Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Junk No More! 80% of the Genome Functional

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I'm suggesting the opposite of course. That they came down and advanced us from our primitive form.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Even the scientists don't yet agree. How are "corrections" going to be posted in the media until that happens?


So what ever happened to consensus or peer reviews that are supposed to provide a unified opinion on scientific discoveries, although I do understand what you are saying.

The problem I see, is with subject like Darwins "THEORY" of natural selection. Reading text books and the general consensus of the public, this is not a theory anymore and it is presented as a fact. The whole theory is full of holes and yet this is what is taught to our children. - Agenda anybody! Just more weening people away from spiritual beliefs.

Please excuse my cynicism but I find it hard these days to except what is spoon fed for public consumption.

Respect your opinions though.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
So what ever happened to consensus or peer reviews that are supposed to provide a unified opinion on scientific discoveries, although I do understand what you are saying.
Peer reviews aren't supposed to provide a unified opinion or consensus. They are to make sure the researcher hasn't overlooked some obvious problems with their research. Sometimes the peer reviewed paper contains new evidence that contradicts the previous consensus. As long as the contradictory evidence is sound, this is not only acceptable, this type of new evidence advances science.


The problem I see, is with subject like Darwins "THEORY" of natural selection. Reading text books and the general consensus of the public, this is not a theory anymore and it is presented as a fact. The whole theory is full of holes and yet this is what is taught to our children. - Agenda anybody! Just more weening people away from spiritual beliefs.
That evolution occurred is considered fact, but the exact mechanisms by which it occurred aren't completely understood and there are various theories. And theories in the scientific sense aren't just "guesses".

www.nas.edu...

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."...

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence....

scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
The problem I see, is with subject like Darwins "THEORY" of natural selection. Reading text books and the general consensus of the public, this is not a theory anymore and it is presented as a fact. The whole theory is full of holes and yet this is what is taught to our children.


I think you need a refresher on what the word 'theory' means in a scientific setting. Gravity is a theory. Planetary orbits are a theory. They're very good theories but they're still theories. Theory doesn't mean 'completely and utterly unconfirmed and useless' ... far from it actually. Not sure where you went to school but I was taught that in science class. Evolution was never presented to me as a full answer for everything. Creationism was used as an example of something that isn't a theory or even a testable hypothesis though. I had a good science teacher at one stage at least.

(Side note: there are various mechanisms and forms of evolution that have been proven without a doubt ... I think religious people just focus too much on individual parts of the entire concept and forget there's this whole other side to it)

Will say it is nice that you're actually quite friendly about your opinions though. Is nice.



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


Couple of things here ... they're human. The whole diet thing to me is firmly planted in the popular media to me, and isn't under control by science as a field.

I won't really get into what I think the Christian message is or what Dawkins's efforts are doing or not doing. I do believe people like Dawkins and Hitchens are necessary to represent an unheard group of the masses.


Originally posted by Cherry0
I truly do not see why both science and creation can not co-exist.


I certainly don't disagree! I think the answer is pretty straight forward though ... Science can be on the fence about an intelligent creator, religion can't. By its very nature religion is unfortunately anti-scientific. The closest compromise has been when various scientists have stated the two realms are completely separate ... unfortunately that doesn't help the die hard 100% believers in doctrine and doesn't really impact the moderates either way.

The moderates were always going to be 'okay' with science to a degree. The 100% believers unfortunately gloat over any time science does anything they can try to portray as 'stupid' or 'foolish'. It actually makes me cry a little bit inside that they gloat over bad things happening for the human race as if they wish science never appeared.

It would be a dark dark world without science.
edit on 10-9-2012 by Pinke because: side note



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 




I think you need a refresher on what the word 'theory' means in a scientific setting. Gravity is a theory. Planetary orbits are a theory. They're very good theories but they're still theories. Theory doesn't mean 'completely and utterly unconfirmed and useless' ... far from it actually.




Arbitrageur.... It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."...


If you where to ask a child who has completed several years at school, how has life come to be on our planet, they will proudly tell you that that it is because of natural selection and go into great detail explaining what they have been taught. These children do not understand the scientific definition of the word theory, at least not at the age they are taught about Darwin theory. Later in their schooling they may have that explained to them but indoctrination has already occurred. I can't see why people don't understand how manipulative that all is.

As I explained earlier, I have no love for religion or it's vile history, I get all the knowledge I need from my intuition, I am probably over active in a right brain sense but there are things that the scientific community are not even aware of, or not prepared to consider because of the lack of empirical proof. To use an old hackneyed phrase "there is more ways of knowing than reading a book". I could fill my own book with experiences that have proved to me beyond any doubt of the existence of God, I know I am blessed simple as that.

You see, already I can visualize your eyes glazing over with "Oh my, another new age nutter" but from my stance I see pragmatic narrow focused scientists as looking too much into the detail and not being aware of the whole picture. Without that perspective they can't even see that they are down a blind alley without a hope in hell of getting to the truth. Did it never occur to the scholars at CERN that the God particle may actually be a single mind that binds matter and our lives together in an illusion.

Physics and Metaphysics - and never the twain shall meet. If it ever does the whole body of scientific knowledge will disappear out of the window because it never really existed and our laws of physics only apply to this tiny little reality. Oh and DNA to keep on topic
Great chatting to you nice people, in my tiny little existence it is time for bed.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
These children do not understand the scientific definition of the word theory, at least not at the age they are taught about Darwin theory. Later in their schooling they may have that explained to them but indoctrination has already occurred. I can't see why people don't understand how manipulative that all is.


This is actually one of the better ways of wording this argument for teaching intelligent design I've heard in my life. I don't agree with it, but you should be congratulated on it.

I was going to write a good reply, but we're probably digressing a bit further from the point and it's becoming a little bit less about junk DNA every post we make.


You have been really nice about the whole conversation though! And I would ask you to consider wandering along to the debate forum. I imagine myself and others there would find you a good addition, and I'd happily debate you on this or any other topics.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
YO Pinke - Am I invited toooooooo?

FYI - Clear headed thinkers have always said that God doesn't make junk.......the criminal scientific atheistic community invented the term "junk DNA" to further their evolutionary nonsense - DNA and the human genome is the language of God - "THE WORD" - people like Dawkins and Hawking et al., in comparison produce "Gangsta Rap" - atheistic fools.........in denial of God's wonder of creation.
edit on 10-9-2012 by de_Genova because: pre-



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Not surprising that this is what you were taught in class, the definitions to the words changed twice since 2000 in the textbooks. I wish I still had my old textbooks from college. The definitions in there were something else.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


No one likes a suck up. If "God" does, I'm glad I'm not Christian. Seriously, my friend, you sound pitiful.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Previous pope did: Here.
Random CS Lweis theological debate. This is to see that there's more than 1 layer to what "could be".

There's just so little to go on that really having an opinion on hell is like a Flu or Anthrax scare. The disease exists, it can kill you, but people give it much more credit than they should when they set out to fear it.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I think this is the only post of yours I've ever agreed with..

Odd.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

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.


Hey, BigF! Hope your friend is doing better today. Listen, I just googled 'cancer gene' and came up with 537,000,000 hits. There's even a link for cancer gene therapy.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


That only means that there's 100,000,000+ people who believe in it. After all, there's probably a few thousand hits for "flat earth", but that doesn't mean it has any credence.

Just pointing it out.



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

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by de_Genova
 


No one likes a suck up. If "God" does, I'm glad I'm not Christian. Seriously, my friend, you sound pitiful.


Sorry to hear that - for it means you'll burn in Hell - i.e., no chance at paradise - we'll be praying for you though - just in case.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
 


That only means that there's 100,000,000+ people who believe in it. After all, there's probably a few thousand hits for "flat earth", but that doesn't mean it has any credence.

Just pointing it out.


You just HAD to tweak my interest!

Flat earth receives 13,400,000 hits.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj


Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
 


That only means that there's 100,000,000+ people who believe in it. After all, there's probably a few thousand hits for "flat earth", but that doesn't mean it has any credence.

Just pointing it out.


You just HAD to tweak my interest!

Flat earth receives 13,400,000 hits.


Take out about 100,000 (grossly exaggerated, btw) links to advert sites and search engines, and... still have over 13,000,000. I rest my case.
edit on 10-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


the subject of the Nature article is MODIFICATIONS to the underlying sequence. modifications as such do not alter the A T C G base sequence: the sequence remains unchanged.

for example, a process known as 'methylation', depending on the location of the methylated nucleotide, can either shut down or amplify production of the associated gene. a methylated nucleotide does not necessarily have to be part of the coding-sequence.

it has long been known that these types of extra-genetic modifications far outnumber the genes themselves and have a profound impact on genetic expression.

ENCODE, as described in the article, is a catalogue of such modifications. reread the abstract, its right there.
edit on 10-9-2012 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Here is the abstract. It is more than just epigenetic markers. It's also about the regions of DNA bases that control epigentics.


The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. 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. The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease, and can thereby guide interpretation of this variation. Overall, the project provides new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome, and is an expansive resource of functional annotations for biomedical research.


It is actually only the lead paper to 30 other papers.
www.nature.com...#/threads

If the majority of bases are still unknown they could not be making the claim they are making could they?

My interpretation is that the controls for the methylation process is found in the non coding regions.

It's the work of hundreds of scientists and many, many studies from labs all over the world. Yet (as expected) the usuall suspects on the blogosphere are already complaining, playing down the results and accusing the researchers of hype etc... they are also the ones who commonly used the junk hypothesis as evidence for their argument and falsification for others. It's amusing seeing them squirm. It's like the death of a loved one and they are in denial. They are unknowingly driven more by religion than they think.

edit on 10-9-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


everything listed in the highlighted area of that quote is within the bounds of epigenetics.

yes, I downplayed it. I clarify this by stating that there is nothing that I read about in that article which I have not already been made familiar with in several undergraduate courses, mainly molecular biology. so again, I do think it will lead to great advances in the field.....but when I think of recatagorizing "junk" DNA (a dreadful term), my expectations are much higher than what this article provides.

WRT "majority of bases unknown": the quote refers to the FUNCTION of the bases being unknown....not the base sequences themselves. notice that they do not claim to have found any new FUNCTIONS for the known sequences. rather, they have mapped biochemical "signposts" located in the genomic "outback". there is a big difference.


MAKE NO MISTAKE!!!!---the genome has been definitively mapped. all human genetic products (proteins) have been accounted for.


IMO, the "junk" is still, unfortunately, junk.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

reply to post by tgidkp
 

Thanks for the clarification. I read it the same way squiz did that it goes beyond epigenetics, but it's entirely possible I'm wrong so I'm not going to try to defend that idea until I read the papers which I haven't done yet.

From what I've read so far, the authors indirectly assert that the 80% figure is "not conservative" which is a sentiment echoed by various blogs by people that seem to know more about this than I do. In other words, a more conservative number would be lower than that at this point. This alone would seem to he reason to downplay the 80% number if even the authors themselves can't fully support it. But I'll know more after I read some of the papers, though that will take some time and I haven't done that yet.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join