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.
Posted on 04/04/2006 3:47:37 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Scientists at the University of Illinois have discovered an antifreeze-protein gene in cod that has evolved from non-coding or 'junk' DNA. Since the creation of these antifreeze proteins is directly driven by polar glaciation, by studying their evolutionary history the scientists hope to pinpoint the time of onset of freezing conditions in the polar and subpolar seas. Professor Cheng will present her latest results at the Annual Main Meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology in Canterbury on Tuesday the 4th April [session A2].
Fish such as cod that live in subzero polar waters have evolved to avoid freezing to death by using special antifreeze proteins that work by binding to ice crystals to prevent the crystals growing larger and causing problems. Most of these antifreeze proteins evolve by natural selection from existing proteins when the DNA coding for them duplicates itself and changes over time to give new functions. However, Professor Christina Cheng and her group have found the gene for the cod antifreeze protein has come from a non-coding region of their DNA known as "junk DNA".
"This appears to be a new mechanism for the evolution of a gene from non-coding DNA", says Professor Cheng, "3.5 billion years of evolution of life has produced many coding genes and conventional thinking assumes that new genes must come from pre-existing ones because the probability of a random stretch of DNA somehow becoming a functional gene is very low if not nil. This cod antifreeze gene might be an exception to this because it consists of a short repetitive sequence that only needs to be duplicated four times to give a fully functioning protein".
"This appears to be a new mechanism for the evolution of a gene from non-coding DNA", says Professor Cheng
This is not the prokaryote-to-professor evolution that most evolutionists advocate; this is merely variation within species, which creationists have no problem with.
"3.5 billion years of evolution of life has produced many coding genes and conventional thinking assumes that new genes must come from pre-existing ones because the probability of a random stretch of DNA somehow becoming a functional gene is very low if not nil.
Is it really junk if it can become useful? And don't you just love the line about what conventional thinking assumes?
See also:
‘Junk’ DNA: evolutionary discards or God’s tools?
DNA: marvelous messages or mostly mess?
Junk DNA may not be so junky after all
'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)
To beat PatrickHenry to the punch..."Archive."
Is it now the position of dishonest creationists to misrepresent the generalized scientific use of the term "junk DNA" in the same manner they deceitfully throw around the phrase "it's just a theory"? Just asking.
Yes, but this rebuts two common anti-evolution canards-- that there are no beneficial mutations, and that evolution can't create a new feature. We have both here.
Did you have an objection to their use of the term "junk" DNA? If so, then say so plainly, instead of couching it in cheap and petty personal attacks.
Yes, but this rebuts two common anti-evolution canards-- that there are no beneficial mutations, and that evolution can't create a new feature. We have both here.It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". If a cancer cell "evolves" to resist treatment, that would be "beneficial" to the cancer. If the human body "evolves" to harm/kill the cancer cell, that's also "beneficial." The term "beneficial" is subjective.
In evolutionary terms, it means beneficial to the organism which mutated. In the article you posted, the mutation to the fish was highly beneficial to the fish.
Also, I'm not aware that legitimate creationists argue that a "new feature" cannot be created, as any structure of the body can "evolve" to change shape. It's just that this is never the result of positive, new information being added to the genetic code.
Except that in this article, it was. When a non-coding piece of DNA mutates into a piece of DNA which codes for a very beneficial protein, how is that not an example of "positive, new information being added to the genetic code"?
Evo ping.
Scientists at the University of Illinois have discovered an antifreeze-protein gene in cod (that has evolved from non-coding or 'junk' DNA. Since the creation of these antifreeze proteins is directly driven by polar glaciation, by studying their evolutionary history the scientists hope to pinpoint the time of onset of freezing conditions in the polar and subpolar seas.) Professor Cheng will present her latest results at the Annual Main Meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology in Canterbury on Tuesday the 4th April [session A2].
Fish such as cod that live in subzero polar waters (have evolved to) avoid freezing to death by using special antifreeze proteins that work by binding to ice crystals to prevent the crystals growing larger and causing problems. (Most of these antifreeze proteins evolve by natural selection from existing proteins when the DNA coding for them duplicates itself and changes over time to give new functions.) However, Professor Christina Cheng and her group have found the gene for the cod antifreeze protein (has come from a non-coding region of their DNA known as "junk DNA").
"(This appears to be a new mechanism for the evolution of a gene from non-coding DNA)", says Professor Cheng, "(3.5 billion years of evolution of life has produced many coding genes and) conventional thinking assumes that new genes must come from pre-existing ones because the probability of a random stretch of DNA somehow becoming a functional gene is very low if not nil. (This cod antifreeze gene might be an exception to this because) it consists of a short repetitive sequence that only needs to be duplicated four times to give a fully functioning protein".
Scientists at the University of Illinois have discovered an antifreeze-protein gene in cod. Professor Cheng will present her latest results at the Annual Main Meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology in Canterbury on Tuesday the 4th April [session A2].
Fish such as cod that live in subzero polar waters avoid freezing to death by using special antifreeze proteins that work by binding to ice crystals to prevent the crystals growing larger and causing problems. However, Professor Christina Cheng and her group have found the gene for the cod antifreeze protein.
"blah, blah, blah", says Professor Cheng, "conventional thinking assumes that new genes must come from pre-existing ones because the probability of a random stretch of DNA somehow becoming a functional gene is very low if not nil... it consists of a short repetitive sequence that only needs to be duplicated four times to give a fully functioning protein".
Isaiah 42:18 comes to mind here.
I asked a simple question. If you can't answer without couching it in cheap and petty personal attacks then the point goes against you.
No you didn't. You asked the following loaded question ... Is it now the position of dishonest creationists to misrepresent the generalized scientific use of the term "junk DNA" in the same manner they deceitfully throw around the phrase "it's just a theory"?
This is the definition according to medicinenet.com
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13535
Junk DNA: Noncoding regions of DNA that have no apparent function. The term "junk DNA" is a disparaging one, expressing some of the disappointment felt by geneticists when they first gazed upon sizable segments of the genetic code and, instead of seeing one wonderful gene after another, they saw a few exons surrounded by vast stretches of "junk DNA."
Exons are the regions of DNA that contain the code for producing the polypeptide molecules that make up protein. Each exon codes for a specific portion of the complete protein. In humans and some other species, the exons are separated by long regions of junk DNA.
However, junk DNA has been found to be even more conserved than protein-coding regions of the DNA in humans and other mammalian species. The extent of conservation indicates that there is some function for junk DNA that remains to be determined. Junk DNA may prove not to be junk.
Consider it done. Look for a new edition of the archive every Monday on whatever thread is going that day.
What is the honest definition of junk? We know what DNA is. And vestigial is a remnant. I know of no assertion that "junk" DNA is a vestige of anything.
No sweat.
It will be before the thread is over.
I think you are correct. Whatever it takes. Convergent, divergent, neutral drift, natural selection, random mutation, non random mutation,...
Please note, pseudogenes constitute a minor portion of the "junk" DNA.
So yet another use found for *junk DNA*. When are they going to bury that concept?
This is not junk DNA-- it codes for protein. It formed from previously-noncoding DNA as a result of beneficial mutation and natural selection-- something creationists usually insist never happens.
My point is that it ISN'T junk; it was only labeled, or mislabeled, junk because no one knew what the use of it was for. When did this beneficial mutation occur? How do they know that it formed from previously non-coding DNA? How do they know how long it's been around? Has anyone checked other species of fish for this gene also? Is it possible that all fish started with it and some lost it because it wasn't needed? How can they determine that answer?
Pretty simple, the cell puts it there on its own... for a reason.
To stay alive.
That is utter nonsense.
Have you ever programmed?
galoot
Theres a term I havent heard in awhile.
Seems appropriate to me.
That is the reason you can't see the forest for the trees. Data can be maps, unions of different areas, or even character strings. There is no doubt that DNA is both data and program.
It's *situational*, but it's not "subjective". In both of your example, the change provides an objectively measurable increase in the genome's survival rate.
Please try to use words correctly, lest it lead you into fuzzy and flawed thinking.
See: Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
And they are. Thanks for agreeing with the evolutionary biologists.
Also, I'm not aware that legitimate creationists argue that a "new feature" cannot be created, as any structure of the body can "evolve" to change shape. It's just that this is never the result of positive, new information being added to the genetic code.
Horse manure. In fact, you yourself just posted an example.
Please do not feed the troll. He'll keep you chasing your tail indefinitely, and never really say anything of substance.
Of course not, but it is a component of it.
this is merely variation within species, which creationists have no problem with.
ROFL! On a daily basis I see creationists "having a problem with" that. There are already examples on this very thread.
["3.5 billion years of evolution of life has produced many coding genes and conventional thinking assumes that new genes must come from pre-existing ones because the probability of a random stretch of DNA somehow becoming a functional gene is very low if not nil.]
Is it really junk if it can become useful?
Yes. I make useful stuff out of junk quite often. But until I do, it's just junk. Similarly for "junk DNA" - it's grist for the mill of evolution, as are random changes, inserted portions of invading retroviruses, and just about everything else, but it's still junk up until the time (if ever) it becomes something else.
And don't you just love the line about what conventional thinking assumes?
Why, it seems a rather prosaic statement. Are you reading something into it that isn't there?
See also:
You know, you've bit yourself on the butt several times now relying on that dishonest and flawed propaganda from "AnswersInGenesis", so why do you keep relying on it so heavily? Wouldn't you be better served restricting yourself to more reliable and honest sources?
My point is that it ISN'T junk;
Yes, exactly.
it was only labeled, or mislabeled, junk because no one knew what the use of it was for.
This is incorrect. This gene in this fish was not "labeled or mislabeled" as junk DNA.
When did this beneficial mutation occur?
The article is a little sketchy, and I haven't read the research paper, but it hints that there's enough information in the DNA to help pinpoint how long ago in this cod's lineage it occurred.
How do they know that it formed from previously non-coding DNA?
Most likely because it matches to a high degree (in both sequence and position) the non-coding DNA in most other species of cods and related fish, except for a few small mutations which gave rise to the "anti-freeze gene".
Note that the article mentions, "a short repetitive sequence that only needs to be duplicated four times to give a fully functioning protein". The repetitive "stuttering" of short sequences of DNA is a common form of random mutation.
How do they know how long it's been around?
By comparing the amount and kind of sequence drift in this cods DNA relative to that of its cousin species.
Has anyone checked other species of fish for this gene also?
Probably so.
Is it possible that all fish started with it and some lost it because it wasn't needed?
Highly unlikely, for several reasons, including the fact that in order for this extant species to have the only (or one of only a few) "surviving" copy of the allegedly ancient functional gene, the ancestral gene would have had to have been "lost" independently in a vast number of lineages, in an astronomically unlikely sequence of coincidences.
Furthermore, that sort of event would leave clear traces in the DNA, which apparently weren't found (because if it had been, the researchers would have reached a different conclusion than the one they announced).
How can they determine that answer?
Short answer: By looking at the DNA. There are a great many evolutionary "signals" which remain embedded in the DNA which can be "read" in orer to reconstruct evolutionary histories and events, many of which serve as independent cross-checks of each other.
Frankly, since the advent of modern DNA analysis, the "evolution debate" has been *over* -- the anti-evolutionsts just don't realize it yet. Common ancestry and evolutionary histories can be read from DNA almost as clearly as reading a book.
The parts you attempted to snip out as "assumptions and presuppositions" are no such thing, they are based on solid evidence. But thanks for revealing *your* incorrect "assumptions and presuppositions" to us...
Looks to me like some strong evidence that "junk DNA" ain't necessarily "junk".
Wrong again. To people actually familiar with the biology, it "looks like some strong evidence" that "junk DNA", like any other sort of DNA, can at times mutate to become functional -- gee, just like evolutionary biologists have been saying all along, and just like the anti-evolutionists have been swearing is impossible because, they (falsely) claim, "mutations never add information". Sure they do, as vast amounts of research findings -- including this one -- have documented time and time again.
Looks like you have a lot of work to do.
Hello?? You're looking right at a beneficial change! Without this, the cod would be either 1. dead or 2. elsewhere. That's not beneficial enough for you?
Also, I'm not aware that legitimate creationists argue that a "new feature" cannot be created, as any structure of the body can "evolve" to change shape. It's just that this is never the result of positive, new information being added to the genetic code.
Again, this is new information! It went from noncoding DNA to a new gene. That's a definite increase in sum information!
You have made an analogy between DNA and computer programming language. I do not believe that my questions are unreasonable if your analogy is accurate. If my questions are not applicable, then I would suggest that your analogy is flawed.
And just where is the evidence that this protein "evolved" from something else? the mere assumption that evolution is trie is not evidence that it is.
If this "antifreeze-protein' evolved over a long period of time, how did the ancestors survive until this protein "evolved"
It's a big ocean, so there was no need for these fish to wander into sub-freezing waters; is there?
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.