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.
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)
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 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.
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.
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!
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?
Richard Dawkins is not science. Dawkins is a scientist with an opinion on intelligent design/religion.
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
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
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.
From your link:
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
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?
Campaigners believe the messages will provide a "reassuring" antidote to religious adverts that "threaten eternal damnation" to passengers.
YOU are the one who posted the source talking about eternal damnation, not me. This is an example of not worrying about anything?
Originally posted by kennyb72
People who truly believe in a creator do not worry about anything and they probably enjoy life more than most.
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In any case, I will be interested in seeing how Dawkins reacts to these genome findings
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.
Even the scientists don't yet agree. How are "corrections" going to be posted in the media until that happens?
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.
Edit: ahaha someone beat me to someone of the media comments.
I don't see how anyone looks like a fool here.
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.