Scientists debunk 'junk DNA' theory!

[tonyrey]

The genetic “control panel” of the human body that regulates the activity of our 23,000 genes has been revealed for the first time in a scientific tour de force that could revolutionise the understanding and treatment of hundreds of diseases.
Scientists have once and for all swept away any notion of “junk DNA” by showing that that the vast majority of the human genome does after all have a vital function by regulating the genes that build and maintain the body.
Junk DNA was a term coined 40 years ago to describe the part of the genome that does not contain any genes, the individual instructions for making the body’s vital proteins. Now, this vast genetic landscape could hold hidden clues to eradicating human disease, scientists said.
Hundreds of researchers from 32 institutes around the world collaborated on the immense effort to decipher the hidden messages within the 98 per cent of the human genome without any genes and was thought, therefore, to have no function.
They have concluded in a series of 30 research papers published simultaneously today, in Nature, Science and other journals, that this so-called junk DNA is in fact an elaborate patchwork of regulatory sequences that act as a huge operating system for controlling the genome.
Knowledge gained from this important insight, which has been largely hidden from view ever since the structure of DNA was revealed nearly 60 years ago, will prove critical to the future treatment of more than 400 diseases, scientists said.
Ewen Birney of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Cambridge and one of the leaders of the international ENCODE consortium said the work has demonstrated conclusively that more than 80 per cent of the genome works as a kind of control panel packed with genetic dials.
“Our genome is simply alive with switches: millions of places that determine whether a gene is switched on or off,” Dr Birney said.
Deciphering the human genome revealed that less than 2 per cent of the 3 billion building blocks of human DNA actually consists of working genes. The ENCODE consortium has shown that the rest of the genome still has an active, biochemical function in the cells of the body.
“We see that 80 per cent of the genome is actively doing something. We found that a much bigger part of the genome - a surprising amount in fact - is involved in controlling when and where proteins are produced,” he said.
Defects in this part of the genome could be responsible for a range of illnesses, from diabetes and Crohn’s disease to disorders of the immune system, such as lupus. Knowing about them could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what goes wrong in scores of difficult conditons, said John Stamatoyannopoulous of Washington University in Seattle, another leader of the consortium.
“Genes occupy only a tiny fraction of the genome, and most efforts to map the genetic causes of disease were frustrated by signals that pointed away from genes,” Professor Stamatoyannopoulos said.
“Now we know that these efforts were not in vain, and that the signals were in fact hidden in millions of locations around the genome. The findings provide a new lens through which to view the role of genetics and genome function in disease,” he said.
Many of the genetic switches occur at sites on the long DNA molecule that are well away from the genes they control, which has hampered past attempts at identifying them. The new work exposes these hidden connections and lays bear the inner workings of the body’s genetic control panel, the scientists said.
“This is a major step toward understanding the wiring diagram of a human being [and] helps us to look deeply into the regulatory circuit that tells us how all the parts come together to make a complex being,” said Professor Michael Snyder of Stanford University in California and a principal investigator on the ENCODE project.”

		 		 	 	 [guardian.co.uk/science/20...unk-dna-encode](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode)

In your opinion what are the implications of this latest scientific discovery?
%between%

 

[wanstronian]

Firstly I’d like to know where you got your quote from, because it’s not in the Guardian article you link to.

Looking further, it appears to be from the Independent, not the Guardian. No matter.

To answer your question, it means that evolutionary biologists will revise their theories as appropriate. Other ramifications will include the inevitable misplaced gloating of the anti-science brigade who can’t see that these sorts of discoveries are not weaknesses of science, but strengths; and the possibility of improved treatement of illnesses.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Firstly I’d like to know where you got your quote from, because it’s not in the Guardian article you link to.

Looking further, it appears to be from the Independent, not the Guardian. No matter.

To answer your question, it means that evolutionary biologists will revise their theories as appropriate. Other ramifications will include the inevitable misplaced gloating of the anti-science brigade who can’t see that these sorts of discoveries are not weaknesses of science, but strengths; and the possibility of improved treatement of illnesses.

Likewise, the Atheists will herald this as some further proof that there is no god and we have no need of Him.

Both sides are mistaken.

Science is God’s way of allowing us to understand the universe He created for us. Science, meanwhile, can neither prove nor disprove God. We should use this science to improve on the human condition and help our fellow man. This discovery has the amazing capacity to do just that. I, for one, and incredibly excited by the prospect.

Let’s just enjoy the discovery and the benefits we can gain from it.

 

[RACJ]

Thank you, Tony, for presenting this info. This finding only adds more billions to the already known billions of happy mutations () which have allowed complex life to thrive. Rob

 

[RACJ]

Firstly I’d like to know where you got your quote from, because it’s not in the Guardian article you link to.

Looking further, it appears to be from the Independent, not the Guardian. No matter.

To answer your question, it means that evolutionary biologists will revise their theories as appropriate. Other ramifications will include the inevitable misplaced gloating of the anti-science brigade who can’t see that these sorts of discoveries are not weaknesses of science, but strengths; and the possibility of improved treatement of illnesses.

To me, this discovery again proves the majesty and wonder of God’s Creation. “Misplaced Gloat” so invoked! Rob

 

[Bradski]

In your opinion what are the implications of this latest scientific discovery?

Could be absolutely huge for disease control. This from the New York Times: nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?pagewanted=all

In prostate cancer, for example, his group found mutations in important genes that are not readily attacked by drugs. But Encode, by showing which regions of the dark matter control those genes, gives another way to attack them: target those controlling switches.

Dr. Rubin, who also used the Google Maps analogy, explained: “Now you can follow the roads and see the traffic circulation. That’s exactly the same way we will use these data in cancer research.” Encode provides a road map with traffic patterns for alternate ways to go after cancer genes, he said.

Apparently they’re now starting to call what they used to refer to as ‘Junk’ Dna, ‘Dark Matter’. There’s more of the stuff everywhere we look!

 

[wanstronian]

Likewise, the Atheists will herald this as some further proof that there is no god and we have no need of Him.

I don’t see how. It isn’t proof of anything. I think you must have a persecution complex. Which is ironic.

Both sides are mistaken.

Science is God’s way of allowing us to understand the universe He created for us.

Naturally, I disagree with your baseless opinion on this.

Science, meanwhile, can neither prove nor disprove God.

Science can’t prove anything. However, science + logic can show beyond reasonable doubt that God, as commonly understood (and there’s a can of worms!) doesn’t exist. How? Well, a being as immensely powerful and complex as God is reputed to be, who has intervened in the world as often as he is reputed to have done, should have left overwhelming evidence for his existence. But there is none. The rational conclusion is that God doesn’t exist. The only other explanation is that God has gone to extreme measures to leave no tracks. But such an “explanation” is no more than special pleading, so ultimately worthless.

In any case, theists have protected God from being disproven as far as possible, ever since science started to knock big chunks out of biblical canon. Now God has been made unfalsifiable-in-principle, rendering him undisprovable; but also rendering the entire hypothesis worthless. No flavour of philosophy or science can disprove him, but none can prove him either. So it’s slightly disingenuous to state, “science… can neither prove nor disprove God,” because nor can any other pursuit. All you’re left with is opinion. And yours is no more or less valid than mine.

We should use this science to improve on the human condition and help our fellow man. This discovery has the amazing capacity to do just that. I, for one, and incredibly excited by the prospect.

Let’s just enjoy the discovery and the benefits we can gain from it.

On these points, I agree whole-heartedly!

 

[buffalo]

The Genetic Piano

 

[buffalo]

Atheism is being swept into a corner to be discarded by history as a dark age.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Why are we Atheist-bashing? The Original Post had nothing to do with “scientism” trying to prove God doesn’t exist, but as Bradski stated, “disease control.” I am truly ashamed.

 

[tonyrey]

Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as “junk” are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of scientists said on Wednesday .
It is the most significant shift in scientists’ understanding of the way our DNA operates since the sequencing of the human genome in 2000, when it was discovered that our bodies are built and controlled by far fewer genes than scientists had expected. Now the next generation of geneticists have updated that picture.
The results of the international Encode project will have a huge impact for geneticists trying to work out how genes operate. The findings will also provide new leads for scientists looking for treatments for conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and Crohn’s disease that have their roots partly in glitches in the DNA. Until now, the focus had largely been on looking for errors within genes themselves, but the Encode research will help guide the hunt for problem areas that lie elsewhere in our DNA sequence.
Dr Ewan Birney, of the European Bioinformatics Institute near Cambridge, one of the principal investigators in the Encode project, said: “In 2000, we published the draft human genome and, in 2003, we published the finished human genome and we always knew that was going to be a starting point. We always knew that protein-coding genes were not the whole story.”
For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as “junk” DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode’s work, be consigned to the history books.

guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode
I’m delighted I made a mistake because it gives me the opportunity to post the other news item about the “junk” DNA in the Guardian. The truth needs to be repeated to grasp its full significance…

 

[rossum]

In your opinion what are the implications of this latest scientific discovery?

Very few, apart for a better understanding of the human genome. All that has changed is that the proportion of junk to useful DNA is now more accurately known. There is still 20% junk in or genome, and rather more switches than previously realised. Both junk and switches have been known about for some time.

The greater or lesser proportion of junk is not particularly significant. Either evolution or a designer can make a genome with more or less junk in it. Puffer fish have very little junk, while some amoebae have genomes ten times the size of ours, with a presumably large proportion of junk.

I suspect that it is not as important as you probably think it is.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

*I

n your opinion what are the implications of this latest scientific discovery?

It is not certain that the proportion of junk to useful DNA is accurately known. “rather more” is a gross understatement when millions are concerned.

The greater or lesser proportion of junk is not particularly significant. Either evolution or a designer can make a genome with more or less junk in it.

It is begging the question to assert that evolution can make a genome but as that topic is banned the alternative is to explain why you think Design is an unsatisfactory explanation

Puffer fish have very little junk, while some amoebae have genomes ten times the size of ours, with a presumably large proportion of junk.

Speculation is not a convincing argument…

I suspect that it is not as important as you probably think it is.

I suspect it is far more important than you think.

 

[BaltoCatechist]

The usual cautions about newly-released scientific results apply, of course , but I find it interesting. I’d always suspected that junk DNA wasn’t really all junk. The common talk about a “genetic blueprint” is rather misleading as the only thing DNA does is encode for and regulate the production of proteins. A lot goes own “downstream” so to speak that we are slowly beginning to understand.

 

[buffalo]

Why are we Atheist-bashing? The Original Post had nothing to do with “scientism” trying to prove God doesn’t exist, but as Bradski stated, “disease control.” I am truly ashamed.

Junk DNA is “the” materialist proof for blind unguided chance.

 

[buffalo]

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram

Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Junk DNA is “the” materialist proof for blind unguided chance.

Junk DNA: the parts of the genetic code passed through millennia of mutation leading evolutionary processes that seem to be pointless, and therefore junk.

No, not a proof of anything. If a materialist uses this as “proof” of blind unguided chance, that’s the poor science on the part of the materialist. Even if the Junk DNA theory is false, as the article in the Original Post seems to point to, that scientifically proves nothing about the Divine.

 

[Bradski]

The truth needs to be repeated to grasp its full significance…

Call me a cynic if you like, but something tells me that its ‘full significance’ is leading to somewhere other than the fact that we have just increased our knowledge of the gene and the (possible) consequential benefits for disease control.

Possibly somewhere along the lines of: ‘Look how incredibly complex it is! Therefore…’

You do know that a tomato has more genes than you do? It’ll only take one irradiated Greek salad and I for one will welcome our new Overlords.

 

[tonyrey]

Call me a cynic if you like, but something tells me that its ‘full significance’ is leading to somewhere other than the fact that we have just increased our knowledge of the gene and the (possible) consequential benefits for disease control.

Possibly somewhere along the lines of: ‘Look how incredibly complex it is! Therefore…’

You do know that a tomato has more genes than you do? It’ll only take one irradiated Greek salad and I for one will welcome our new Overlords.

According to that argument the immense complexity of the DNA information system counts for precisely nothing because the blind Goddess is infinitely powerful and capable of producing the most astounding miracles without the slightest awareness of what she is doing! In other words the omnipotence of atomic energy is the supreme creative force that is the ultimate explanation of all truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you, Tony, for presenting this info. This finding only adds more billions to the already known billions of happy mutations which have allowed complex life to thrive.

Thank you, Rob, for your support. Those who are determined to regard existence as purposeless reject all evidence for Design on principle because it doesn’t fit into their scheme of things: we are supposedly freaks of nature which have somehow succeeded in realising we are irrational!

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!”