Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Junk DNA may not be so junky after all
EurekAlert ^ | March 23, 2006 | Johns Hopkins Staff

Posted on 03/29/2006 5:46:20 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

Researchers develop new tool to find gene control regions

Researchers at the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins have invented a cost-effective and highly efficient way of analyzing what many have termed "junk" DNA and identified regions critical for controlling gene function. And they have found that these control regions from different species don't have to look alike to work alike.

The study will be published online at Science Express March 23.

The researchers developed a new system that uses zebrafish to test mammalian DNA and identify DNA sequences, known as enhancers, involved in turning on a gene. In studying RET, the major gene implicated in Hirschsprung disease and multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN2), the team identified DNA sequences that can control RET but had not been identified using standard methods. Hirschsprung disease, also known as congenital megacolon, is a relatively common birth defect marked by bowel obstruction. MEN2 is an inherited predisposition to neuroendocrine cancers.

The notion that mutations in enhancers play a role in human disease progression has been difficult to confirm because usually enhancers are located in the 98 percent of the human genome that does not code for protein, termed non-coding DNA. Unlike DNA sequences that code for protein, non-coding DNA, sometimes referred to as "junk" DNA, follows few rules for organization and sequence patterns and therefore is more difficult to study.

"The difficulty with human genetic approaches to common disease is that we lack the power to precisely localize DNA sequences that are associated with disease, often leaving us immense stretches of DNA to look at," says one of the study's corresponding authors, Andy McCallion, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the McKusick-Nathans Institute. Most often one is limited to looking in the most obvious places, which may not yield the best results. "Until now," he says, "we've only been able to look under the lamplights for the car keys."

Traditionally, DNA sequences are thought to have to look similar to function similarly; this is how scientists identify genes in other species, a strategy best used for studying similar species. From an evolutionary standpoint, the last common ancestor of human and zebrafish lived more than 300 million years ago. Because DNA sequences in each species have changed over time, traditional methods of comparing DNA sequences between humans and zebrafish have failed to identify any potential enhancers around the RET gene because the DNA sequences differ too much.

That drove the Hopkins researchers to seek and develop this new system, by which virtually any DNA sequence can be tested for its ability to turn on a marker gene in zebrafish embryos. The system is a significant advance over current methods in this model species, allowing researchers to study more sequences in a shorter period of time. Using this, they identified several human enhancers able to control expression consistent with the zebrafish ret gene.

Zebrafish have become the ideal system for doing these types of large scale studies. They are small - only about a half inch in length - they grow quickly, and are relatively inexpensive to maintain compared to mice or rats. "Zebrafish are the only vertebrate embryo you can even think about doing this type of work in," says Shannon Fisher, M.D., Ph.D., the study's first author and an assistant professor in cell biology in Johns Hopkins' Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences.

The researchers' next steps are further study of the RET enhancers they found to identify other mutations that might contribute to Hirschsprung disease and MEN2, and to entice other investigators to collectively build a database of human enhancers. "If there's one thing we've learned here, it's that we are not very good at recognizing enhancers. We just don't know what they look like," says Fisher. "We are anxious for others to use this technology on their favorite genes."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: bewarefrevolutionist; creatards; creation; creationism; creationist; creationists; creationuts; crevolist; dna; evolution; evolutionist; frevolutionist; id; intelligentdesign; junkdna
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last
According to the evolutionist site Talk Origins, "In human beings 90-97% of the DNA is "junk DNA" that does nothing (as best as can be determined.)"

Wikipedia claims junk DNA "is probably an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose."

Of course, "junk DNA" and "no present-day purpose" really mean "we don't know what function some DNA serves, so we'll call it junk DNA for now."

This ignorance is what led to saying the appendix is useless, or tonsils. (See: Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?)

As science progresses, new functions are being discovered for this "junk" DNA, and evolutionists are having to eat crow.

See also:

‘Junk’ DNA: evolutionary discards or God’s tools?

DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess?

'Junk' DNA reveals vital role

UCSD Study Shows 'Junk' DNA Has Evolutionary Importance

'Junk' throws up precious secret

Introns Stump Evolutionary Theorists

When "Junk" DNA Isn't Junk

Junk DNA (again)

Vestigial Organs Q & A

1 posted on 03/29/2006 5:46:24 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; Elsie; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.


Still trying to figure out why my comment below the post used double-spacing...
2 posted on 03/29/2006 5:48:01 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
kind of like a moron that takes an engine apart and puts it back together and has a bunch of extra pieces left over, ahh those are just "junk pieces" they weren't needed anyhow, the engineers just put them in there cause they like to waste money.
3 posted on 03/29/2006 5:49:29 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Junior

(( ping ))


4 posted on 03/29/2006 5:51:57 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Who ever said that tonsils are useless or vestigal? I've never heard that.


5 posted on 03/29/2006 5:53:46 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Some scientists are clearly liberals and they are endlessly amusing.
If they don't understand it it either doesn't exist, or it has no purpose.

"Such large returns of conjecture from such small investment of fact"

6 posted on 03/29/2006 5:54:53 PM PST by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Gracias.


7 posted on 03/29/2006 5:56:26 PM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

If we ever get to the point of being able to accurately manipulate genes, would it be then possible to slip someone like Alec Baldwin a "gene pill" so he grows a penis on his head?


8 posted on 03/29/2006 5:57:47 PM PST by Screamname (Tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fasciitis; PatrickHenry

dna ping


9 posted on 03/29/2006 5:58:01 PM PST by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

10 posted on 03/29/2006 6:02:27 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Screamname
would it be then possible to slip someone like Alec Baldwin a "gene pill" so he grows a penis on his head?

You mean another one?

11 posted on 03/29/2006 6:05:42 PM PST by Bernard Marx (Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but the wise are full of doubts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Who ever said that tonsils are useless or vestigal?

Alot of doctors used to believe that, its why removing tonsils was so popular for so many years.

I lucked out, my doctor (while being arrogant) was right in his point that if it was useless, then it wouldn't be there, and told my mother the other doctors were just idiots for always removing them.

12 posted on 03/29/2006 6:07:37 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
“In studying RET, the major gene implicated in Hirschsprung disease and multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN2), the team identified DNA sequences that can control RET but had not been identified using standard methods. Hirschsprung disease, also known as congenital megacolon, is a relatively common birth defect marked by bowel obstruction.”

Will they claim this is the “gay gene” now???

Really... I saw someone the other day here on FR (one of the usual suspects) allude to “junk DNA” as having something to do with homosexual perversions.

14 posted on 03/29/2006 6:18:07 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Sonny M
A lot of doctors used to believe that, its why removing tonsils was so popular for so many years.

Bill Clinton was trying to win the Stanley Cup in tonsil hockey!

16 posted on 03/29/2006 6:22:01 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Yet again it is shown that the scientific community does not know what in the hell they are talking about.

The paper was written by members of the scientific community.

If they don't know what they're talking about, then nothing was shown.

Elementary logic is your friend.

17 posted on 03/29/2006 6:23:47 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Of course, "junk DNA" and "no present-day purpose" really mean "we don't know what function some DNA serves, so we'll call it junk DNA for now."

Some non-coding DNA clearly does have a purpose. Some equally clearly does not. Finding a purpose for 0.001% of it doesn't really do much to change the picture.

18 posted on 03/29/2006 6:26:36 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
As science progresses, new functions are being discovered for this "junk" DNA, and evolutionists are having to eat crow.

Whether there's a lot or a little noncoding DNA has little effect on whether evolution is true or not. DNA sequences have their utility (coding sequences a GREAT utility, most noncoding sequences not so much), but DNA also exerts a cost. Just what those costs & benefits are will depend on the species, and could fall anywhere along the spectrum from strongly favoring no noncoding DNA to allowing vast amounts of the stuff.

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93. Related Articles, Links

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.

Nobrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.

DOE Joint Genome Institute Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA.

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.


19 posted on 03/29/2006 6:28:20 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

That's interesting. They removed 2.3 megabases, which sounds impressive, but it's only one tenth of one percent of the mouse genome.

However, on the ID hypothesis, *I'd* think there would be *no* unused DNA.

But until we can get a better description of the hypothetical designer's abilities and aims and so forth, no-one knows what to expect from the ID hypothesis.


20 posted on 03/29/2006 6:38:37 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
According to the evolutionist site Talk Origins, "In human beings 90-97% of the DNA is "junk DNA" that does nothing (as best as can be determined.)"

Of course, "junk DNA" and "no present-day purpose" really mean "we don't know what function some DNA serves, so we'll call it junk DNA for now."

IOW, scientists haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what genetics is really all about.

21 posted on 03/29/2006 6:43:04 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Who ever said that tonsils are useless or vestigal? I've never heard that.

All the doctors who used to remove them from kids as routine tonsillectomies years ago. It was when someone finally figured out they were there for a purpose that they quit taking them out unless it was needed.

22 posted on 03/29/2006 6:45:18 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Screamname

He'd like that.


23 posted on 03/29/2006 6:52:34 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger
DLR: Of course, "junk DNA" and "no present-day purpose" really mean "we don't know what function some DNA serves, so we'll call it junk DNA for now."

MM: IOW, scientists haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what genetics is really all about.

There are some interesting results, though. Something I've always found rather fascinating is the Fugu (Pufferfish) genome.

...the fugu genome is only 390 Mb, about one-eighth the size of the human genome, yet it contains a similar repertoire of genes to humans (Brenner et al., Nature 366:265-268, 1993)....

Here's a Science and sensibility (a blogger)'s take on it

So what makes Fugu's genome such a great model of our own? First, it is approximately seven and a half times smaller than our own and it was thought that, being a vertebrate, it would hold a total number of genes similar to our own genome.

Perhaps more importantly Fugu's genome contains very little so called repetitive DNA. Over half of your genome is made from small sequences of DNA repeated thousands or even millions of times, Fugu by comparison has 15% of its genome made from repetitive sequences.. The quickest way to sequence a genome is to sequence enough small stretches of DNA that you get a lot of overlapping sequences and all the fragments can be put together like a jigsaw puzzle.

To extend the jigsaw analogy repetitive sequences are like sky, hundreds of identically cut pieces of sky. Since they are all exactly the same it makes joining up overlapping sequences nearly impossible and since Fugu has less repetitive DNA it was easier to piece together the overlapping sequences.

The Fugu genome is now more or less completely sequenced and it has proved to be remarkably valuable tool. Fugu is effectively a "readers digest" version of the human genome - all the essential information with very little of the excessive baroque passages that litter our own DNA.

As well as the repetitive DNA mentioned earlier eukaryotic genes tend to contain large sections of DNA called introns that are never translated into proteins. In mammals these introns often account for more DNA that the actual coding sections of a gene.

The position of introns in genes is highly conserved between Fugu and human but the Fugu ones are routinely twenty times smaller. Additionally the space between genes is greatly reduced. Also 75% of the genes predicted from the human genome project are shared with Fugu

[extra paragraph breaks added]

24 posted on 03/29/2006 7:12:44 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Yet again it is shown that the scientific community does not know what in the hell they are talking about.

This sounds like pretty significant research to me. What exactly do you think is wrong with it?

25 posted on 03/29/2006 7:20:28 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
As science progresses, new functions are being discovered for this "junk" DNA, and evolutionists are having to eat crow.

What are you talking about? You think these researchers aren't "evolutionists"?

26 posted on 03/29/2006 7:26:25 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger

[tonsils]

I was told (IIRC, it was a while ago!) that they were useful, but that it was better to remove them if they were getting infected all the time. The downside of leaving them in being strep throats and so forth.

Still have mine, had tonsilitis about 5 years ago (I'm 58)

Oh, well, I'm sure it's better to leave 'em in. Especially now that we have antibiotics.

A good example of a vestigial organ is wisdom teeth. These are, in fact, slowly being eliminated by good old natural selection:

Occasionally, someone will die from an impacted wisdom tooth getting infected. This can happen where there's modern dentistry, but is commoner in less developed places.

If he dies before having children, ...

It's slow, and we're slowing it down, but if there were some meaningful way to bet on things a million years in the future, I'd put my money on people not having them.


27 posted on 03/29/2006 7:30:28 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M

forgot to ping you


28 posted on 03/29/2006 7:36:55 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Some non-coding DNA clearly does have a purpose. Some equally clearly does not.
That you know of, you mean. By the way, never heard back from you regarding my last post to you. Was that you "letting me have the last word"? It looks like you're avoiding. I'm sure you're not, but that's how it looks.
29 posted on 03/29/2006 7:58:50 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (*Burp* I just got done chewing up a liberal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583155/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
A good example of a vestigial organ is wisdom teeth
Are wisdom teeth considered an "organ"? I have my wisdom teeth and have never ever had problems with them. What is your theory on why they will slowly die out? Were our mouths once bigger than they are now? Are mine not a problem because I have a big mouth? (don't answer that one!)
30 posted on 03/29/2006 8:01:27 PM PST by Jessarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
> kind of like a moron that takes an engine apart and puts it back together and has a bunch of extra pieces left over, ahh those are just "junk pieces" they weren't needed anyhow, the engineers just put them in there cause they like to waste money.

Once there was a fellow named Madman Muntz. For the full story, see http://www.national.com/rap/Story/0,1562,17,00.html

In a nutshell, he sold his own brand of television sets and sold them cheap. Quoting from the article,

"And how did Muntz get his circuits designed to be so inexpensive? He had several smart design engineers. The story around the industry was that he would wander around to an engineer's workbench and ask, "How's your new circuit coming?"

After a short discussion, Earl would say, "But, you seem to be over-engineering this - I don't think you need this capacitor." He would reach out with his handy nippers (insulated) that he always carried in his shirt-pocket, and snip out the capacitor in question.

Well, doggone, the picture was still there! Then he would study the schematic some more, and SNIP... SNIP... SNIP. Muntz had made a good guess of how to simplify and cheapen the circuit. Then, usually, he would make one SNIP too many, and the picture or the sound would stop working. He would concede to the designer, "Well, I guess you have to put that last part back in," and he would walk away. THAT was "Muntzing" - the ability to delete all parts not strictly essential for basic operation."
31 posted on 03/29/2006 8:07:55 PM PST by ADemocratNoMore (Jeepers, Freepers, where'd 'ya get those sleepers?. Pj people, exposing old media's lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jessarah; Virginia-American

I had two wisdom teeth, both were impacted, were horribly painful, and made me miserable..I had to have both of them removed when I was in high school...My best girlfriend had all 4 wisdom teeth,and all four were impacted...she had them removed, 2 one time, and 2 at another time...she was also miserable...

Now my husband never had any wisdom teeth...and neither one of my boys ever had wisdom teeth...and hopefully no grandchildren of mine(should I ever have any), will ever have to deal with impacted wisdom teeth...they are horrible...

One time an anti-evolutionist tried to tell me, that wisdom teeth were not vestigial, because they could be used if your teeth further front in the mouth fell out, then all the other teeth would move forward, and the wisdom teeth would then grow through...seems like a rather contorted made up idea making absolutely no sense...just an attempt to counter the idea that there really are vestigial organs...


32 posted on 03/29/2006 8:16:33 PM PST by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ADemocratNoMore
THAT was "Muntzing"

Would you want someone Muntzing with your childs DNA? didn't think so.

33 posted on 03/29/2006 8:17:51 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; DaveLoneRanger
Finding a purpose for 0.001% of it doesn't really do much to change the picture.

Except that if scientists were wrong about the .001% they could be wrong about the rest, too. There's also the aspect that it appears that scientists are looking solely at the physical, mechanical (as it were) effects that DNA has on the human body. How are we to know what affect the DNA has on the aspects of human beings that connot be measured, such as self-consciousness, emotions, etc? The non-physical part of the human. As far as I've ever heard, scientists still haven't figured out what makes a human think and reason, have self-awareness, morals, emotions, apprectiation of beauty, empathy, etc... I don't know of any evolutionary purpose for some of those things, like what an appreciation for beauty, art, music, would have for survival. Why would they have developed? DNA could control some of those things and we wouldn't even have a clue yet.

34 posted on 03/29/2006 8:18:05 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ADemocratNoMore

[Muntz TVs]

irreducible complexity


35 posted on 03/29/2006 8:18:10 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jessarah; andysandmikesmom
Are wisdom teeth considered an "organ"?

No, but that's the usual nomencature; vestigial structure or something like that might be better

What is your theory on why they will slowly die out? Were our mouths once bigger than they are now?

I explained it above; they can kill people; AndysAndMikesMom could nave been on holiday in, say, Siberia or the Outback and died of infection.

Yes the average size of mouth has been decreasing; look at the display of evolutionary skulls (Post 75).

? Are mine not a problem because I have a big mouth? (don't answer that one!)

OK

36 posted on 03/29/2006 8:25:41 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
My point wasn't that we aren't figuring this stuff out, fascinating as it is. What I was getting at is that I think genetics is so much more complicated than we can conceive, that what we know is next to nothing compared to what is yet to be discovered. Scientists are still in the mapping and analyzing stage and still trying to figure out what some of it is there for. And they're still finding out that what was labeled as *junk* really does have a purpose.

This is an example of where scientists lose credibility with the general public. They make blanket statements about things that are not well understood and then a short time later, have to revise or retract what they said. When this happens often enough, people get skeptical and stop believing what is announced.

37 posted on 03/29/2006 8:25:46 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Actually, that happened to me. I lost a couple of molars to decay and my teeth shifted forward and those wisdom teeth that came in behind there never gave me any trouble. The ones where I had all the molars did and I had to have them out.


38 posted on 03/29/2006 8:29:33 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Certainly it can happen that when one loses some teeth the other teeth can shift...the point to me tho, is this what wisdom teeth were meant for?.....I dont think that is their original purpose....most people do not lose their other teeth, at the age, where the wisdom teeth begin to try to erupt....for me and my girlfriend our wisdom teeth tried to erupt when we were in high school, for others, the teeth try to erupt a little later...but usually teenagers and those in their early 20s still have their molars, and its at that age that the wisdom teeth try to erupt...if they get badly infected, that could become a life-threatening situation...fortunately with modern dentistry, this is not a problem...

But having wisdom teeth to make up for other teeth that are lost is only an added benefit perhaps...but I just dont see it as being a reason for having wisdom teeth in the first place...


39 posted on 03/29/2006 8:35:22 PM PST by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Whether there's a lot or a little noncoding DNA has little effect on whether evolution is true or not.

It should have quite a lot of effect. The ratio of "junk" DNA to normal DNA can be a very effective fudge factor to fit three sets of data which may not match otherwise, the fossil record and the estimated dates of the the branches between species, the genetic variance between those same species, and the rates of mutation that can be accomplished by species using natural selection.

The fossil record gives us an upper limit on the amount of time organisms split down two different branches. The rates of mutation of living species can be measured. If the difference in the DNA between two descendent species is to great to be bridged in the amount of time given by the fossil record, a fudge factor can be declared that a percentage of the DNA simply doesn't count. By finding "fitness" uses for DNA previously considered junk, scientists are gradually filling in the fudge factor, possibly until the fossil record and the DNA difference of particular descendants can no longer be explained by natural selection.

40 posted on 03/29/2006 9:17:33 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metmom; jennyp
...And they're still finding out that what was labeled as *junk* really does have a purpose...

No, they found a purpose for a small part of it.

Reread the excerpts that Jennyp and I posted above. Jenny's had 2 million base-pairs removed from mice with no detectable damage at all. I don't know how many generations they've been through now.

The one I posted said that half our (and general mammalian) genome is composed of simple repeats. It also said another vertebrate can get by on one eighth the DNA.

It really does seem that a lot of it isn't used for anything.

This is an example of where scientists lose credibility with the general public.

Not really. If the initial estimate is 98%, and later research shows it's more like 95% or even 90%, very few people will even be aware of the change, and the great bulk of those who are won't consider it significant. There will always be people looking for an excuse to bash science, and to them any change in any previously-accepted hypothesis will do.

41 posted on 03/29/2006 9:24:09 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; jennyp
I'm not referring to something as small as percentages as where scientists lose credibility, but in areas like labeling something as *junk* only to find out "Ooops, it wasn't junk after all". That's a much bigger issue. Probably the area involving science that takes the hardest hit is medicine, but things like this don't help.

Perhaps the duplication of genetic material is just a failsafe to allow continuation of a species when a chunk of DNA is damaged, Or that the same change would have to happen in the identical strands to make a permanent change in the species. Just like if there were several computers running something, the extras are backups and self correcting mechanisms.

Although there was no detectable damage, I presume that was physically as far as defects or mutations. There has to be something controlling thought processes and consciousness and if it isn't DNA, then what is it? And if it is, then there would be no way of knowing what non-detectable changes might occur. Since mice can't communicate we couldn't know. The only real way of finding out is by doing it on people and THAT'S a scary thought.

On that note, I'm calling it a night.

42 posted on 03/29/2006 9:56:43 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
I also have some reservations about this study. The "enhancer" genes of the original article are, roughly, genes that turn on other genes. Their absence may make no difference to a lab mouse, since the genes are always turned off and so don't need the "on/off" switch. But what about wild mice, or mice in stressed environments. The enhancer genes might then turn on beneficial mutations, without which the mice would die.

Obvious example: mouse fur. A "furry" mutation would not survive in a hot climate, but come the next ice age, turning on a furriness gene might be the key to survival of the species. Tough luck if the gene that turned on furriness was one that we deleted.

I agree with other posters - we know hardly anything of how genes work, and we have decades (at least) of learning ahead of us. That's why I am opposed to GM organisms - we are meddling with a very complex mechanism in almost 99% ignorance.

43 posted on 03/29/2006 11:31:50 PM PST by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; DaveLoneRanger
Whether there's a lot or a little noncoding DNA has little effect on whether evolution is true or not.

Really!? I remember someone touting junk DNA as evidence of evolution. I think you might notice a difference between the words "junk" and "disposable". Scalpels are disposable.

44 posted on 03/30/2006 1:02:13 AM PST by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
[no purpose...] That you know of, you mean

See jennyp's post. If it can be removed with no discernable ill consequence, the probability is high it has no function.

Was that you "letting me have the last word"? It looks like you're avoiding. I'm sure you're not, but that's how it looks.

No, unlike B O'R, when I give someone the last word, I mean it. We know each others' issues. Evidently netiher of us feels they're worth acting on. The only rational thing to do then is to drop it.

45 posted on 03/30/2006 5:37:21 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Except that if scientists were wrong about the .001% they could be wrong about the rest, too.

Did anyone say definitively that this sequence had no function?

It is true that scientists intitially focussed on coding sequences and genes, and that agenic mechanisms of regulation weren't discovered until later. I don't think you could definitively show a sequence was junk unless you could delete it without consequence. But, as jennyp posted, there are big chunks of DNA that can be delected apparentkly without consequence. There are also transposable elements that are largely (note caveat!) without function; they appear to be genetic parasites. There is junk DNA, it's just a question of how much.

I fiond it amusing there are people who don't so science, whose occupation in life seems to be crowing when scientists make a mistake. I've seen this in other fields; there are always guys at a baseball game whose only delight is when someone makes an error. Schadenfreude isn't an attractive trait.

46 posted on 03/30/2006 5:45:03 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom; Virginia-American
One time an anti-evolutionist tried to tell me, that wisdom teeth were not vestigial, because they could be used if your teeth further front in the mouth fell out, then all the other teeth would move forward, and the wisdom teeth would then grow through..
Actually, this does make sense to me if you think of it in light of having poor dental care before the 20th century. If a person lived before that century, I would think the chances were high that they would loose a tooth (from decay or from an accident)before they were 20. An extra 2 or 4 teeth would come in handy.
47 posted on 03/30/2006 6:17:40 AM PST by Jessarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jessarah; andysandmikesmom
Actually, this does make sense to me if you think of it in light of having poor dental care before the 20th century. If a person lived before that century, I would think the chances were high that they would loose a tooth (from decay or from an accident)before they were 20. An extra 2 or 4 teeth would come in handy.

It might, but it doesn't. I have my wisdom teeth; I'm also missing one of my molars. The teeth haven't grown forward.

A quick look at the anatomy of the human jaw will show you why.

48 posted on 03/30/2006 6:23:39 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Perhaps the duplication of genetic material is just a failsafe to allow continuation of a species when a chunk of DNA is damaged, Or that the same change would have to happen in the identical strands to make a permanent change in the species. Just like if there were several computers running something, the extras are backups and self correcting mechanisms.

Another one of those dizzying moments when a YEer is this close to the truth. . . Evolutionary theory would in fact predict emerging functions for junk DNA. In all the junk DNA that accumulates through various mechanisms there is a lot of variation, and mutation occurs, and variation plus mutation is acted upon by natural selection to produce novel and unexpected functions.

Sometimes segments of the genome including genes do get duplicated. If this happens and there is a lot of that gene product needed evolution will favor the eventual emergence of a whole series of genes for this product, like the genes for ribosomes. If only a bit of the gene product is needed, the duplicate is then free to mutate and natural selection can drive a divergence between the two genes so that you get two specialized gene products fulfilling the need that was met before by a single ancestor gene product. This is what we've seen with the hemoglobin family or HOX genes. Other times a mutation kills the duplicated gene, converting it into a pseudogene, which typically is not transcribed. Usually these are relics in the genome that are not active and are only valuable to science for their use in tracing genetic phylogenies. Occasionally you'll find a pseudogene that is transcribed into RNA, but not processed into a protein. Most of these transcribed pseudogenes don't "do" anything--the RNA is degraded. However, some of them are fortuitously able to interact with the parent gene and regulate its transcription in a variety of ways.

Another example of non-coding but non-junk DNA is the palindromic sequences on the Y chromosome accumulated during its evolution. The Y chromosome is incapable of recombining with the X chromosome except at the tip, a pseudoautosomal region. Non-recombining chromosomes have a tendency to deteriorate with time as mutations build up and deletions occur. This is known as Muller's ratchet. Part of the Y chromosome's sequence is a reverse copy of important regions. The Y chromosome so far has escaped the ratchet by essentially recombining with itself. There's no guarantee for its long-term survival, though--one species of mole vole has dispensed with the Y chromosome altogether!

A final example of how junk DNA may not be junk DNA is that the three-dimensional shape of the chromosome can be important in gene transcription. A certain length of DNA may be useful between two chromosome regions for optimal transcription of these genes. Perhaps the DNA copes all right with a shorter segment in between, but when a retrotransposon (perhaps the fossil of an ancient virus?) splices itself in between these two regions and gives the chromosome some extra flexibility that aids transcription and makes the organism even more effective.

I expect we will find in future more adapted functions for junk DNA, although much of it will not yet have acquired a function.

49 posted on 03/30/2006 7:39:01 AM PST by ahayes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; ...
Unlike DNA sequences that code for protein, non-coding DNA, sometimes referred to as "junk" DNA, follows few rules for organization and sequence patterns and therefore is more difficult to study.

My, my, the Lord has encrypted his anti-evolution firmware to confound the evo-hackers...

50 posted on 03/30/2006 8:00:02 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson