Junk-DNA Stock Tumbles ("Junk DNA is a Darwinian myth")

“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.”

—Yeah, it would be a dishonest (or ignorant) of someone to deny such a thing. I’ve never seen anyone do so. Have you?
If you’ve been following the convo you’re surely not thinking that “junk” means “useless” in this context - since that’s been explained several times now. Even Ohno gave regulatory roles to junk dna in the 1972 article that coined the term (as I’ve mentioned several times now).
The term is unfortunate as it often confuses the media and people who merely follow the media (you’re not such a person, are you? And even if you were, I would hope that you’d believe actual science journals I’ve sourced to you over the media.)

“Project ENCODE has demonstrated that the genome is almost entirely functional, just as Creation and ID scientists predicted.”

—Really, where? I read the article you gave but it wasn’t in there. (I hope you won’t be citing the part about most of the DNA transcribing RNA - since I’ve already explained that).

“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.”

—Really? Strange, considering that finding non-coding DNA came as a complete surprise (as I’ve mentioned before).

“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.”

Really? That’s strange considering that they assumed such roles for much of the non-coding dna IMMEDIATELY upon discovering it. (As I’ve said several times).
How much of the “junk”/non-coding dna has a function is up in the air. Maybe less than 10%, maybe half, maybe over 90% (maybe even all). AFAIK the current figure for which a function has been found is <5% - Hardly seems like an “In your face evos!” moment. :-)
(Not the mention that many Darwinists have always believed that nonfunctioning DNA would be weeded out by natural selection. Which I’ve mentioned several times.)

I hope you’ll actually read this post before responding, but I’m not going to count it on. :-/
(Hmm, I actually think I could have responded to everything here by just saying “see paragraph # on post #”)

“NOTHING MAKES SENSE IN BIOLOGY EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT OF CREATION AND THE FALL!”
—Ah yes, the fall, the card up the sleeve ready for use in case it does turn out that there is useless dna (actually, I’ve seen that card played several times for explaining such dna several times).

==If you’ve been following the convo you’re surely not thinking that “junk” means “useless” in this context - since that’s been explained several times now. Even Ohno gave regulatory roles to junk dna in the 1972 article that coined the term (as I’ve mentioned several times now).

Whatever inklings they might have gotten that certain non-coding DNA might be functional, the Evos thought the vast majority of so-called “junk” DNA was NON-FUNCTIONING/FUNCTIONLESS fossils from our evolutionary past. You can try to save the Evos all you want, but thems the facts.

==The term is unfortunate as it often confuses the media and people who merely follow the media (you’re not such a person, are you? And even if you were, I would hope that you’d believe actual science journals I’ve sourced to you over the media.)

Actually, the shoe is entirely on the other foot. It is you are confused about what the Evos meant by “junk” DNA. They meant unused DNA, functionless leftovers from our evolutionary past, dead weight, an energy drain, worse than useless. “Actual science journals”...you mean Temple of Darwin tracts, don’t you? LOL

==Really, where? I read the article you gave but it wasn’t in there. (I hope you won’t be citing the part about most of the DNA transcribing RNA - since I’ve already explained that).

You haven’t explained anything. All you have done is try to act superior when there is no basis for it. Some call that being delusional.

==Ah yes, the fall, the card up the sleeve ready for use in case it does turn out that there is useless dna (actually, I’ve seen that card played several times for explaining such dna several times).

Biblical creationists take Creation and the Fall right from the Bible. They have been very upfront about this doctrine for thousands of years, and Creation Scientists have been making specific predictions with regard to the same for decades. To say that it is a card up our sleave only displays your abject ignorance on the subject. And btw, it is possible that some DNA may have been corrupted, but creation scientists make the opposite prediction than the reductionist Evos. Whereas the Evos predicted that ~98% of our DNA is functionless, Creation Scientists predict that our DNA will prove to completely or almost completely functional.

“Whatever inklings they might have gotten that certain non-coding DNA might be functional”

—”Inklings”? It’s been an established fact for over 40 years! It actually predates the very term of “junk dna”.

“the Evos thought the vast majority of so-called “junk” DNA was NON-FUNCTIONING/FUNCTIONLESS fossils from our evolutionary past. You can try to save the Evos all you want, but thems the facts.”

—Yes, I know that’s a fact. Is there some reason why you keep repeating that like a mantra in every post as if someone is disagreeing? It’s gone from puzzling, to mildly irrating, to now a bit creepy.
As I said in my previous post: “Yeah, it would be a dishonest (or ignorant) of someone to deny such a thing. I’ve never seen anyone do so. Have you?” - the question still stands.

“Actually, the shoe is entirely on the other foot. It is you are confused about what the Evos meant by “junk” DNA. They meant unused DNA, functionless leftovers from our evolutionary past, dead weight, an energy drain, worse than useless.”

—I was going by what Dr. Ohno meant by the term since... you know... he coined it. And also by how it’s usually been used by scientists for the past nearly 40 years... which is as genes which have made copies of themselves - aas well as evolutionary relics no longer used to make proteins - some of which (or all of which according to some scientists) have a function (as regulators and enhancers and such) and much (or most according to most scientists) which don’t have any fuction.

“... you mean Temple of Darwin tracts, don’t you? LOL”
—You think that’s the wrong place to go to find out how scientists use terms? I guess you think one should go to Creationist sources to figure out how Darwinists use terms - that would explain a lot. :-)

“==Really, where? I read the article you gave but it wasn’t in there. (I hope you won’t be citing the part about most of the DNA transcribing RNA - since I’ve already explained that).
You haven’t explained anything.

—I take that as meaning you DO mean the part where it says up to 93% transcribes RNA. Well, if you want to believe that transcribing RNA = functional, ok, but there’s currently nothing to support that. It’s long been known that much of the DNA transcribes RNA, much of that pseudogenes - often considered among the junkiest of the junk.
If you look on the SAME PAGE of the Nature pdf article you gave as evidence of the “93% of DNA being functional” it says:
“Pseudogenes, reviewed in refs 21 and 22, are generally
considered non-functional copies of genes... Overall, we estimate that at least 19% of the pseudogenes in the ENCODE regions are transcribed, which is consistent with previous estimates.” - ie, nothing new here that many pseudogenes transcribe RNA.

“All you have done is try to act superior when there is no basis for it. Some call that being delusional.”

— I don’t think I’m acting superior - and if I thought I was actually superior I wouldn’t bother here. Acting superior would be more along the lines of posting things, like oh, say, “Wow, look at all those Evos waiting in line for Comforting Lies!” or “Temple of Darwin tracts” to refer to science journals. Or thinking that apparently the vast majority of the world’s scientists are drooling retards who would find out that they are wrong and you’re right if they’d bother to use google for 15 minutes. Some might call that being delusional.

==”Inklings”? It’s been an established fact for over 40 years! It actually predates the very term of “junk dna”.

What is an established fact for the last 40 yrs? Are you saying that the Evos knew that what they labeled “junk DNA” wasn’t really “junk DNA” all this time! LOL

==Yes, I know that’s a fact. Is there some reason why you keep repeating that like a mantra in every post as if someone is disagreeing?

I keep repeating it because you keep trying to have it both ways. When you finally admit that the Evo prediction of our DNA being ~98% “junk” has been a collosal blunder, and when you finally admit that this blunder was based on a predicted that was predicated on neo-Darwinism, and when you finally admit that Creation/ID predicted the exact opposite based on the argument from Creation/Design, then I will no longer need to keep repeating myself to you.

==As I said in my previous post: “Yeah, it would be a dishonest (or ignorant) of someone to deny such a thing. I’ve never seen anyone do so. Have you?” - the question still stands.

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

==I was going by what Dr. Ohno meant by the term since... you know... he coined it.

I have read Ohno’s paper in full a number of times. He’s the one who got the whole idea going that the vast majority of our genomes are filled with “junk” DNA that is the product of nature’s failed experiments from our supposed evolutionary past. About the only thing positive Ohno could say about “junk” DNA is that A) It provided a buffer between genes and thus could prevent harmful mutations from spreading and B) that the “junk” DNA was sheltered from natural selection, and was thus free to mutate and gain new functions. As project ENCODE has demonstrated, Ohno was wrong on both counts, because the areas he thought of as “junk” from our so-called evolutionary past were in fact hightly functional.

Interestingly, Project ENCODE also discovered that some 95% of the sequences with one or more known functions do not show any sign of selection pressure. So tell me, user, if we descended from apes via random mutation and natural selection, then how on Earth could 95% of our functional sequences show no sign of natural selection?

==It’s long been known that much of the DNA transcribes RNA, much of that pseudogenes - often considered among the junkiest of the junk.

Before I comment, I would like you to be very specific about what you mean by, and on what basis you declare, pseudogenes to be the “junkiest of the junk.”

“What is an established fact for the last 40 yrs? Are you saying that the Evos knew that what they labeled “junk DNA” wasn’t really “junk DNA” all this time! LOL”

—No, it means that “junk” in this context never implied “useless”, as I’ve tried explaining for several posts now. It had to do with how it came to become non-coding and not a judgement of current possible utility. I don’t like the term, precisely because of this confusion, but I wasn’t my choice. lol I don’t seem to have any luck explaining it, so maybe someone else will do better:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/09/05/science-writers-need-science-history/
If you read that article you’ll see that it was known by the 1950’s that much of the non-coding dna, which would become known as “junk dna’ in the 1970’s, did have various important functions.

“I keep repeating it because you keep trying to have it both ways. When you finally admit that the Evo prediction of our DNA being ~98% “junk” has been a collosal blunder...”

—The only blunder is the term, because of the confusion it can cause. Considering that a Nobel Prize was given out in 1965 for showing how vitally important and useful non-coding dna can be, when such dna later came under the banner of “junk dna”, it was obviously not meant to imply that it was all not important or useless.

“...and when you finally admit that this blunder was based on a predicted that was predicated on neo-Darwinism, and when you finally admit that Creation/ID predicted the exact opposite based on the argument from Creation/Design, then I will no longer need to keep repeating myself to you.”

—Do you know of anyone that predicted that there would be useless dna before it seemed that we found any? Not only was it not predicted - it was a surpise - a surprise that even prompted ad hoc explanations to explain their presence (e.g. Selfish DNA).

I have seen it suggested that it was a blunder to give genic dna so much more attention than noncoding dna.
Trying to investigate non-coding DNA as compared to genic DNA is like trying to investigate dark matter as compared to bright glowing stars. So genic dna was going to get all the early attention regardless of views of non-coding dna.
There’s FAR less genic dna - and it’s FAR easier to study - so mapping out genic dna is an obvious first step.
The reason project ENCODE is being done isn’t because of changing attitudes about non-coding dna, it’s simply that we finally CAN do something like this. Project ENCODE wouldn’t have even been possible as recent as the 90’s because of the technology available. Even with today’s technology, the project is a COLOSSAL undertaking and is only looking at ONE percent of our DNA.

“==As I said in my previous post: “Yeah, it would be a dishonest (or ignorant) of someone to deny such a thing. I’ve never seen anyone do so. Have you?” - the question still stands.
I have no idea what you are referring to here.”

—You mentioned that it would be dishonest of someone to deny that most scientists believe most dna (~98%) to be “junk dna”. And I agreed, and added that I’ve never actually seen someone do so, which had (and still has) me wondering why you keep bringing that up.

To recap:
Scientists believe ~98% of DNA to be junk dna. This does not mean that scientists believe ~98% to be useless (as the title in the story says “Repeated hits to the paradigm that portions of non-coding DNA are useless leftovers...”) - scientists never believed such a thing. When “junk dna” was coined, the label was applied to DNA that we ALREADY KNEW was vital.
Likewise, as we find functions for more and more dna, the amount considered “junk” won’t change. It’ll STILL be ~98%.
(Unless they start redefining the term, or drop the term altogether, which I wouldn’t mind).

“As project ENCODE has demonstrated, Ohno was wrong on both counts, because the areas he thought of as “junk” from our so-called evolutionary past were in fact hightly functional.”

—It’s generally thought to be both (as Ohno believed) - evolutionary relics take on new jobs.

“Interestingly, Project ENCODE also discovered that some 95% of the sequences with one or more known functions do not show any sign of selection pressure. So tell me, user, if we descended from apes via random mutation and natural selection, then how on Earth could 95% of our functional sequences show no sign of natural selection?”

—This site says it’s more like 50%:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/447760a.html
It’s still a surprise that it’s that high. But it probably depends in many cases on what the function is exactly as to how tolerant it is of mutations. But isn’t it interesting that when they match regions of dna across different species all across the animal kingdom, they get consistent enough results to even say certain regions have “neutral” selection going on?

“Before I comment, I would like you to be very specific about what you mean by, and on what basis you declare, pseudogenes to be the “junkiest of the junk.””

—There are several types of pseudogenes. Genes often copy themselves within the genome, and these copies may or may not be functional (depending on how good the copies are), or will sometimes later break due to mutation. Retrotransposons fit into that category. Others are considered relics of evolution. If there are portions of our dna considered junkier than these, I don’t know what they are.

In the last Nature URL I gave, there was an interesting paragraph:
“In fact, Mattick thinks scientists are vastly underestimating how much of the genome is functional. He and Birney have placed a bet on the question. Mattick thinks at least 20% of possible functional elements in our genome will eventually be proven useful. Birney thinks fewer are functional. The loser will buy the winner a case of the beverage of his choice.”

So here’s Mattick - the personal champion for junk dna - saying that scientists are VASTLY underestimating how much of the genome is functional - and he puts it at merely 20% of “possible functional elements”.
It’d be interesting to know how much of the genome he considers “possible functional elements” so that we could calculate how much of the total genome he believes to be functional - but I’d presume the ceiling to him is about 20% (and possibly much less).
Maybe we should enter their contest. I’ll take 50% as I guessed earlier (although Mattick has me wondering if that’s now way too high) and you take 90+% :-)

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.