Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Junk No More! 80% of the Genome Functional

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Everytime I see this I cannot help but keel over in laughter. It is a brilliant satirical work.




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

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)


There really aren't "cancer genes". At least, not in our stock DNA. Cancer is typically caused by cellular damage (fungus are known cancer causing agents) as well as viruses.

And consider this for a moment: viruses, simply put, are nothing more than genetic "upgrades". No, they may not upgrade you...but they can alter you on a genetic level.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
whoever says any DNA is junk is a disinfo agent

you have main stream science and secret science



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Here is advice for Dawkins and similar hardcore sceptics/pseudosceptics, Lamarck is not pseudoscience.

You will immediately stop many critics if you stop denying Lamarck and by proxy epigenetics.

Really, start from 2005 or so and take a look at how many recent modern peer reviewed papers on proposing and defining a new evolutionary theory integrating Lamarck's ideas that are supported by epigenetics were published.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
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.
I looked up epigenetics, which talks about "changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence". But the topic of the nature article is apparently about the underlying DNA sequence. So I don't see how epigenetics applies to the nature article which is the topic of this thread. What am I missing?


Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Everytime I see this I cannot help but keel over in laughter. It is a brilliant satirical work.

When people say science doesn't know how life started, they're right.
So if we're going to start listing lots of hypotheticals to explain what's not explained, I don't see why that should be excluded just because it's supposedly satire.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Here's a little more info. It's very significant, for many reasons.





Science Daily article.
www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
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!


Richard Dawkins is not science. Dawkins is a scientist with an opinion on intelligent design/religion.

Science corrected its theory on genetics with new findings. That is what science does. That is why it is so freaking awesome. A pope didn't do it, a rabbi didn't do it, someone with some God granted authority didn't did stand on a podium and say 'look we've changed our minds' ... A human did it with no authority what so ever other than knowledge and data. They looked at the data, they did an experiment, and our knowledge expanded and our theories changed. This will start new hypothesis and more research and it will continue. It's freaking beautiful and awesome!

To me it's miles away from any number of religious groups and thoughts which assume they're correct and arrange the jigsaw later.

I've had religious types ask me 'what if you're wrong?' and my answer is 'what if you're wrong?' If I'm wrong, and I notice, I update myself with new knowledge. If my creator can't understand that, then I can't understand my creator.

Even Dawkins admits (to his credit) that he can't be 100% sure if there is or isn't a creator, it's just not possible to know 100%. I also fondly remember Hitchens stating that 'I don't know' is a perfectly reasonable answer; we should be wary of the people that say 'I do know' more than the people who don't.


Originally posted by LightAssassin
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?


Honestly, I'd be okay with this if it ever happened. I'd like to think if God did come down from the sky we would investigate the creature's origin just like anything else new we find.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 




Richard Dawkins is not science. Dawkins is a scientist with an opinion on intelligent design/religion.


I accept your viewpoint that science does adapt and respond to new data. My gripe is that science is blind insomuch that if evidence isn't available, they spread their lack of knowledge as if it is a fact, the labeling of junk DNA being the point in question.

I think it is 70% of the worlds top scientists that do not believe in a creator and the reason being is, that given their limited understanding they declare there is no God. They say they can see how the universe works without a creator(Hawkins). What is so clever about scientists who don't even understand the nature of matter or consciousness to reject other points of view simply because they don't have the data to prove it one way or the other.

It is 2012 and science probably knows less than 1% (OK prove me wrong) of the true reality of nature and yet they are happy to go about influencing people who don't think for themselves. Have them believe they know enough to make bold statement regarding the origins of life.

These new studies have the greatest minds on earth scratching their heads at the mind boggling complexity of these switches that are a part of our DNA. I swear this will end up like quantum physics and they will discover that the deeper they look the more complex it will become.

Dawkins is a scientist who should keep his ignorant views to himself rather than setting up an atheist organization that funds billboards on the sides of buses saying "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Bus Advertising

So who is this half wit who know next to nothing about the nature of the universe to try to influence young impressionable minds with all the negative connotations behind his adverts

People who truly believe in a creator do not worry about anything and they probably enjoy life more than most.

If Dawkins or any scientist for that matter are true to their religion they should keep their uninformed views to themselves because they have become the new high priests and people take their word as gospel. ironic huh!



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


sangerinstitute

The GENCODE Consortium has found 50% more genes than previously thought.Among their discoveries, the team describe more than 10,000 novel genes, identify genes that have 'died' and others that are being resurrected.

The GENCODE Consortium has developed a reference gene catalogue that has been the underpinning of the larger ENCODE Project, a large collaborative project aimed to find and describe all functional elements of our genome.The GENCODE Consortium is part of the ENCODE Project that on 5 September 2012, publishes 30 research papers describing findings from their nearly decade-long effort



 

www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2012/120905.html
edit on 10-9-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
My gripe is that science is blind insomuch that if evidence isn't available, they spread their lack of knowledge as if it is a fact, the labeling of junk DNA being the point in question.
They don't spread science as if it is a fact. By saying that they do, you are exposing how little you know about science, above and beyond all your other comments which demonstrate a lack of understanding of science. The big difference between science and religion is that all science is falsifiable by new evidence, so when scientists change their beliefs based on new evidence, you apparently see this as some kind of failure of science, but it is in fact the very nature of the scientific process.


Originally posted by kennyb72
So who is this half wit who know next to nothing about the nature of the universe to try to influence young impressionable minds with all the negative connotations behind his adverts
From your link:


Campaigners believe the messages will provide a "reassuring" antidote to religious adverts that "threaten eternal damnation" to passengers.
I suppose the campaigners think impressionable minds should be exposed to a variety of alternative ideas, from eternal damnation to no eternal damnation. But I'm not sure what this has to do with the human genome?


Originally posted by kennyb72
People who truly believe in a creator do not worry about anything and they probably enjoy life more than most.
YOU are the one who posted the source talking about eternal damnation, not me. This is an example of not worrying about anything?

In any case, I will be interested in seeing how Dawkins reacts to these genome findings.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Thanks for saving me the trouble of investigating this claim.

If our DNA were truly so unlocked, we wouldn't still be such idiots. We would be Conscious, with a capital 'C'.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well, of course I would. It supports the fall of humanity from Grace. And as for the "but how can a loving God do this?!?!" got to remember, that if a Creator God could create you magically, he can recreate you at any moment. So, just one cancer that kills you is so no automatically the end of the conversation. But Meh.

Also: if it strengthens the claim that there is no junk DNA, then assumptions made in the scientific field that are based off junk DNA need to be revised...and we're still holding off on that. Sometimes I think that Creationism is needed just to point out the holes that need to be shored up in another theory, right or wrong. Take what's useful from the Creationist's standpoint: there's no junk DNA, and oh this finding shows a heck of a lot less junk, and start looking carefully at junking junk DNA-based assumptions. That's all.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 

Just a point: you use knowledge to clone, and then design a copy, right? The act of putting our hands in it makes us designers--whether or not the original was designed.

-----------------------
reply to post by iforget
 


When you make a choice, you're designing. True, computers are design by committee, in a lot of cases, so it's rough to follow, and might as well be outright evolution, but that's something else.

reply to post by kennyb72
 


Generally teaching theories instead of: teaching the data that is found, so far, and remaining mostly silent on things that haven't got a lot to back them up by? Somewhere between your point and what those who are going to state the opposite. Junk DNA shouldn't have really been much more than a passing commentary about some theories about DNA before mapping or the point that we're at now. But it's been a hinge in some arguments (for or against), out there, and is taught rather obsessively. That's a huge issue. Really, this should stay in the realm of passive until we successfully clone a human (or another creature) with all the excesses removed. We're not ready to do that yet.
edit on 10-9-2012 by CynicalDrivel because: MOAR! Because multiple posts are annoying.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




They don't spread science as if it is a fact. By saying that they do, you are exposing how little you know about science, above and beyond all your other comments which demonstrate a lack of understanding of science. The big difference between science and religion is that all science is falsifiable by new evidence, so when scientists change their beliefs based on new evidence, you apparently see this as some kind of failure of science, but it is in fact the very nature of the scientific process.


Then why would they call an unknown element of the human DNA junk, why wouldn't they say there is much we don't understand about the nature of DNA and that the jury is still out. What does junk mean to the layperson? It means it is worthless or of no consequence. I think scientists need to speak less authoritatively in regards to their present knowledge because when the next piece of evidence comes along they will look like fools again. At one time I used to have an immense respect for science until I realized that their findings or at least what is revealed is subject to political and financial agendas.



I suppose the campaigners think impressionable minds should be exposed to a variety of alternative ideas, from eternal damnation to no eternal damnation.


There is only one message and that is don't believe in God and so there are no consequences for your actions so off you go and stab a few people to death. I know, I know over the top but it gets my point across.



But I'm not sure what this has to do with the human genome?


Nothing actually, sorry the scope of my gripe became too wide.




YOU are the one who posted the source talking about eternal damnation, not me. This is an example of not worrying about anything?


I will be very disappointing if I am eternally damned after trying so hard to be a good person. At this point in time I am not worried about that at all




In any case, I will be interested in seeing how Dawkins reacts to these genome findings


So will I
edit on 10-9-2012 by kennyb72 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
Then why would they call an unknown element of the human DNA junk, why wouldn't they say there is much we don't understand about the nature of DNA and that the jury is still out. What does junk mean to the layperson?
One problem we as a society have is that the media doesn't always communicate science accurately. For example, there are lots of articles about things going faster than light in the media, and when I read the papers, what they say isn't what what's communicated in the media.

I think this is part of the problem with the "junk DNA" claim, which if you look at the sources in the OP, the expression is in quotes...why do you suppose that is? Is it because the scientific papers often don't call it "Junk DNA"? Have you read the papers? I think that's what people were getting at earlier in the thread, when questioning sources.

So keep in mind what the media says and what the scientists say don't always match. If you really want to know what the scientists are saying, you have to read their papers, which I know is hard, but the media just isn't that reliable. It's not even that the media are necessarily trying to mislead us (though in some cases that's possible), the problem is that the news writers often don't understand the science themselves well enough to explain it, plus they want attention grabbing headlines so they look for catchy phrases to use that increase ratings even if they are somewhat inaccurate.

The 80 percent number depends on definitions and it's not engraved in stone::

ksj.mit.edu...

Another hazard of this story is that there’s still a raging disagreement among scientists about how much of the genome is made up of these regulatory elements and how much is unemployed and possibly unemployable. Experiments that were part of the project showed that 80 percent of the non-coding DNA was functional, which led to much grousing over the meaning of functional.

Skeptics are saying those experiments merely show this DNA is potentially active but that doesn’t mean it’s essential. U of Washington researcher Josh Akey said much of this “functional” DNA could still be filled with mutations that would have no effect on you or your health. He posits that as little as 2-3 percent of this non-coding stuff is essential. Others are convinced that all 80% is functional and essential, and they will soon find 100% of our genome is doing important work.
As my first post in this thread pointed out, our understanding of the human genome is still in its infancy. It seems to me that we probably need at least another decade to improve our understanding to be able to settle the debates about how to define "functional" versus "potentially active" versus "essential" and sort out how much of the human genome actually fits these definitions.
edit on 10-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
Then why would they call an unknown element of the human DNA junk, why wouldn't they say there is much we don't understand about the nature of DNA and that the jury is still out. What does junk mean to the layperson? It means it is worthless or of no consequence.


The following is from an old wikipedia write up:


While this indicates that noncoding DNA should not be indiscriminately referred to as junk DNA, the lack of sequence conservation in a majority of noncoding DNA with no known function indicates that much of it may indeed be without function.


Source

I'm not sure what you're science sources are but the vast majority of scientists I talk to do nothing but face palm about the beliefs of ordinary people and start most sentences with 'well actually ...' or 'not true, but ...'.

I didn't even prod much and there are research articles as early as 1994 pointing out that junk DNA may play vital roles in genome function. Junk DNA is referred to in quotations in these articles since it isn't the correct terminology exactly.


I think scientists need to speak less authoritatively in regards to their present knowledge because when the next piece of evidence comes along they will look like fools again.


I don't see how anyone looks like a fool here.

I will acknowledge one thing, the popular media doesn't do anyone any favors. Channels like Discovery I supsect cause half the problem. It's one part popular media mixed with one part naivity to create the problem. It's naive to think the popular media can distill a 80, 000 word (for argument's sake) thesis/pile of research material into a 22 - 24 minute doco and actually present themselves honestly ... The popular media doesn't help by being the popular media.

It often takes the media quite some time to catch up on scientific issues and prior to the internet it took science itself some time to catch up to itself .... Common things believed that aren't true:

* commonly people think that evolution is meant to produce 'better' all of the time
* brain cells can't regenerate
* alcohol always kills brain cells,
* sugar causes hyperactivity in children
* we only use a small percentage of our brains
* the big bang is an explanation on the creation of the universe
* and my personal favourite ... ginger haired people are going to become extinct. This was reported by many media outlets but isn't true.

The junk DNA thing will fit right in there.


There is only one message and that is don't believe in God and so there are no consequences for your actions so off you go and stab a few people to death. I know, I know over the top but it gets my point across.


I take huge amounts of offense at that.

If the only thing holding you back from becoming an axe murderer is your belief in someone looking over your shoulder and noticing ... Then I think you're being a good person for the wrong reasons.



In any case, I will be interested in seeing how Dawkins reacts to these genome findings


I honestly doubt it will have a huge effect to be honest. Having read Dawkin's arguments on the issue, the entire argument he presents doesn't rely on junk DNA being junk. I guess I'm also not sure where the constant referral to scientific arrogance comes from ... even reading Chris Hitchens' works there are constant references to being humble, small, lucky, and not knowing anything.

If anything Hitchens promoted fear of those who say they know everything (i.e in this case your belief in God) rather than the idea that he knew everything. Dawkins is somewhat similar, acknowledging he doesn't know for certain if God exists, he's just pretty sure he doesn't.

(Dawkins on the other hand is a bit arrogant with wanting to referr to athiests as 'brights' and thus claiming higher intelligence ... Hitchens himself disagree with this.)

Edit: ahaha someone beat me to someone of the media comments.
edit on 10-9-2012 by Pinke because: Media Comments



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I am afraid that in the case of DNA, the term junk DNA has become a household term. Wouldn't you think that given the fact that an important scientific breakthrough such as the mapping of the human genome would be substantiated and any error in reporting in the MSM would be quickly corrected. Perhaps it satisfied some agenda that this misconception was allowed to breath.

Off topic again, my apologies but the MSM recently reported with much fanfare, that the God particle - Higgs Boson had been identified. Within days the MSM said that scientists had to back track because results where inconclusive. So which is it? yes or no. I have yet to hear which of these report are correct. Is this going to be another misunderstanding that will be allowed to breath for political reasons.



So keep in mind what the media says and what the scientists say don't always match. If you really want to know what the scientists are saying, you have to read their papers, which I know is hard, but the media just isn't that reliable.


How can we consider this to be transparent and honest science. We could all wake up one day with NASA announcing that they have discovered life on Mars. We then read a white paper that says their instruments actually picked up microbes transported from earth and that it was a false reading. Do you suppose that NASA wouldn't be quick to dispel the original announcement or perhaps they would allow the lie to live to avoid embarrassment. I am sorry but I don't think the MSM misrepresentation of something as important would go unaddressed.

It seems to me that the scientific profession are allowed to throw out a few crumbs to keep the ignorant masses happy, after all we do payroll most of their research, and who cares if the waters are muddied. As I pointed out earlier Science is the new collectivists religion and anything they say is accepted because they are our new Gods, what a quaint new way to control the masses.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Great post. It's nice to see some breaking news on the science of DNA. However, I do find it silly that we even need scientists to tell us that most of our DNA is not "junk" DNA. It seems obvious to me. But I'm glad it's being put forward to the public.

On a side note: In regards to the back and forth arguments on science vs. creationism throughout this thread, I have always tried to keep an open mind on various topics, especially that of the metaphysical kind.

Throughout my years of observation and research, I have come to the conclusion that there is just too much we do not know or understand yet, particularly about us and the universe. To completely write off creationism, as it's called, would be to close your mind to all the possibilities. Actually, many quantum physicists have written about theories of life beyond the physically observable and I believe it will be quantum physics that will give us more answers over time into this phenomenon.

I truly do not see why both science and creation can not co-exist. I love science but I also believe that there is knowledge way beyond our understanding in which humanity does not yet possess and would take time before it is uncovered. I look at it as a huge puzzle scattered all over the cosmos that we are slowly picking up the pieces to and putting back together.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
I am afraid that in the case of DNA, the term junk DNA has become a household term. Wouldn't you think that given the fact that an important scientific breakthrough such as the mapping of the human genome would be substantiated and any error in reporting in the MSM would be quickly corrected.
Even the scientists don't yet agree. How are "corrections" going to be posted in the media until that happens?

There are still people that think Mars rock ALH84001 might contain signs of life, but it took a while for scientists to mostly agree that it's at best inconclusive and that has been communicated, but it didn't happen instantly because the scientists had to research it.

Richard Feynman once said something to the effect that the real world isn't as simple as a ball bearing on a spring. The human genome and how it works is probably one of the most complex things we've studied. I think eventually a consensus will be reached, but we still don't know if the genome is 100% functional, 80% functional, or 20% functional, and how to define the word "functional". This stuff is really complicated. Give it another 10 years, then we might know, and that information will find its way to the media.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 




Edit: ahaha someone beat me to someone of the media comments.


Yes I sort of stated my opinion on that, opinion being the operative word. You see, I am not in the public eye and so my opinion means diddly squat, however famous scientists have an aura of respectability that is very persuasive even if they are just espousing their opinions.



I don't see how anyone looks like a fool here.


Well of course they look like fools, within my lifetime I can't count the times that dietary recommendation have been changed because they got it wrong on previous announcements and In the meantime countless people have damaged or destroyed their health following the recommendations of the "experts"

As I mentioned in another post If they don't want to look like fools then they need to ensure that their findings or conclusions are not misrepresented.



I take huge amounts of offense at that. If the only thing holding you back from becoming an axe murderer is your belief in someone looking over your shoulder and noticing ... Then I think you're being a good person for the wrong reasons.


I am not a religious person so I will quickly clarify that fact, I do believe in a creator and in that I have absolute faith..

There are people who live in our communities today and throughout history who have a difficult time understanding the difference between right and wrong, Religion for all it's shortcomings has helped provide some kind of moral compass.

The Christian message in it's purest form is there to provide a roll model for the aspirations of those who want to lead a good life. The whole hell and damnation bit is for those who care little about the safety and well being of others and if it takes a little fire and brimstone to pursued them to be considerate and not to kill others then how is that a bad thing?

Christianity in fact does not talk about hell and damnation, that is all OT stuff.

If Dawkins antidote to religious billboards preaching Hell and damnation, in his own "expert" opinion "their probably is no God", then all he is really achieving is removing any impediment from these idiots who run around stabbing people in the street for fun.

And no, that has nothing to do with the human DNA sorry, rambling again.









 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join