Scientists debunk 'junk DNA' theory!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How much of the remaining 20% of unknown function is defunct retrovirus still hanging around?

I also wouldn’t be surprised if some of what’s “left over” still plays some yet-to-be-discovered role… for example a certain sequence in between two other sequences might induce just the right amount of curvature in presence of a certain cofactor so that a certain transcrption factor can bump a certain repressor out of the way. The way this stuff works is pretty amazing - multiple layers of controls with multiple feedback mechanisms. Much of it we never discover unless we come across a disease or defect where it doesn’t work the right way.
 
Bobby_Jim said:
How much of the remaining 20% of unknown function is defunct retrovirus still hanging around?

I also wouldn’t be surprised if some of what’s “left over” still plays some yet-to-be-discovered role… for example a certain sequence in between two other sequences might induce just the right amount of curvature in presence of a certain cofactor so that a certain transcrption factor can bump a certain repressor out of the way. The way this stuff works is pretty amazing - multiple layers of controls with multiple feedback mechanisms. Much of it we never discover unless we come across a disease or defect where it doesn’t work the right way.
Click to expand...
👍 Considering that the so-called junk has been reduced from 98% to 20% it’s quite likely that figure will also be revised!
 
This IS an exciting discovery, and it more than makes up for the palpable frustration I briefly felt when someone informed me that “junk DNA” didn’t exist, and therefore couldn’t be used as a proof (a la the “plagiarized errors” argument) of evolutionary processes. I still think evolution has happened, but “junk DNA” is not one of the proofs for it.

In the same vein, though, I think electrophoretic profiles of species still provide much the same thing.

But let me reiterate, this IS a potentially revolutionary find. We should all be glad for something like this.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
This IS an exciting discovery, and it more than makes up for the palpable frustration I briefly felt when someone informed me that “junk DNA” didn’t exist, and therefore couldn’t be used as a proof (a la the “plagiarized errors” argument) of evolutionary processes. I still think evolution has happened, but “junk DNA” is not one of the proofs for it.

In the same vein, though, I think electrophoretic profiles of species still provide much the same thing.

But let me reiterate, this IS a potentially revolutionary find. We should all be glad for something like this.
Click to expand...
👍
The Chance hypothesis is hopelessly inadequate! Its proponents don’t rely on it to make their decisions… 😉
 
tonyrey said:
👍
The Chance hypothesis is hopelessly inadequate! Its proponents don’t rely on it to make their decisions… 😉
Click to expand...
There is no “Chance Hypothesis” except in the minds of some critics of evolution.

Chemistry and physics are not chance.

rossum
 
rossum said:
There is no “Chance Hypothesis” except in the minds of some critics of evolution.

Chemistry and physics are not chance.

rossum
Click to expand...
Thus is a falsehood. In many areas of physics, particularly classical physics, there is little room for chance. However, there are three sub-fields of physics (of which I am particularly aware) that do actually rely on chance: atomic physics (pairs of reactants can make different products, leading us to study reaction rates), quantum mechanics (the quantum state is unknown and can be a sum of two or more states), and stochastic processes (think Brownian motion, but applied to many other areas).
 
tonyrey said:
👍 Considering that the so-called junk has been reduced from 98% to 20% it’s quite likely that figure will also be revised!
Click to expand...
It is interesting that Darwin based his entire theory upon the idea that the basic elements of life were relatively simple “stuff”. Now that we know that it is actually the most complex structure imaginable, naturalists continue to cling to their beliefs, flouting common sense reasoning. You don’t need a lab experiment to show that, as the Bible says, we are “fearfully and wondrously made”. Blessings, Rob 😉
 
rossum said:
I put an elephant on my bathroom scales and it only weighed 600 pounds.

We have been through this before. All you are measuring is the amount of contamination in either the lab equipment or in the bones.

rossum
Click to expand...
Did you listen to his presentation where he specifically addresses this?
 
RACJ said:
It is interesting that Darwin based his entire theory upon the idea that the basic elements of life were relatively simple “stuff”. Now that we know that it is actually the most complex structure imaginable, naturalists continue to cling to their beliefs, flouting common sense reasoning. You don’t need a lab experiment to show that, as the Bible says, we are “fearfully and wondrously made”. Blessings, Rob 😉
Click to expand...
👍 It has taken more than half a century for the full-time research of teams of scientists working in laboratories with highly sophisticated equipment to unravel the mechanism by which the genetic information system controls the development of living organisms to the point where it has produced the most complex structure in the entire universe!
 
amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936

The Great Nordsko predicts: BEHE WILL UPDATE HIS BOOK! To oversimplify Behe’s thesis, Darwin takes a pratfall because he saw the cell as a wee ball of goo. Now uniformitariansm will have to be wildly more uniform; punctuated equilibrium will have to be more pointed; and Earth’s history will have to be
s t r e t c h e d .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top