Skip to comments.'Junk' DNA Mystery Solved: It's Not Needed
Posted on 05/12/2013 6:18:58 PM PDT by BenLurkin
So-called junk DNA, the vast majority of the genome that doesn't code for proteins, really isn't needed for a healthy organism, according to new research.
"At least for a plant, junk DNA really is just junk it's not required," said study co-author Victor Albert, a molecular evolutionary biologist at the University of Buffalo in New York.
Albert and his colleagues sequenced the genome of the carnivorous bladderwort plant, Utricularia gibba, which lives in wet soil or fresh water throughout the world and sucks swimming microorganisms into its tiny, 1-milimeter-long bladders.
The genome had just 80 million base pairs. Compared with most other plant species, that genome was positively tiny, Albert said. The lily genome, for instance, can have 40 billion base pairs.
Yet the bladderwort had about 28,500 genes, not much different from plants of similar type and complexity.
The difference was in the junk: The bladderwort plant seemed to have stripped out a vast amount of noncoding DNA. Yet the plant did just fine without that material.
In fact, through a genetic quirk the bladderwort had its entire genome duplicated meaning the plant got two full copies of the genome three separate times since it diverged from the tomato. Yet the carnivorous plant somehow retained its tiny genome.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
So, take out the Junk and see how the GM plant works.
Then along comes quantum physics and all bets are off. Silly rabbit.
Bwahahahaha ~ a mere shadow of itself.
One genome’s junk is another genome’s treasure.
DNA could not be formed by chance.
But it has to, to keep their paradigm alive
I remember when the appendix was not needed, and the coccyx was an unnecessary evolutionary holdover.
This is just noise. We were just told last fall the exact opposite. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Junk DNA may be vestigial remnants from an earlier ancestor much like a human tail bone is a vestigial remnant.
Nonsense. Nothing is redundant in nature. Just give these “evolutionary biologists” enough time and they will make fools of themselves. “Sequencing the genome of wheat was unusually daunting because the wheat genome is five times the size of the human genome, and has 94,000 to 96,000 genes.” This is according to the USDA. Science has become a billboard of opinions for those who need attention.
I am also sure most of us remember when the scientists did not know DNA existed. With every discovery they act as though they know everything there is to know. I have worked with people like that and they usually know just enough to be dangerous.
You realize that the tailbone (coccyx) has important functionality in humans and is no longer considered vestigial.
The poor souls that had their tailbone removed thanks to evolutionary theory suffered excruciating pain as a result.
Take out the junk and see how the Federal Government performs.
If one were to take out all of the Federal Gov’t Junk, could one still find the Feds?
God doesn’t create “junk”; watch in another couple years they’re going to say: ‘this is vital for some function’!
We were perfectly “designed”. Why else would males have nipples?
That can happen several ways that might concern us. A new star forms and quite early in the cycle it begins spewing WATER out of its poles at high speed.
That's gotta' be 50,000 atmospheres or greater.
That star is also spewing all sorts of atoms and molecules out with that water.
The hard trick is getting a molecular structure to take on a double-helix form ~ the star takes care of that. The rest of the trick is trivial ~ and most likely the process is so common wherein DNA is actually produced, in situ, in the water being spewed from a new star that discussions of random chance simply aren't of any utility
This story is about plants; the other story is about animals. We are different. Remember, God brought in the plants from SOMEWHERE ELSE ~ that’s how you plant a garden eh!
“DNA could not be formed by chance.”
It is not formed by chance alone, it is formed by thermodynamics. Life consumes energy and orders itself by increasing the entropy of its environment. It is ridiculously simple to understand, if you are not burdened by nonsensical dogma. A little probability theory, and a little game theory, and you pretty much know the rules. You should give it a try.
Some say that God achieves His natural goals by using His natural laws. I can live with that.
What difference, at this time, does it make?!?
Well, ya never know. Thanks, but I’ll keep all my junk, if you don’t mind.
Sounds like you believe in evolution.
Note: this topic is from 5/12/2013. Thanks BenLurkin.
” i’d like to see what would happen if they took all the stuff they consider “junk” out and then grew them “
I wonder if there would be fewer food allergies?
Finally, I just said, "Okay, you win! I give! I admit that your long tailbone is proof that you, personally, evolved from a monkey!"
Even our other evolutionist friends thought that was hilarious.
I don’t know... it’s like they say that we only use 5 is just 15% f the brain. Well I think we use 100% but the other 85% is operating system.
imagine how much programming would be involved to have a sensor with as many connections as the nerves in your body, that would instantly take over and focus attention on any one specific one (like if you got poked in the arm)
Heck, it’s 2015. There probably a new scientific “conclusion”(or two) on the subject by now.
"Junk DNA Not Junk After All"
Also, a Christian site "icr.org" refutes this finding saying it is based upon circular reasoning with a base of needing to start with an evolutionary perspective, which they are afraid a lack of junk DNA refutes.
"The Resurrection of 'Junk DNA'?"
Also interestingly, according to this article, Ewan Birney, ENCODEs lead analysis coordinator is himself an evolutionist.
"Junk DNA Myth Continues Its Demise"
(Excerpt with underline added.)......
The second phase of ENCODE has been no less spectacular in its discoveries. In the lead research paper, published in the journal Nature, the authors wrote, These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.1
And what about the remaining 20 percent of the genomeis it functional too? According to Ewan Birney, ENCODEs lead analysis coordinator, it is probably not meaningless junk either. Birney said, Its likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent and we dont really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isnt that useful.4
Despite being an evolutionist himself, Birney expects that many critics will argue about the 80 percent figure and the definition of what is functional. Birney added, [That figure] best [conveys] the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity and no matter how you cut it, weve got to get used to the fact that theres a lot more going on with the genome than we knew.4