Skip to comments.Mouse Study Shows 'Junk DNA' Is Actually Required (article)
Posted on 01/17/2014 8:20:17 AM PST by fishtank
Mouse Study Shows 'Junk DNA' Is Actually Required by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional junk DNA. However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are teeming with functional activityand a new study shows they are actually required for life.1
The genome of humans and other animals is composed of more than just DNA sequences that produce proteinsthere are also many other types of sequences that do not code for proteins. The non-protein-coding genes are diverse, with some being very short and others being quite long. In fact, the long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are actually very similar to protein-coding genes in their regulation and genomic structure.2,3 These lncRNAs are found all over the genome, in between protein-coding genes as well as inside them. Some even overlap protein-coding sequences.
The many different types of lncRNAs researched have been shown to be involved in gene regulation, chromosome structure, protein production, and other cellular processes. In addition, a variety of new studies is also showing that lncRNAs are key players in development and disease. However, the specific nature of many lncRNAs has been difficult to fully ascertain even though their importance has been clearly correlated with many cellular processes and traits.2,3
In the extensive analysis of protein-coding genes over the past decade, researchers have bio-engineered strains of micecalled knockout micewith artificially created mutations in specific genes. Because mammals like mice have two sets of chromosomes, one from the father and one from the mother, it is possible to mutate a single copy of a gene and perpetuate the mutation by carefully breeding the mice and studying the effects. To more fully examine the role of lncRNAs in growth and development, researchers are using this same technique to knock out specific lncRNAs genes one by one.
In this new study, researchers selected only lncRNAs found completely outside the genomic regions associated with protein-coding genes; these are called long intergenic noncoding RNAs, or lincRNAs (a subset of lncRNAs).1 They also carefully screened the lincRNAs to make sure that none of them associated with ribosomes (protein-producing machinery in the cell) to produce small proteins, which some lincRNAs do.4 Thus, the final set of 18 different lincRNAs were strictly non-coding RNAs that performed some sort of regulatory function. These were then used to create knockout mice for each lincRNA gene.
Three of the 18 lincRNA gene knockouts showed lethality and were associated with the development of important tissues in many different organs, including lungs, heart, testes, brain, thymus, stomach, colon, and brain. One lincRNA gene was shown to be a key regulator of the earliest stages of embryo development before any organs are even visible. Other lincRNA mutants were not lethal but still caused severe growth and developmental problems, including difficulties in the early stages of brain formation.
While many evolutionist naysayers have tried to play down the recent discoveries of pervasive genome functionality, their task is clearly becoming much more difficult as research progresses. Interestingly, the critics of pervasive genome functionality are those who are typically sitting on the sidelines in the evolution vs. creation argument and are not the real players doing the research. Widespread functionality in the genome is not the result of random mutational processes but instead comes from intelligent design and complex engineering. Even little mice bear witness to this fact.
Sauvageau, M. et al. 2013. Multiple knockout mouse models reveal lincRNAs are required for life and brain development. eLife. 2: e01749.
Rinn, J. L. and H. Y. Chang. 2012. Genome regulation by long noncoding RNAs. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 81: 145-66.
Clark, M. B. et al. 2013. The dark matter rises: the expanding world of regulatory RNAs. Essays in Biochemistry. 54: 1-16.
Tomkins, J. 'smORFs': Functional Little Genome Gems Confront Evolution. Creation Science Update. Posted on October 14, 2013, accessed January 9, 2014.
* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.
Article posted on January 15, 2014.
Global warming is manmade, in the mind’s of tree-huggers, politicians, and scientists who are created the scare in order to milk tax dollars.
Hey! At work keep your junk in the trunk.
Re: evolution vs climate change
There is not much difference from government funded evolution research to help us convert from a judeo-christian based culture to a secular culture both aided mightily by the press and other authority figures. Just taking them a lot longer to wrest control.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” - 4th Chief Justice of the US John Marshall
No matter your thoughts on how matter was assembled (Creator, Nature, cosmic coincidence, etc), there’s not exactly a lot of wasted space or matter anywhere in the world, scientifically-speaking.
The “junk DNA” concept is 50 years old at this point. In the intervening time, we’ve learned more about how it works and discovered that some things we thought had no purpose actually do. That’s how science is supposed to work, and I’m sure that no one’s more excited about the new discoveries than the scientists who originally called it “junk”—except maybe people like ICR, who find advantage in pretending that there’s some monolithic scientific establishment dedicated to protecting the “junk DNA” concept.
Sounds like what science is supposed to do.
Why doesn't a patient God work for you?
Quite simply, long ages is ~ theistic evolution ~ a farce and goes against everything that’s foundational in the Bible. The Bible has shone time and time again to be the most accurate historical document bar none for mankind’s 5-6k years of existence. Beyond that is pure conjecture for anyone claiming to do hard science. Here’s a link on why Genesis matters.
I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is Truth against which all other claims to truth must be measured.
Mainstream scientists, media, politicians, authority figures often lose public credibility if they believe the Bible over commonly accepted cultural ‘truths’ [i.e. global warm err climate change] yet if they go along to get along they often do just fine. Make waves though and watch them be ostracized.
Yet hard science or following the scientific method excludes historical science as being truly scientific [i.e. basic fundamentals include observation and repeatability not too mention a theory must be falsifiable]. Evolution fails all three miserably.
Yet who is it really to promotes which facts are more important than any other less commonly known contradictory facts?
Here are some facts you may not be aware of:
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
Right, because God has to be a college student, cramming for a final.
God can't possibly create the Universe and let 13 billion years pass.
Ever study gravitational time dilation per one Albert Einstein?
Study that or the websites I provided
then get back to me...
Excellent! The Earth is billions of years old. Glad you can see it now.
Then why has Dr Lisle found carbon 14 in dinosaur fossils?
Dinosaur fossils with human tool marks?
If you are half as intelligent as you think you are you might consider researching both sides of the creation vs evolution debate. I’m not holding my breath though based upon your childish responses.
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.
No book can prove the age of the earth, and that includes the Bible.
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved,
1.DNA in ancient fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Why can't DNA last more than thousands of years?
2.Lazarus bacteriabacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
Why does it suggest that?
3.The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago.
Decay in the genome? Multiple deleterious mutations per generation? Lots of unproven assumptions here.
I’ll make this simple for you.
Your original question - Why am I not OK with a patient God.
I am OK with a patient God, but not w/ a God who lies to me.
Did the Bible say the Universe cannot be billions of years old? Where?
Not in so many words, but all of the begetting and begotting in the Bible adds up to approx 6k years.
Conversely, sin brought death and destruction to all the living creatures on Earth therefore when God declared His creation very good there was no death, disease nor corruption found in His creation.
I’m led to believe that at that time not even the devil nor his demons had fallen from grace.
So it doesn't actually say the Universe can't be billions of years old.
I just assumed you were some flavor of Christian, no matter - there is no substitute for reading God’s words for yourself. It’s what convinced and convicted me of my need for a Saviour.
All my early years spent in a catholic pew only convinced me getting to Heaven would be quite probably impossible. In fact, it is impossible without Christ!