Posted on 05/19/2009 8:13:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Again, you have no idea what ENCODE is. It is a project that is taking tons of data, some DECADES old and mapping it to specific DNA sequences. An example is chromatin sensitivity, which was done in the 70s and 80s. Now that the genome has been sequenced, this data can be linked to the specific DNA sequences and chromosome regions it was done on. All this is is doing is taking already known data and assembling it so it is available in an organized manner.
Actually, the fact that you are challenging an undisputed recent discovery of Project ENCODE, means you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I don't know about you GGG, but if I had viagra and half naked women, I'd be pretty happy.
I read papers about chromatin sensitivity and histone acetylation 25-30 YEARS AGO.
You have no idea what is new or not, because you obviously have no biology background.
Functional can also mean that it has to have a a specific 3-D structure, not any specific DNA sequence.
Also was your knowledge from the CREtin summary of the Nature article or did you actually read the article itself?
It costs too much to get access to the Nature or Science for one paper, so why not give us your password to these sites?
At least give a link to the PubMed reference, so we can read the abstract.
I went to the ENCODE site, and unlike you I can understand what most of the lines shown on the charts are talking about.
If you weren’t so lazy, you would have long since realized that it is offered for free on ENCODE’s website.
“As for the 93% figure, you might want to begin by reading the recent discoveries over at Project ENCODE.”
I did some digging around there, but didn’t find anything alluding to that.
“And I could quote you endless Temple of Darwin “scientists” who claimed that our DNA is mostly functionless “junk”...but you just wouldn’t care, unfortunately.”
Umm, I never denied that there are scientists who say such a thing. And in fact I’d go further and say that probably MOST geneticists believe that MOST is functionless “junk”. I might even agree with them (if you recall I predicted that probably “about half” is functionless junk - but I could certainly be wrong).
If you thought I objected to that, than you haven’t been following the convo. As I thought, you aren’t actually interested in the subject. :-/ Oh well.
==I did some digging around there, but didn’t find anything alluding to that.
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf
==Umm, I never denied that there are scientists who say such a thing.
Virtually all Evos said such things. I used to debate them right here on FR. The only scientists that were predicting function for what the Evos thought was functionless “junk” (left over from our “evolutionary past”) was the Creation/ID scientists, who said the designer would not have created a genome that is so wasteful and ineficient.
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf
It looks like it’s saying that between 74% to 93% may transcribe RNA. Is that what you are referring to?
Umm, transcribing RNA does not necessarily = functional.
For instance, pseudogenes (often thought of as among the junkiest of junk dna) commonly trascribe RNA.
It’s been known for decades that much of the non-coding DNA (meaning, does not produce proteins) does transcribe RNA. It was once thought that probably less than half of the non-coding DNA did so, so it was a bit of a surprise that it’s ~80%. But that isn’t really relevant to anything we’ve been talking about.
Don’t you guys get it? The genic regions of a cell is only a tiny fraction of its DNA. The vast majority of the genome is comprised of metainformation (information about information) that instructs each cell how to maintain, repair, use the proteins made, and reproduce itself in such a way as to make functional organisms possible. Tell me, user, what requires more information, the Space Shuttle, or the information required to make the space shuttle? In the case of living organisms, the information that comprises the organism itslef, and the information to make and maintain said organism, is built right in.
Materialist evolution is impossible. NOTHING MAKES SENSE IN BIOLOGY EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF DESIGN.
GGG,
Still waiting on that ticker symbol.
Is there a problem providing it?
“Virtually all Evos said such things. I used to debate them right here on FR. The only scientists that were predicting function for what the Evos thought was functionless “junk” (left over from our “evolutionary past”) was the Creation/ID scientists, who said the designer would not have created a genome that is so wasteful and ineficient.”
I think Sydney Brenner would know better than you, and I doubt he is complaining about Creationists here (and no, he wasn’t complaining about a tiny group, but what he regarded as a rather widespread belief):
Sydney Brenner (1999): “There is a strong and widely held belief that all organisms are perfect and that everything within them is there for a function. Believers ascribe to the Darwinian natural selection process a fastidious prescience that it cannot possibly have and some go so far as to think that patently useless features of existing organisms are there as investments for the future.
Even today, long after the discovery of repetitive sequences and introns, pointing out that 25% of our genome consists of millions of copies of one boring sequence, fails to move audiences. They are all convinced by the argument that if this DNA were totally useless, natural selection would already have removed it. Consequently, it must have a function that still remains to be discovered.”
Sorry if that’s not in line with your FR poll.
I’m not sure what your point is though since I already said it was likely “MOST” that agreed with that. I can guarantee that the belief that junk dna doesn’t exist has always been vastly more common than the belief that non-coding = useless. heh
“Don’t you guys get it? The genic regions of a cell is only a tiny fraction of its DNA. The vast majority of the genome is comprised of metainformation (information about information) that instructs each cell how to maintain, repair, use the proteins made, and reproduce itself in such a way as to make functional organisms possible. Tell me, user, what requires more information, the Space Shuttle, or the information required to make the space shuttle? In the case of living organisms, the information that comprises the organism itslef, and the information to make and maintain said organism, is built right in.”
Now I KNOW you’re not following the convo. I’ve mentioned several times that there’s non-coding dna that does that sort of work, and this has been known since non-coding dna was discovered many decades ago. And the dna that does such work is surely many times larger than the genic dna.
If you want to say that the vast majority of dna does such work - I disagree, although there are many Darwinists that will agree with you. :-)
My only contention all along is the silly strawman that scientists believed that non-coding = useless, something I have never seen proposed by anyone at anytime.
.....My only contention all along is the silly strawman that scientists believed that non-coding = useless, something I have never seen proposed by anyone at anytime.....
The use is unknown. It is ok to not know and far better than to be certain and totally wrong.
“The use is unknown. It is ok to not know and far better than to be certain and totally wrong.”
Couldn’t agree more
I am following the convo perfectly. It is you who are having comprehension problems. Only dishonest Temple of Darwin fanatics deny that the Evos predicted that ~98% of the genome is comprised of “junk” DNA. You lowered that figure to ~95%, big deal. Project ENCODE has demonstrated that the genome is almost entirely functional, just as Creation and ID scientists predicted. The Evos have been notoriously slow on the uptake on this because the notion that our genomes would be entirely or almost entirely functional flies in the face of their materialist worldview. And the idea that the vast majority of the genome is metainformation that informs the tiny genic regions is even more mystifying and incomprehensible to the Evos. No wonder Richard Dawkins was forced to admit that life appears to be designed for a purpose! Of course, in order to be true to his religion, he had to turn around and say that it is all an illusion.
NOTHING MAKES SENSE IN BIOLOGY EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF CREATION AND THE FALL!
I thought you might be interested in this exchange as well.
All the best—GGG
I’ve been following right along. See # 13. Thanks!
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.