Another win for evolution
-
The ironic thing about what you wrote is that I just read last night in Science News that some of these junk genes seem to be active in first few steps of cell duplication of the embryo. At this point, all they know is that these segments are active, but they don't know why. BTW, what does this have to do with the creation-evolution debate? I think a creationist using genetics to argue his case is an (oxy)moron to begin with. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: At this point, all they know is that these segments are active, but they don't know why. Sounds like a catalyst to me. Many chemical processes need a third element to bootstrap the process. Perhaps these sequences are needed to bootstrap the process a.k.a Life. :) Marc Clifton wrote: BTW, what does this have to do with the creation-evolution debate? I think a creationist using genetics to argue his case is an (oxy)moron to begin with. It's a tool as any other tool. Scientific minds can't be convinced of theories without any solid backing. So genetics is a way for creationists to play on the same court as scientific minds. There's still no solid backing on their part though IMO. -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
-
Tonsillitis is less common today...? -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Tonsillitis is less common today...? Its probably more common today then 50 yrs ago. However I believe shog9 is infering to how medical surgeons and practitioners considered it to be a junk organ and of no use, as they could be removed and a patient would survive. While it's still not known exactly how tonsils work it is known that the body's immunology alters when they are removed. So nowdays the medical community believe they have a purpose (although they aren't exactly sure what) and should remain attached to the body. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
Perhaps this "junk DNA" is just FILLER inside a fixed length record. Maybe it'll be used on the next release. Which I understand will be available sometime this millenium. Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. or, maybe we should have learned by now not to jump to conclusions, as though we had a freaking clue. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stovesbrianwelsch wrote: Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. Interesting idea, Maybe this Junk DNA actually supports reincarnation. :-) eg; it could be used when I come back as a lizard or as a shark etc Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
Shog9 wrote: FWIW, tonsillectomies were common as dirt at one time... Your point is that tonsillectomies prove that we can always and forever ignore science when it says something is useless even when multiple lines of evidence suggest otherwise? ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Not at all. My point is that it is wise to be a skeptical of conclusions drawn from observation, as observation is often flawed or incomplete. Tonsillectomies were (and still are) useful, however we now know that it is better to obtain results via other means if possible. Therefore, my thoughts upon reading your post were:
- In the absence of an application, such knowledge seems worthless.
- Presumably, those conducting the study have uses for the information gained from it. Perhaps results can be obtained more rapidly from other studies of mouse DNA if a portion of it can be considered non-functional. To them, therefore, the knowledge gained by this study would be useful.
- I am not studying mice. If you are, you neglected to mention this. Therefore, a discussion of the meaning of such results by us is meaningless - neither of us can apply it, so it is an exorcise in rhetoric, nothing more.
Hence my concise reply. IMHO, such a study says nothing about the existance of a Creator, merely the poor techniques employed by both sides arguing the issue.
bUMBLES bOUNCE! -
Not at all. My point is that it is wise to be a skeptical of conclusions drawn from observation, as observation is often flawed or incomplete. Tonsillectomies were (and still are) useful, however we now know that it is better to obtain results via other means if possible. Therefore, my thoughts upon reading your post were:
- In the absence of an application, such knowledge seems worthless.
- Presumably, those conducting the study have uses for the information gained from it. Perhaps results can be obtained more rapidly from other studies of mouse DNA if a portion of it can be considered non-functional. To them, therefore, the knowledge gained by this study would be useful.
- I am not studying mice. If you are, you neglected to mention this. Therefore, a discussion of the meaning of such results by us is meaningless - neither of us can apply it, so it is an exorcise in rhetoric, nothing more.
Hence my concise reply. IMHO, such a study says nothing about the existance of a Creator, merely the poor techniques employed by both sides arguing the issue.
bUMBLES bOUNCE!Shog9 wrote: My point is that it is wise to be a skeptical of conclusions drawn from observation, as observation is often flawed or incomplete. I guess I see your comment as an appeal to uncertainty - a rhetorical method to minimize the impact when evidence points to conclusions we don't want to accept. Are there situations where we can use observation - for example, to know that the earth moves around the sun rather than the opposite? Or what if we observe that the gravity of the sun bends light - in confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity? Or is observation bad for that too? Shog9 wrote: In the absence of an application, such knowledge seems worthless. I guess I don't see it that way. When people discovered that the earth travels around the sun there was no application for this knowledge. There is an application now, however, when we calcalate spaceship trajectories. As far as their application of this data, Marcelo Nóbrega (the lead author of the article) studies "junk DNA" for uses. He does work with comparitive DNA sequences to determine which DNA sequences are preserved across species. Based on evolutionary assumption, these conserved sequences play some sort of role in the species otherwise they wouldn't be preserved. This technique can be used to find things like gene promoters. But when a section of DNA sequence shows very little preservation (i.e. it appears to accept any and all random mutations) it is assumed that the code plays no role in the species biology. Most junk DNA falls into the category of accepting any and all mutations with no apparent effect. Now he's gone and deleted a whole section of junk DNA and it confirms what other evidence is saying: most of it plays no role in the species biology. http://pga.lbl.gov/Workshop/May2003/lectures/Nobrega.pdf[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
In the creation-vs-evolution debate, the evolutionists have been saying that the large existence of "junk DNA" is evidence that our genomes were created through the process of mutation and selection rather than divine fiat. A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all. "Junk DNA" as it is called, refers to the large sections of DNA which exists between genes and doesn't code for proteins or play a role in promoting genes. It's estimated that something like 98% of human DNA is "junk". Creationists have retorted that maybe we just don't know what the "junk DNA" does - just because we don't know what role it plays doesn't mean it plays no role whatsoever - thus the evolutionists assignment of "junk" is speculative. Looks like someone cooked up an experiment which involved removing large portions of this junk DNA from mice. They removed a large section of the mouse's DNA and checked to see the removal of this "junk DNA" had any effect on the organism. The apparent answer is "no". Which makes it a win for evolutionists who say "junk DNA" really is junk DNA. Through molecular techniques, a total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analyzed, ranging from viability, growth, and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found. "By and large, these deletions were tolerated and didn't result in any noticeable changes," said Nóbrega. ... The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/dgi-mtd101504.php[^] [Edit] I'd also recommend
-
Marc Clifton wrote: At this point, all they know is that these segments are active, but they don't know why. Sounds like a catalyst to me. Many chemical processes need a third element to bootstrap the process. Perhaps these sequences are needed to bootstrap the process a.k.a Life. :) Marc Clifton wrote: BTW, what does this have to do with the creation-evolution debate? I think a creationist using genetics to argue his case is an (oxy)moron to begin with. It's a tool as any other tool. Scientific minds can't be convinced of theories without any solid backing. So genetics is a way for creationists to play on the same court as scientific minds. There's still no solid backing on their part though IMO. -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So genetics is a way for creationists to play on the same court as scientific minds. Ridiculous. Just goes to show that creationists don't really have a clue what faith and the desire to better man's existance is all about. As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
John Fisher wrote: The base problem causing people to think this would be an evolutionary victory over creationism is the straw-man idea that everthing exists today as it did when God originally created it. There are several problems with the idea that this DNA appeared between the time of creation and the present-day. First, the junk DNA of mice is similar within the species. If it arrived post-creation there would a a remarkable variety of junk DNA within a single species of mice. If junk DNA arrived post-creation, then the amount of DNA arriving per generation would be incredibly large - something like 1 million base pairs per generation. Looking at humans we see a very small amount of variation in the junk DNA - although there is enough that you can divide humanity into several different lineages - for example, european, asian, and african. If junk DNA were arriving post-creation there would be enormous amounts of variation. Second, the junk DNA of species is most similar among similar species (in evolutionary talk, that's related specied). Chimps, humans, and Gorillas have very similar junk DNA. Mice and Rats have similar junk DNA. But human-chimp-gorilla junk DNA is different than mice-rat junk DNA. How did the same junk DNA arrive in similar species in spite of the fact that they never shared DNA (they are distict species!) John Fisher wrote: Taking a realistic understanding of mutations and speciation, it is easy to imagine how some DNA could become unused after a few thousand years. Junk DNA accounts for 98% of our genome. Can the creationists come up with anything remotely plausible which explains how "some of our DNA" (or, more accurately, 98% of it) has become unused in a few thousand years? John Fisher wrote: How are we to make conclusive arguments based on testing of a system that is barely understood? (1) It is a win for evolutionists because they predicted it beforehand. (2) Saying that "this is not conclusive proof" isn't really the point. It is evidence. It is weight for evolution. Though creationists want to throw around the "isn't conclusive proof" phrase to avoid acknowledging the weight of this evidence. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: ... If junk DNA were arriving post-creation there would be enormous amounts of variation. That's an interesting assertion, but you haven't given any basis for it. That statement also goes directly against the possible explanations I mentioned. Brit wrote: Junk DNA accounts for 98% of our genome. Ok, that's off topic, and less supportable that the intention of hte article. The research took 2.3 Million out of 2.7 Billion. That sure isn't 98%. (Yes, I saw that you mentioned a 98% estimate for junk DNA, but the estimate was unsupported by the research.) Brit wrote: (1) It is a win for evolutionists because they predicted it beforehand. (2) Saying that "this is not conclusive proof" isn't really the point. It is evidence. It is weight for evolution. Though creationists want to throw around the "isn't conclusive proof" phrase to avoid acknowledging the weight of this evidence. I guess the question, then is "What did you win?". If it doesn't prove anything, how can it be a win in a contest for proof? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
In the creation-vs-evolution debate, the evolutionists have been saying that the large existence of "junk DNA" is evidence that our genomes were created through the process of mutation and selection rather than divine fiat. A creator would not create a species with large portions of it's DNA that did nothing at all. "Junk DNA" as it is called, refers to the large sections of DNA which exists between genes and doesn't code for proteins or play a role in promoting genes. It's estimated that something like 98% of human DNA is "junk". Creationists have retorted that maybe we just don't know what the "junk DNA" does - just because we don't know what role it plays doesn't mean it plays no role whatsoever - thus the evolutionists assignment of "junk" is speculative. Looks like someone cooked up an experiment which involved removing large portions of this junk DNA from mice. They removed a large section of the mouse's DNA and checked to see the removal of this "junk DNA" had any effect on the organism. The apparent answer is "no". Which makes it a win for evolutionists who say "junk DNA" really is junk DNA. Through molecular techniques, a total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analyzed, ranging from viability, growth, and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found. "By and large, these deletions were tolerated and didn't result in any noticeable changes," said Nóbrega. ... The negligible impact of removing these sequences suggests that the mammalian genome may not be densely encoded. Similar-sized regions have previously been removed from the mouse genome, invariably resulting in mice that did not survive, because the missing sequences contained important genes and their deletion had severe consequences for the animal. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-10/dgi-mtd101504.php[^] [Edit] I'd also recommend
Perhaps God put the junk DNA in there for later use. Perhaps every ten thousand years or so he activates another little segment and our IQ goes up a point or two. Or perhaps once we have decoded all the junk DNA it will be God's secret recipe for pineapple upsidedown cake or something. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
brianwelsch wrote: Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. Interesting idea, Maybe this Junk DNA actually supports reincarnation. :-) eg; it could be used when I come back as a lizard or as a shark etc Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
Does that mean that the long path to Nirvana is just a couple of cuts in the DNA? :) -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So genetics is a way for creationists to play on the same court as scientific minds. Ridiculous. Just goes to show that creationists don't really have a clue what faith and the desire to better man's existance is all about. As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: Ridiculous. Just goes to show that creationists don't really have a clue what faith and the desire to better man's existance is all about. But it's the easy way to do it. You don't have to stay ahead of the competition. As soon as you find something that's not immediately understood, you can claim that it is a miracle of God. When the competition finds some clues as to why it is like it is, creationists invent some new science based on their beliefs. It doesn't matter if it's totally impossible to back it up without the word of the Lord, because it has all been written by the Lord. You just have to believe it. If I was religious, I'd be looking at things at hand, and then try to map it onto my beliefs, and not the other way around. It must be a royal pain having to reevaluate your own beliefs every now and then. But I must say that scientific religionists (in contrast to religious scientists) have come a long way. The duck has been obsoleted in the witch detection process. :-D Marc Clifton wrote: lame Heh, did he really use that word? :-D -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
-
Perhaps God put the junk DNA in there for later use. Perhaps every ten thousand years or so he activates another little segment and our IQ goes up a point or two. Or perhaps once we have decoded all the junk DNA it will be God's secret recipe for pineapple upsidedown cake or something. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Or perhaps it's the junk DNA which makes some people religious. :rolleyes: -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
-
Shog9 wrote: My point is that it is wise to be a skeptical of conclusions drawn from observation, as observation is often flawed or incomplete. I guess I see your comment as an appeal to uncertainty - a rhetorical method to minimize the impact when evidence points to conclusions we don't want to accept. Are there situations where we can use observation - for example, to know that the earth moves around the sun rather than the opposite? Or what if we observe that the gravity of the sun bends light - in confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity? Or is observation bad for that too? Shog9 wrote: In the absence of an application, such knowledge seems worthless. I guess I don't see it that way. When people discovered that the earth travels around the sun there was no application for this knowledge. There is an application now, however, when we calcalate spaceship trajectories. As far as their application of this data, Marcelo Nóbrega (the lead author of the article) studies "junk DNA" for uses. He does work with comparitive DNA sequences to determine which DNA sequences are preserved across species. Based on evolutionary assumption, these conserved sequences play some sort of role in the species otherwise they wouldn't be preserved. This technique can be used to find things like gene promoters. But when a section of DNA sequence shows very little preservation (i.e. it appears to accept any and all random mutations) it is assumed that the code plays no role in the species biology. Most junk DNA falls into the category of accepting any and all mutations with no apparent effect. Now he's gone and deleted a whole section of junk DNA and it confirms what other evidence is saying: most of it plays no role in the species biology. http://pga.lbl.gov/Workshop/May2003/lectures/Nobrega.pdf[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: When people discovered that the earth travels around the sun there was no application for this knowledge. There is an application now, however, when we calcalate spaceship trajectories. An application for astronomy then may well be the same as an application for space travel now - to fulfill a desire for knowledge, to better understand the world in which we live. Danger lies with those who would take such observations and install them as proof of their own conclusions. Consider the Catholic Church in the days of Copernicus and Galileo: they had taken conclusions drawn based on previous observations (that of a geocentric universe) and based portions of their doctrine on it. When such observations proved faulty, they had a fight on their hands. Why build your beliefs on such an unsteady foundation? Many have believed in a Creator prior to the existence of any knowledge regarding DNA, and many have not - why look for proof, here, now? It is not useful.
bUMBLES bOUNCE! -
See? We need .NET more than we thought! Microsoft has already dabbled with this before, and I'm sure they have a lightweight CLI ready to be injected into anyone by now. Remember Microsoft DNA? :suss: -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
-
Brit wrote: ... If junk DNA were arriving post-creation there would be enormous amounts of variation. That's an interesting assertion, but you haven't given any basis for it. That statement also goes directly against the possible explanations I mentioned. Brit wrote: Junk DNA accounts for 98% of our genome. Ok, that's off topic, and less supportable that the intention of hte article. The research took 2.3 Million out of 2.7 Billion. That sure isn't 98%. (Yes, I saw that you mentioned a 98% estimate for junk DNA, but the estimate was unsupported by the research.) Brit wrote: (1) It is a win for evolutionists because they predicted it beforehand. (2) Saying that "this is not conclusive proof" isn't really the point. It is evidence. It is weight for evolution. Though creationists want to throw around the "isn't conclusive proof" phrase to avoid acknowledging the weight of this evidence. I guess the question, then is "What did you win?". If it doesn't prove anything, how can it be a win in a contest for proof? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: That statement also goes directly against the possible explanations I mentioned. I was trying to cover all bases. So, your explanation is that "it is easy to imagine how some DNA could become unused after a few thousand years"? What does that mean exactly? That the genome has mutated in the past few thousand years to the point that it can no longer do the job that it used to do thousands of years ago? John Fisher wrote: I guess the question, then is "What did you win?". If it doesn't prove anything, how can it be a win in a contest for proof? Einstein's theory of relativity said that gravity bends light. Newtonian physics didn't. In 1919, scientists confirmed that the sun's gravity does in fact bend light (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html[^]). Does this prove that relativity is correct? No, because there are other possible explanations for this phenomena which might not rely on relativity. So, "how can it be a win in a contest for proof?" Easy, it's a win because it is more evidence, just like the sun's bending of light was another win for relativity even though it wasn't definitive proof. (You might also note by looking at that website that relativity is not "proved" - it just has a lot of little confirmations.) ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Ridiculous. Just goes to show that creationists don't really have a clue what faith and the desire to better man's existance is all about. But it's the easy way to do it. You don't have to stay ahead of the competition. As soon as you find something that's not immediately understood, you can claim that it is a miracle of God. When the competition finds some clues as to why it is like it is, creationists invent some new science based on their beliefs. It doesn't matter if it's totally impossible to back it up without the word of the Lord, because it has all been written by the Lord. You just have to believe it. If I was religious, I'd be looking at things at hand, and then try to map it onto my beliefs, and not the other way around. It must be a royal pain having to reevaluate your own beliefs every now and then. But I must say that scientific religionists (in contrast to religious scientists) have come a long way. The duck has been obsoleted in the witch detection process. :-D Marc Clifton wrote: lame Heh, did he really use that word? :-D -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Heh, did he really use that word? Yes, but the word used to mean "crippled" instead of "stupid". Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: As soon as you find something that's not immediately understood, you can claim that it is a miracle of God. Hehe. That's the definition for "magic". :-D Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I'd be looking at things at hand, and then try to map it onto my beliefs Exactly. If nothing else, the things science discovers keeps adding awe and wonder to how I view the universe, life, etc. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
Does that mean that the long path to Nirvana is just a couple of cuts in the DNA? :) -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
I guess so :-) Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
brianwelsch wrote: Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. Interesting idea, Maybe this Junk DNA actually supports reincarnation. :-) eg; it could be used when I come back as a lizard or as a shark etc Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
I think you'll come back a little higher on the food chain than that, Colin. ;) BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
brianwelsch wrote: Ooh, maybe it gets used in the afterlife. We take our DNA with us into the afterlife? brianwelsch wrote: or, maybe we should have learned by now not to jump to conclusions, as though we had a freaking clue. And yet I'm willing to bet that you believe some things are true and some things are false in this world. Should I remind you of this comment anytime you say something? Because I'm at a loss to figure out when this comment can't be used push someone towards uncertainty. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
I have to admit my entire response earlier was off the cuff, and not thought out, (not unusual :-O ) But my point was only that it is difficult to say the DNA is junk or it isn't. Maybe it's like taking out white space in a book, and not whole pages. You can still read the book, it's just more difficult and perhaps not as enjoyable. (however that translates when discussing genes):~ We are only beginning to really understand anything about the genome. I mean, look at how long we've been studying the human body at all and there are continuously changing opinions on what we should eat, or whether herbs have positive effects, effects of drugs , psychology and on and on. I don't think we have a firm grasp of many complexities. Of course, we need to create theories to further discussions and experiments, but it seems to me (and I don't claim any expertise in the field wharsoever) premature to say some things are simply not even used or important. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Marc Clifton wrote: Ridiculous. Just goes to show that creationists don't really have a clue what faith and the desire to better man's existance is all about. But it's the easy way to do it. You don't have to stay ahead of the competition. As soon as you find something that's not immediately understood, you can claim that it is a miracle of God. When the competition finds some clues as to why it is like it is, creationists invent some new science based on their beliefs. It doesn't matter if it's totally impossible to back it up without the word of the Lord, because it has all been written by the Lord. You just have to believe it. If I was religious, I'd be looking at things at hand, and then try to map it onto my beliefs, and not the other way around. It must be a royal pain having to reevaluate your own beliefs every now and then. But I must say that scientific religionists (in contrast to religious scientists) have come a long way. The duck has been obsoleted in the witch detection process. :-D Marc Clifton wrote: lame Heh, did he really use that word? :-D -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The duck has been obsoleted in the witch detection process. Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science? :-D BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves