The Terrifying Message within DNA

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am one that believes in quoting accepted authoritative sources, since people like you are not educated enough to believe a Near Genius like myself.

[b]Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome

Alok Jha, science correspondent

Wednesday 5 September 2012 15.03 EDT Last

[quote]Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as " ...[text shortened]... ve predicted.[/b]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode[/b]

I have already demonstrated that scientists never dissmissed non-coding DNA as junk, so I won't waste my time doing it again. I will however note (in bold)...

[quote]...that about a fifth of the human genome regulates the 2% that makes proteins[quote]

Well, that settles it then. I'm convinced. 🙄

Originally posted by C Hess
I have already demonstrated that scientists never dissmissed non-coding DNA as junk, so I won't waste my time doing it again. I will however note (in bold)...

[quote]...that about [b]a fifth of the human genome regulates the 2% that makes proteins[quote]

Well, that settles it then. I'm convinced. 🙄[/b]

You missed the idea that scientists have overturned the theory of 'junk DNA' in genome. That means they no longer dismiss non-coding DNA as junk. They are now working on better understanding it in the hopes of finding disease causes and possible cures.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You missed the idea that scientists have overturned the theory of 'junk DNA' in genome. That means they no longer dismiss non-coding DNA as junk. They are now working on better understanding it in the hopes of finding disease causes and possible cures.

A fifth of 100% is?.. Try. Just try. You can do this. I know you can. This is not difficult math. I have faith in you.

And for the umpteenth time, scientists never dismissed all non-coding DNA as junk. How hard is this? I will once again quote and link to the 2014 PLOS-article for your convenience:

However, evidence casting doubt that most of the human genome possesses a functional role has existed for some time. This is not to say that none of the nonprotein-coding majority of the genome is functional—examples of functional noncoding sequences have been known for more than half a century, and even the earliest proponents of “junk DNA” and “selfish DNA” predicted that further examples would be found. [...] Nothing in the recent research or commentary on the subject has challenged these observations.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

Originally posted by C Hess
A fifth of 100% is?.. Try. Just try. You can do this. I know you can. This is not difficult math. I have faith in you.

And for the umpteenth time, scientists never dismissed all non-coding DNA as junk. How hard is this? I will once again quote and link to the 2014 PLOS-article for your convenience:

However, evidence casting doubt that most of the ...[text shortened]... ations.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

How much of human DNA has no purpose?

Zero.

100% of DNA serves a purpose.

http://www.quora.com/How-much-of-human-DNA-has-no-purpose

Does "junk DNA" have a specific purpose?

It turns out we were too quick to call this DNA junk. We have discovered a lot of functions for DNA we didn’t know about before. In fact, it seems most “junk DNA” does have a purpose.

We know now that a lot of “junk DNA” is around to tell our bodies when, where and how much to turn on a gene. New research tells us that most of the rest of the junk probably does unknown but important things too.

Each and every cell in your body has all the DNA instructions needed to make you. But not every cell in your body does the same thing. Your muscle cells don’t do the same thing as your skin cells even though they have the same DNA.

What your cells have to do is only read the instructions relevant to that kind of cell. Muscle cells only look at the “muscle cell” part of DNA and ignore the rest. This way you don’t end up with a muscle cell that has hairs growing from it.

If we think about our cookbook, on any given day you only want to cook a few certain recipes. So that day you only look at the pages with those recipes. The recipes are like the genes a particular kind of cell needs.

But genes, and the proteins they make, are just the ingredients in our recipes. The instructions for when, where, and how much of those ingredients to use are mostly outside of our genes. You can't consider the empty spaces between words as junk either.

A lot of regulation of genes happens in front of coding regions. These parts of the DNA are called promoters.

Promoters carry a lot of information that tells the cells when, where and how much of the protein to make. But that’s not the only part of DNA that controls making proteins.

There are also other regions of DNA that also contribute to when and where a protein is made. These regions don’t always have to be right in front of the gene which sometimes makes figuring out what piece of DNA regulates a coding region difficult.

To make things more complicated there is another molecule in the mix besides DNA and proteins. RNA is needed too.

One of the things RNA does is copy the code from DNA and then act as a go-between between DNA and the machines (ribosomes) that put the amino acids together. This kind of RNA is called messenger RNA or mRNA. We’ll talk about other kinds of RNA in a little bit.

Going back to our cookbook example, if DNA is the cookbook then mRNA is a copy of a recipe. This way you don’t need to drag the whole cookbook around with you while you’re cooking.

What’s weird is that when DNA from a gene gets made into mRNA, not all of that mRNA gets used to make proteins. These pieces of DNA, that interrupt coding regions, are called introns.

Introns are cut, or ‘spliced,’ out of the mRNA before it gets translated into a protein. In other words, they aren’t used to make the final protein product.

At first introns might look like junk, but lots of them aren’t. Some introns make their own small proteins. Others control how much of the protein gets made. And some are important in making different proteins from the same gene (alternative splicing).

New studies have shown that about 80% of our DNA is made into RNA. But only 3% or so of all DNA has the information to make proteins. What is all that other RNA doing?

Since scientists haven't found out for sure, some evilutionists are still speculating that it is junk DNA left over from evolution. But that is very unlikely.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/junk-dna-not-so-junky
😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
How much of human DNA has no purpose?

Zero.

100% of DNA serves a purpose.

http://www.quora.com/How-much-of-human-DNA-has-no-purpose

To what extent do pseudogenes serve "no purpose"? They're not important until they are- for example, HHaA- does a hairy back have a use? Why has L-gulonolactone oxidase been disabled, to "serve no purpose", in primates? Does its continued existence as a pseudogene open the possibility that we could one day regain it when evolutionary conditions are favorable?

Pseudogenes are so called because they serve no function to the organism carrying them. In that sense they are most definitely junk. Will they always be junk? Not necessarily, but they are junk in the here and now.

Junk in a junkyard is junk because it has no use in the here and now. It may be useful in the future, perhaps in ways it wasn't originally used, but until that day, it's absolutely true that it's junk.

You can think of pseudo genes as the junk in a junkyard. They may be useful to some future descendants, but to the organism carrying them now, they serve no purpose; they're junk.

Originally posted by C Hess
[quote]
To what extent do pseudogenes serve "no purpose"? They're not important until they are- for example, HHaA- does a hairy back have a use? Why has L-gulonolactone oxidase been disabled, to "serve no purpose", in primates? Does its continued existence as a pseudogene open the possibility that we could one day regain it when evolutionary conditions are f ...[text shortened]... future descendants, but to the organism carrying them now, they serve no purpose; they're junk.

LOL I thought you would be exhausted by now 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL I thought you would be exhausted by now 😀

I was, but his posts rub me the wrong way. 😞

Originally posted by C Hess
I was, but his posts rub me the wrong way. 😞

Ouch, you can get slivers rubbing a post the wrong way! Try rubbing at 90 degrees off the way you were before, maybe lesson the amount of slivers🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
[quote]
To what extent do pseudogenes serve "no purpose"? They're not important until they are- for example, HHaA- does a hairy back have a use? Why has L-gulonolactone oxidase been disabled, to "serve no purpose", in primates? Does its continued existence as a pseudogene open the possibility that we could one day regain it when evolutionary conditions are f ...[text shortened]... future descendants, but to the organism carrying them now, they serve no purpose; they're junk.

It seems plausible that at least some of the genes which appear to switch on no useful functions now may have switched on some useful function(s) in the past (e.g. resistance to some disease which has itself mutated into something we no longer suffer from). I wouldn't call that junk; I'd say that's part of the house we live in, but one of the basement rooms we don't live in anymore.

Originally posted by moonbus
It seems plausible that at least some of the genes which appear to switch on no useful functions now may have switched on some useful function(s) in the past (e.g. resistance to some disease which has itself mutated into something we no longer suffer from). I wouldn't call that junk; I'd say that's part of the house we live in, but one of the basement rooms we don't live in anymore.

I would call the baby cot that is no-longer used junk unless it still has significant value for sale or I plan to use it for the grand children.
But it doesn't really matter what we call it, there is a significant amount of DNA in our genome that is not useful right now. If it was cut out, you would live just as well with no negative side effects, and possibly some positive benefits.

Originally posted by moonbus
It seems plausible that at least some of the genes which appear to switch on no useful functions now may have switched on some useful function(s) in the past (e.g. resistance to some disease which has itself mutated into something we no longer suffer from). I wouldn't call that junk; I'd say that's part of the house we live in, but one of the basement rooms we don't live in anymore.

And what do you usually put in a basement you don't otherwise use?

Originally posted by C Hess
And what do you usually put in a basement you don't otherwise use?

I meant more that the basement was built first and the upper floors were built on top of that, rather than what's in the basement. Maybe the metaphor is stretched too far though.

Originally posted by C Hess
[quote]
To what extent do pseudogenes serve "no purpose"? They're not important until they are- for example, HHaA- does a hairy back have a use? Why has L-gulonolactone oxidase been disabled, to "serve no purpose", in primates? Does its continued existence as a pseudogene open the possibility that we could one day regain it when evolutionary conditions are f ...[text shortened]... future descendants, but to the organism carrying them now, they serve no purpose; they're junk.

The point I am making is that the claim by evolutionists in the past that the existence of non-coding or so-called junk DNA is evidence for the theory of evolution is a false conclusion.

It has been shown that most of this so-called junk DNA did have a purpose. The less than 20% remaining that no one has determine what if anything it does is not enough to prove evolution. Even if is determined that 10% of the DNA is junk that would not prove the theory of evolution. It would only indicated that there has been enough mutations to cause that amount of DNA to have become non-functional. That would be the opposite of the theory of evolution.

So even that junk DNA would serve the purpose of proving the theory of evolution false, if nothing else. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would call the baby cot that is no-longer used junk unless it still has significant value for sale or I plan to use it for the grand children.
But it doesn't really matter what we call it, there is a significant amount of DNA in our genome that is not useful right now. If it was cut out, you would live just as well with no negative side effects, and possibly some positive benefits.

You mean like cutting out the tonsils or the appendix?

http://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Last-5-years/Surgical-removal-of-the-tonsils-and-appendix-in-young-people-is-associated-with

Originally posted by RJHinds
You mean like cutting out the tonsils or the appendix?

http://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Last-5-years/Surgical-removal-of-the-tonsils-and-appendix-in-young-people-is-associated-with

So somehow in your delusional brain, the discovery that the tonsil and appendix have useful function proves creationism? It has been known for quite a while the appendix is a storehouse of good bacteria in case for some reason the guts loses all the bacteria there, they get replaced by the appendix.