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

Skip to comments.

“Junk” DNA Discovered to Have Both Cellular and Microevolutionary Functions
Evolution News & Views ^ | November 3, 2009 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 11/04/2009 10:46:48 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

“Junk” DNA Discovered to Have Both Cellular and Microevolutionary Functions

Evolutionists have long sought mechanisms for the origin of reproductive barriers between populations, mechanisms which are thought to be key to the formation of new species. A recent article in ScienceDaily finds that “Junk DNA” might be the “mechanism that prevents two species from reproducing.” Basically, so-called “junk”-DNA is involved in helping to package chromosomes in the cell. If two species have different “junk” DNA, then this prevents the proteins in the egg from properly packaging the chromosomes donated by the sperm. The organism does not develop properly. As the article, titled “Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered,” explains:

during early development, the proteins required for cell division come from the mother. The researchers speculate that the heterochromatin of the male D. melanogaster's X chromosome has rapidly evolved, such that after mating, the machinery involved in DNA packaging from a D. simulans mother no longer recognizes the D. melanogaster father's "junk" DNA, Ferree said.
Even though this study only looked at fruit fly non-coding DNA, the amount of non-coding DNA was enormous: “The problematic region of D. melanogaster's X chromosome contains about 5 million base pairs of DNA, while the same region of D. simulans' X chromosome contains only about 100,000 base pairs, a 50-fold difference.” It seems that “junk” DNA—long ignored by evolutionists—not only has key functions for chromosomal packaging but also for microevolutionary processes that help create reproductive isolation between populations.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; biology; catholic; charismatic; christian; creation; dna; epigenetics; epigenome; evangelical; evolution; genetics; genome; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; molecularbiology; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; spammer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 11/04/2009 10:46:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Well, that does it for TToE.

Again.


2 posted on 11/04/2009 10:48:17 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Casey Luskin alert!


3 posted on 11/04/2009 10:48:18 AM PST by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

When I read the above, the following came to mind:

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


4 posted on 11/04/2009 10:49:00 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Amen!


5 posted on 11/04/2009 10:52:23 AM PST by Spunky (You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So does this mean we are on the path to creating centaurs and mermaids?


6 posted on 11/04/2009 10:53:11 AM PST by Teflonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

I very much doubt it...but let’s hope not!


7 posted on 11/04/2009 10:56:23 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

God don’t make “junk”.


8 posted on 11/04/2009 10:56:29 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (Achtung. preparen zie fur die obamahopenchangen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic
Hijack Alert!

centaurs and mermaids?

I can't help myself from noting that that cheater, A-Roid, has not one, but TWO paintings of himself as a Centaur in his bedroom.

I'm embarrassed to link the story, for fear that one may think I read US Magazine. But as a Phillies fan and hater of all cheaters, It's too funny to ignore.

Sorry, GGG, back to the creationism.
9 posted on 11/04/2009 11:00:18 AM PST by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Casey Luskin alert!

Thanks. I'll be getting acquainted with his website

10 posted on 11/04/2009 11:00:35 AM PST by skeptoid (AA, AE, MBS (with six clusters))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So what happened with Pelosi? Something went dreadfully wrong somewhere.


11 posted on 11/04/2009 11:00:42 AM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So what happened with Pelosi? Something went dreadfully wrong somewhere.


12 posted on 11/04/2009 11:00:52 AM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

There is no telling what we may be able to learn to do. However, it begs the old question: Just because we CAN do it, does that mean we SHOULD do it? Somethings are probably best left alone.


13 posted on 11/04/2009 11:01:01 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

Same thing as Michael Jackson -

just someone not willing to accept how God made them.


14 posted on 11/04/2009 11:03:23 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

Good point...perhaps they are further along then we thought and are experiencing huge setbacks!


15 posted on 11/04/2009 11:04:09 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

From page 307 of “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones.

“When seen through the lens of evolution, facts as disparate as the true affinities of birds, the life of the deep sea vents, the multiplied structure of the earthworm and the nipples of male animals all come into common focus as evidence of descent with modification. Together they bear persuasive witness to change: enough to establish the truth of evolution even without the mass of supporting evidence given elsewhere in these pages.”


16 posted on 11/04/2009 11:08:32 AM PST by OldNavyVet (The essence of evil is found in the irrational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I often wonder where the biological scientists get the idea that just because we don’t know what something is for, that it can only be junk.


17 posted on 11/04/2009 11:09:30 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

If we apply the same type of thinking to astronomy, then most of the universe is just useless dust.


18 posted on 11/04/2009 11:19:40 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

The junk idea has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with evolutionary philosophy.


19 posted on 11/04/2009 11:24:06 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It seems that “junk” DNA—long ignored by evolutionists—

And who am I to question experts on ignorance?

20 posted on 11/04/2009 11:26:10 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"The junk idea has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with evolutionary philosophy of Creationists."

Somebody in the science world must be paying attention to "junk" DNA since we are learning so much new about it.

21 posted on 11/04/2009 11:29:14 AM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

==And who am I to question experts on ignorance?

It is good you have finally realized that the evos are experts on ignorance. Now you are ready to take the next step, which is to question their ignorance. That one is a little more difficult, because it involves courage.


22 posted on 11/04/2009 11:30:20 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It seems that “junk” DNA—long ignored by evolutionists

Instead of studying DNA by doing science, they should have read about DNA in the Bible.

23 posted on 11/04/2009 11:34:17 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

From page 306 of “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones.

“Given all this emphasis on efficiency, it is a surprise to find great tracts of repetition and decay within the DNA. There are not just thousands of repeats of the same message, but hundreds of delaiadated ruins of what once were working genes. Such pseudogenes, as they are known, are everywhere, in mammals at least. The hemoglobin gene family has half a dozen, each corrupted almost beyond recognition. Long ago, a mutation destroyed the switch that turns the gene on, or inserted an instruction that it should stop doing its job, or damaged its ability to edit its message. Some pseudogenes are the remnants of viral attack and have been read back into the DNA from an edited version of the genetic message to be scattered where they fall. Evolution at once lost interest; as soon as the gene stopped work it was, in effect, invisible. Such structures sit for millions of years and crumble until thier shape can barely be discerned.


24 posted on 11/04/2009 11:45:18 AM PST by OldNavyVet (The essence of evil is found in the irrational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For 5 points, please demonstrate the production of ATP within a cell from one molecule of C6H12O6.

Every college Biology major freshman has to. Give it a shot.


25 posted on 11/04/2009 11:50:15 AM PST by HospiceNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse

Knowledge of CAC and Krebs cycle are not a requirement to be a denier.

I think you’re expecting too much.


26 posted on 11/04/2009 11:56:05 AM PST by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse; FormerRep

Way to try and shift the conversation away from the OP. I can see why, it makes the Temple of Darwin look ignorant and silly.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 —> 38 ATP + 6CO2 + 6H2O


27 posted on 11/04/2009 12:03:33 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Yep, that’s the evolutionary philosophy I’m talking about.


28 posted on 11/04/2009 12:06:10 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; HospiceNurse

That’s a formula triple G. The question was to explain it. How it happens. Where it happens. The intermediates, the steric hindrance forces that push conformational changes, catalysts, the required energy input to drive the reaction. You know - the details. Anyone can google up a formula.

She said a freshman biology student can do it. Some of them I suppose - most I taught took it to fill a science requirement.


29 posted on 11/04/2009 12:16:19 PM PST by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I ased you to demonstrate. I get the idea that biology is alien to you.


30 posted on 11/04/2009 12:17:40 PM PST by HospiceNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"It seems that “junk” DNA—long ignored by evolutionists..."

The premise should have been that junk DNA was long misunderstood, not long ignored. If junk DNA was being ignored how could it have been studied to this conclusion?

It does, however, further trivialize the whole "Baramin" concept.

31 posted on 11/04/2009 12:25:08 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse; FormerRep

I have taken college-level biology classes. Have you? And rather than wasting my time remediating your lack of education on ATP production, may I suggest you consult the following. Trust me, it is soooooo remedial, that even a darwin-drone can get it:

http://w3.salemstate.edu/~sdion/presentOverviewofATPProduction.ppt#256,1,Overview of ATP Production


32 posted on 11/04/2009 12:29:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"C6H12O6 + 6O2 —> 38 ATP + 6CO2 + 6H2O"

What does the ADP to ATP conversion process have to do with this thread?

33 posted on 11/04/2009 12:39:24 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Exactly.


34 posted on 11/04/2009 12:45:20 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; HospiceNurse

Wow. That was from a state college? It looked more like what you’d get in a junior high. You’re right - that was remedial.

No wonder the Indian nationals are out scoring the United States in biology exams.

If that’s and example of what you were taught triple-G then I understand why you hate biology so much. :)


35 posted on 11/04/2009 12:47:38 PM PST by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

It was ignored precisely because it was misunderstood. Plenty of evos have admitted this in print, one even going so far as to declare it one of the biggest blunders in the entire history of science, so this news really shouldn’t be all that controversial.


36 posted on 11/04/2009 12:49:08 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"What does the ADP to ATP conversion process have to do with this thread?" "Exactly."

I would much rather discuss and field test the anaerobic fermentation process if we want to get sidetracked in a discussion of organic chemistry.

37 posted on 11/04/2009 12:57:13 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Now you’re talking!


38 posted on 11/04/2009 1:01:49 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Now you’re talking!"

We spend way too much energy on the 1-2% of the things we disagree about. Too bad we couldn't all get together for a glass or six of holiday cheer for having survived the first year in the Reign of Obama.

39 posted on 11/04/2009 1:23:07 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
The meaning of the term "junk" in the phrase "junk DNA" is generally misunderstood, because it was a handy term for the popular press and other nonscientists to grab onto. But the guy who originally came up with the term in 1972 wrote, in his paper titled "So Much 'Junk' DNA In Our Genome" (note the quotes around "junk"--apparently he didn't mean it to be taken literally),
The creation of every new gene must have been accompanied by many other redundant copies joining the ranks of silent DNA base sequences, and these silent DNA base sequences may now be serving the useful but negative function of spacing those which have succeeded.
So from the beginning, "junk DNA" was thought to have at least a passive role. And in 1990, another scientist was being interviewed:
Kimura: I was very impressed with the statement that 98% of the human genome is junk rather than garbage. Our daily experience suggests that sometimes 'junk' is valuable. Is it possible that some of the so-called junk genes might be found to be valuable...?
...
Brenner: ....In one sense, organisms are very much like us! You get a wooden box and decide to keep it to make a bookcase out of it one day, but you never do because it's much cheaper to buy a bookcase, and so the wooden box remains as junk....
...
Davis: Is it possible that some, or much, of the as definable a function as, say, making an enzyme, but has regulatory roles that will turn out to be more than junk?
Brenner: I would be a fool if I denied that; it is possible, but that is another question I am going to leave for our successors. I am certainly not going to try to prove or disprove it for every piece of junk, and I shall avoid it.
So the idea that biologists were convinced that "junk DNA" had no purpose whatsoever was never really true and certainly hasn't been true for nearly 20 years, despite the efforts of some to make it appear that scientists are being blindsided by these discoveries. As someone pointed out, there's a reason they're investigating the stuff in the first place.
40 posted on 11/04/2009 1:25:40 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

The term “pseudogenes” (as in post 24) is probably better than calling them “junk genes.”


41 posted on 11/04/2009 1:46:58 PM PST by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Please tell you did not actually attend Salem State.

I’m sorry, but the idea of you attending college where Christian authorities arrested, tried and convicted witches is just a little too rich for words. You’ve never really come out and said so, but I suspect you’d like to do that to us evo-atheists (nazi communist fascist God-denying monkey loving kickers of ugly poodles).

Please, now back to your regularly scheduled crevo wars.

I am trying not to chuckle at the idea that you got your biology information from a professor in the Sports, Leisure and Fitness department. Kind of like getting your Religious studies from a prof in the culinary arts department.

Anyway, as always, cheers.


42 posted on 11/04/2009 2:09:16 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Go back and reread my reply a little more carefully, and the reason for my choice of PPTs will become crystal clear.

And no, I did not attend Salem State. I attended UC Santa Barbara...but again, you knew that already, did you not?

And no, I'm not interested in burning your average evo-atheist at the stake. By the same token, I have no objection to the Pinochet's of the world doing what must be done when violent revolutionary evolutionist takeovers are immanent.

43 posted on 11/04/2009 2:30:07 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep; GodGunsGuts
“That’s a formula triple G. The question was to explain it. How it happens. Where it happens. The intermediates, the steric hindrance forces that push conformational changes, catalysts, the required energy input to drive the reaction. You know - the details. Anyone can google up a formula.”

Why doesn't someone show their work on the details of how a fin turns into a leg. What specific mutations happened? How many? In what sequence? And why did each mutation generate such a survivability advantage that the poor creatures without the mutation went extinct while the mutated creatures survived? What was the specific environmental pressure accompanying each mutation that caused each of these mutations to have such as large advantage? Just how do mutations increase the information to change a fin into a leg? Just the formula: Fin + mutation + natural selection + billions of years = leg, explains nothing.

44 posted on 11/04/2009 2:39:54 PM PST by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“The researchers speculate...”


45 posted on 11/04/2009 3:44:15 PM PST by rae4palin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger

Welcome to Free Republic.


46 posted on 11/04/2009 4:53:44 PM PST by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger

Niiiiccccceeeee!!! If you would like to be on the HMS Creation ping list, feel free to drop me a PM. You would most definitely be a welcome addition to the list :o)

All the best—GGG


47 posted on 11/04/2009 5:12:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

“Welcome to Free Republic.”

Thanks. Been a long time lurker. Really enjoy the political scene around here.


48 posted on 11/04/2009 6:47:57 PM PST by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I for one won’t be celebrating until he’s gone and I hope it’s sooner rather than later. I don’t wish him violence but I wouldn’t mind impeachment.


49 posted on 11/04/2009 7:47:22 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“And who am I to question experts on ignorance”?

Or an aversion to design and intelligence.


50 posted on 11/04/2009 7:50:19 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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