And don't tell people they have an agenda, I mean, what the f do you know? You're just some chump on a computer thats too lazy to look for himself.


Then by all means post the scientific source that states junk DNA is evidence of intelligent design.


As for the second citation you require (I mean, you couldn't look at it objectively, right?), I'm not sure if you're aware that it is in favor of the creationist view, but as it was previously (by people like Dawkins, google it) used as an argument AGAINST creationism and FOR evolution, then why can't it being proven wrong be in favor of the creationist argument? I'm not sure exactly what citation you are looking for, but an ounce of common sense could have saved us both time.

See above.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by BelowLowAnnouncement

Wow you'd really rather waste your own time than try a quick Google search? Is it so hard, or do you just enjoy being arrogant.

So it's "arrogant" to expect people to support their claims with evidence? What an enlightened world you inhabit...


I googled it and found several relevant sources linking Dawkins and his opinion on junk DNA, don't be so stupid purely for arguments' sake. And don't tell people they have an agenda, I mean, what the f do you know? You're just some chump on a computer thats too lazy to look for himself.


Then by all means post the scientific source that states junk DNA is evidence of intelligent design.


As for the second citation you require (I mean, you couldn't look at it objectively, right?), I'm not sure if you're aware that it is in favor of the creationist view, but as it was previously (by people like Dawkins, google it) used as an argument AGAINST creationism and FOR evolution, then why can't it being proven wrong be in favor of the creationist argument? I'm not sure exactly what citation you are looking for, but an ounce of common sense could have saved us both time.

See above.


Learn to read, please. I didn't say I googled scientific sources stating junk DNA is evidence of intelligent design, did I? I merely stated you're wasting time asking for easily available evidence (regarding Dawkin's claims of junk DNA, don't try and change what we're talking about), and you respond to me asking for impossible proofs? Grow up. You surely would know if evidence of intelligent design had been found, I get the feeling you're assuming my stance on the matter.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

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.


That's more theological than anyhting else, and worthy of theological discussion for sure.

As for a scientific approach I personlly believe that more discoveries and cures can be found from a design perspective. Regardless of the theological implications. Seeing that the cell is full of nano machinary perhaps we should be including engineering, the science of design? That's all I'd ask. In looking at it from this perspective we might find the answers to some hard questions and the solutions.

Maybe confirming from our own experience simple things like there is no such thing as perfect design?

And theological questions such as if God exists why don't we have heaven on Earth?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Any individual with a bring me the horizon username needs a citation to preserve their homosexuality.
2nd



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:23 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.

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



The problem is science has it wrong and things this complex will never be able to be copied.

Think of this creation has been around billions of years computers have been around a hundred. The universe itself is growing infinitely more complex as processing power increases it can still never catch up. We our genome etc is evolving faster.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ISHAMAGI


The problem is science has it wrong and things this complex will never be able to be copied.

Think of this creation has been around billions of years computers have been around a hundred. The universe itself is growing infinitely more complex as processing power increases it can still never catch up. We our genome etc is evolving faster.


What do you mean?
We already know how to CLONE animals (including people, but shhhh, most people don't like to talk about cloning people).
Cloning = COPY

Thus, yes, we can indeed copy something as complex as the human body by using its own built in tool-set to do the job.
Now it's just a matter of finding out what the other 20% of our genes are, and what they do, as well as what combinations, of what segments, words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and volumes in the GATC lexicon can be changed, edited, revised, rewritten as well as how they can be rewritten to what effects for what number of changes.

We, could perhaps redesign ourselves on the fly, over the counter, with a shot, to effect cosmetic changes like hair color and type, eye colors and shapes, skin pigmentation (or patterns even), metabolism, muscle tone, and several other relatively minor phenotypical changes all with an over the counter, or even off-the shelf injection in just a few decades.

We're approaching a point where evolution through natural selection becomes Evolution on-purpose by choice and self design.

edit on 9-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by BelowLowAnnouncement

Wow you'd really rather waste your own time than try a quick Google search? Is it so hard, or do you just enjoy being arrogant.

So it's "arrogant" to expect people to support their claims with evidence? What an enlightened world you inhabit...


I googled it and found several relevant sources linking Dawkins and his opinion on junk DNA, don't be so stupid purely for arguments' sake. And don't tell people they have an agenda, I mean, what the f do you know? You're just some chump on a computer thats too lazy to look for himself.


Then by all means post the scientific source that states junk DNA is evidence of intelligent design.


As for the second citation you require (I mean, you couldn't look at it objectively, right?), I'm not sure if you're aware that it is in favor of the creationist view, but as it was previously (by people like Dawkins, google it) used as an argument AGAINST creationism and FOR evolution, then why can't it being proven wrong be in favor of the creationist argument? I'm not sure exactly what citation you are looking for, but an ounce of common sense could have saved us both time.

See above.


JOHN WE GET IT....you don't believe in a creator. I am sure this article is like pis- in your cornflakes, but you should take all that energy you are venting at the OP and use it constructively...the OP has been very tolerant to your input...or rather lack there of.

Articles and posts provoke thought...and like it or not...THIS HAS YOU THINKING
Take the energy you have there and go make a new article against this one...your posts are become more and more obviously driven by frustration. Why do you expect the OP should research for you...?? The OP obviously has motivation to research this side of said topic...you should research the part that interests you and then post it on ATS...let the ball fall where it may...you might be right, but you may also be wrong...my OPINION doesn't really matter...BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR UPCOMING THREAD


Can we move on now John?

Take notice several members are cautioning you, not taking sides here...just be reasonable...do you own homework...buy the way you are worked up, I imagine it will be awhile before you can sleep...SO maybe get your work done before bedtime


THANK OP..."Junk is bunk"...finally science is catching up with logic...
edit on 9/9/2012 by Drala because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


You truly embarrassed yourself. You make moronic claims and generalizations and ask self-evident questions that were answered. Then when you can't answer someone else's questions, you go off-topic and used petty 7 year old mannerisms like "I asked you first". Maybe next time you'll learn to think before you talk. (In this case type)

As for the OP, I predicted years ago (to myself) that every bit of the genome had a function. I don't think anything is junk. It seemed like we just didn't understand the "junk" enough to know it wasn't just some waste of information.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


Sorry, Cant be bothered to research all the rubbish that Dawkins spouts just to provide you with an argument.

Translation: I'll just stew in my ignorance and refuse to look at anything that might actually teach me something.


(Dawkins's) 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.

By superstitious idiots, perhaps? Educated people tend to see his arguments as somewhat cogent.


Please try to move on as your last few threads have nothing to do with the OP

Really? Wanna try and show us how they don't?

Arrogance and ignorance make a nasty-tasting combination. Why not try putting your money where your mandibles are, and show us the factual basis for your arguments?

Ah, but then, you don't have any, don't you?

edit on 9/9/12 by Astyanax because: of retarded hymenopterae.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


as usual an atheist comes out of the wood work to defend a fellow atheist when science backfires in their face.

anything to believe they're a monkey.

if they truly believed and understood science, and the astronomical improbability of the things observed being random, they would rethink their position.

but an atheist doesn't care about the truth, they only care about not believing in God, period.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 

I suppose we can't have an IQ qualification for posting on ATS, because then it wouldn't be ATS.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kennyb72
 


Interesting way to put it as if you think about the computer you are using now it is very much a product of natural selection. The software it runs, the interfaces and the hardware running them have all evolved through the years as consumers choose those that best meet their needs at the time and change as these needs evolve.
edit on 9/9/2012 by iforget because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I wish more people could identify metaphor when a statement is obviously out of whack. Oh well I guess the onus is on the communicator to spell it out more clearly



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.


Given that a man made technology like a computer doesn't even come close to the amazing biological complexity of nature, We are expected to believe that from a simple cell we have evolved into this biological miracle. What would be the odds of a computer evolving with all of its software and peripherals by a natural process given time, a few amino acids, a bolt of lightning and hey presto you have a Pentium i7 running Windows 8.

Pretty slim I would imagine and yet all the Darwinist believe that this incredibly high odds miracle happened to every living species on the planet. Science hasn't even come close to explaining life, the spark that exists in every living creature. We are like babies playing in the cockpit of a 747. Why would the creator of this amazing human genome with it's 25 thousand or more genes each packed with precise instructions, introduce junk code into it. It's a preposterous idea and yet some dumbsh!t scientists have had that written into all the text books.

Who or whatever designed us, created a living evolving life form that takes from it's environment to adapt, that part of evolution I agree with but to suggest that we developed from an entirely different species without intelligent intervention is an outrageous and totally unproven hypothesis.

It pains me when I read posts from atheists who think that science is God. They spout on about how clever we are because we have an infinitesimal understanding of the nature of life and yet they never give credit to the creator.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I called this long ago. Calling large sections of that which defines us "junk" after only years of study, when nature's been working this code for millions of years and isn't known for superfluousness, is a prime example of scientific hubris.

Thank goodness we didn't go Gattaca and just drop said junk already. We could easily whipe out some wanted elements of our humanity via such assumptions/mistakes.
edit on 9/9/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

We, could perhaps redesign ourselves on the fly, over the counter, with a shot, to effect cosmetic changes like hair color and type, eye colors and shapes, skin pigmentation (or patterns even), metabolism, muscle tone, and several other relatively minor phenotypical changes all with an over the counter, or even off-the shelf injection in just a few decades.

We're approaching a point where evolution through natural selection becomes Evolution on-purpose by choice and self design.


Yes, we have had the ability to clone humans for years but they won't do it because it's not enough. That's just the first step. They had to figure out how to manipulate that clone to create the type of slaves they want. Do you really think we are going to see this technology for the benefit of mankind or even for something as mundane as changing your appearance at will? Once they have the other 20 percent and prefect the retooling the government will horde it for their own purposes. They can't let their greatest potential weapon belong to the masses. It's like the cure for cancer. We have has many cures for cancer for many years yet, they are all illegal to the general public to have.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I am a biotechnologist. I just read the article.

the nucleotide sequences which were "junk" before are still junk. no new genetic information has been found in the sequence data.

rather, they have made a detailed mapping of regulatory elements of the genome....most of which is a bit of a *yawn*. no doubt useful, but certainly NOT GROUNDBREAKING. sorry.


for those of you interested in the science (rather than the pissing match this thread has become), you should look up the difference between genetics and EPIgenetics.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


It's so funny to see someone support creationism when referring to us re-creating ourselves yet not support the idea of a super advanced race of 'God-like' beings being capable of same, with us.

If we can do it why is it so impossible to admit that another race a long long time ago, who have mastered genetics, could have done the same thing?
edit on 9-9-2012 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


But there are still people that deny epigenetics.

Their argument is -

Lamarckian evolution isn't true.

By using the above, they deny epigenetics and deny that epigenetics support Lamarck's theory.

A modern integrated theory is more and more accepted, but the hardcore sceptic bordering on pseudoscepticism camp think Lamarck is pseudoscience.
edit on 9-9-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
It's so funny to see someone support creationism when referring to us re-creating ourselves yet not support the idea of a super advanced race of 'God-like' beings being capable of same, with us.

If we can do it why is it so impossible to admit that another race a long long time ago, who have mastered genetics, could have done the same thing?
Because this book says otherwise, and nobody has ever proven it wrong:

en.wikipedia.org...

It's nice to see that even the latest research in genetics hasn't proven it wrong.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join