The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Function Of Junk DNA Noted Options
Dreamy
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:45:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,504
Neurons: 7,723
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand


Link: DECODING DNA DEBRIS

This might be something of interest to the scientifically minded forumist:

From the article in the link above:
Quote:
The goal is to eventually figure out the function of each and every one of the three billion bases of human DNA. ENCODE researcher Tom Gingeras said, “Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more.”3 Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s Lead Analysis Coordinator, said, “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent.”4 In light of this evidence, it’s obvious that a more appropriate term for junk DNA is needed! In fact, ENCODE researchers themselves don’t even use the term junk DNA, but instead refer to these regions as non-coding DNA.


Quote:
Much of the function is believed to be regulatory. In the simplest terms, the non-protein coding parts of the genome (formerly called junk) are telling the genes when to produce their products (the proteins) and a whole lot more.


Note: The author of the article writes from a Creationist perspective.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
taurine
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:35:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 752
Neurons: 60,317
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
I know a music collective from Tel Aviv called Junk DNA. This is something different, or maybe not so much...
Dreamy
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,504
Neurons: 7,723
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
taurine wrote:
I know a music collective from Tel Aviv called Junk DNA. This is something different, or maybe not so much...

Now that the truth is out they might care to rename...to the "Non-coding DNA"...and keep producing of course. Whistle

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
will
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:30:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,073
Neurons: 4,325
Oh, so you accept the scientific field and theories of genetics then?

Didn’t you recently (albeit incorrectly) say:
Dreamy wrote:
When it is impossible to prove something scientifically then scientists hypothesise, they submit theories, and while these are available for study, discussion, and comment, - they are not proof. That is why they are called theories.

So I assume, presumably through rigorous research and a solid understanding of the subject, you are sufficiently satisfied to personally conclude that genetics has been ‘proven’ to a great enough extent to use as proof of intelligent design.

Mendelian genetics, along with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, are the bedrock of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis; to paraphrase Theodosius Dobzhansky:

Quote:
Nothing in Genetics make sense except in the light of Evolution.

Which is why 99% (actually probably every single one) of the scientists on the ENCODE project – the scientists whose credibility you are attempting to piggyback off – accept Evolutionary Theory as the standard paradigm.

You keep repeating this ‘creationist scientist’ phrase, but the fact is there are more scientists called Steve who have signed the following statement than all scientists, in any field, that support creationism put together.

Quote:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudo-science, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

‘Creation scientists’ with degrees in biological sciences can be counted on one hand, and apart from the fact that what you (and they) are proposing is totally incompatible with observations, it has nothing to do with science. Science is loosely defined as any process that uses the scientific method to explain the natural world. Scientific theories must be testable and able to make falsifiable predictions – if you are lucky Epiphileon will politely relieve you of your ignorance on this in your other thread… if he can be bothered.

Creationist science (read apologetics) does not follow the scientific method, it is not testable, it makes no falsifiable predictions and aims only to explain the supernatural.

Of course, you are quite welcome to grasp at and gain comfort from any shred of credibility that you think supports your particular, but in no way unique, creation myth, but you really should be posting this type of supernaturally inspired pseudo-science in the Philosophy and Religion sub-forum rather than here.


.

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.