nPeace
Veteran Member
2017
New Research Suggests at Least 75% of The Human Genome Is Junk DNA After All
At least three quarters of the human genome consists of non-functional, 'junk DNA', according to a new study, and the actual proportion is likely to be even greater than that.
Human Genome 2.0: ENCODE project debunks ‘junk’ DNA
DNA previously written off as junk actually acts as a lever controlling genetic activity, leading to health or illness, reveals a massive new genetic mapping project.
Dan Graur is allowed to make speculations, and assumptions, and say they are correct, while accusing other scientists of making assumptions that are wrong.
Moreover, assumptions are made about how much of the genome is functional, and even though they don't know, by some genius, they know which mutations occur in the non-functional, so that they are considered neutral, and which mutations occur in the functional, so that they are harmful.
So the functional percentage must be very small, get this... in order for our evolutionary history to be true.
So let's ignore the five-year collaboration of more than 440 scientists in 32 labs around the world, whose study has helped them to get a comprehensive amount of information able to help us understand mutations in diseases that we never understood before.
Don't mind those scientists, who think, “It is a huge leap forward. Before we could understand the sequence, now we understand how those genes are switched on and switched off,”
Why they must be that handful of Creationist scientists, with an agenda.
So just 1% of the genome, considered to be non-functioning, was found to be 80% functional.
Why Your DNA Is Still Uncharted Territory
What's wrong... What's right?
Pseudogene
Because pseudogenes were initially thought of as the last stop for genomic material that could be removed from the genome, they were often labeled as junk DNA.
Pseudogenes are sometimes difficult to identify and characterize in genomes, because the two requirements of homology and loss of functionality are usually implied through sequence alignments rather than biologically proven.
Pseudogenes for RNA genes are usually more difficult to discover as they do not need to be translated and thus do not have "reading frames".
Pseudogenes can complicate molecular genetic studies. For example, amplification of a gene by PCR may simultaneously amplify a pseudogene that shares similar sequences. This is known as PCR bias or amplification bias. Similarly, pseudogenes are sometimes annotated as genes in genome sequences.
Processed pseudogenes often pose a problem for gene prediction programs, often being misidentified as real genes or exons. It has been proposed that identification of processed pseudogenes can help improve the accuracy of gene prediction methods.
Recently 140 human pseudogenes have been shown to be translated. However, the function, if any, of the protein products is unknown.
Pseudogenes
Noncoding regions of human genome in general were thought to be nonfunctional and “junk,” or of no purpose DNA. Nowadays, scientists are conceding that junk DNA terminology is far from true since recent studies indicate that they have some regulatory roles. This work focuses on pseudogenes of junk DNA.
The shared mutations in different organisms are thought to depend on common descent or evolutionary ancestry
Conclusion
I could have used many more examples, but it's long enough as it is.
I just highlighted these in the hope it will make my point clear enough for you to understand.
If you are a scientist, I do not fault you for doing your work. By all means, do your work as best you know how.
I understand that scientists make many assumptions, some without any particular or specific evidence, but when they do gather evidence, they do they best to fit this evidence into a naturalistic understanding.
I believe, based on what I have seen, the evidence - how ever little, or insufficient - is interpreted to fit a presupposition... actually, a presumption.
This is based on my observation, and experience... especially where the Darwinian view is concerned.
This is even seen in the assumptions made for millions of years required for XYZ.
I understand that you accept this system, where you cannot prove these claims, but you believe the best opinions offered in support of those claims.
If those opinions you argue for so strongly, became history the next week, month, or year, you would argue just as strongly for the newly accepted opinion.
That's your system of belief. I understand.
Mine is different, and I understand that you don't accept it.
However, each of us has to weight the evidence, and decide what to believe.
The gauge I use for measuring truth, does not change, and adjust. Rather, it often turns out, that discoveries that seem to be true, measure up correctly, to this gauge.
There is a lot that scientists are in the dark about, regarding the genome. Even their best instruments do not give accurate reading.
I hope I have explained clearly, and you understand.
One day, I think things will become clearly evident, to be undeniable.
That's not the case with your belief, apparently.
Thank you.
New Research Suggests at Least 75% of The Human Genome Is Junk DNA After All
At least three quarters of the human genome consists of non-functional, 'junk DNA', according to a new study, and the actual proportion is likely to be even greater than that.
Ever since Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA back in the 1950s, scientists have been debating what extent of the genome is responsible for making you you – and now an evolutionary biologist says the answer to the riddle lies in some basic math.
Dan Graur from the University of Houston calculates that the functional portion of the human genome probably constitutes only about 10 to 15 percent of our overall DNA, with an upper limit of 25 percent.
The rest of our genome – somewhere between around 75 to 90 percent of our DNA – is what's called junk DNA: not necessarily harmful or toxic genetic matter, but useless, garbled nucleotide sequences that aren't functional in terms of encoding proteins that spur all the important chemical reactions going off inside our bodies.
The rationale for Graur's model is based on the way mutations creep into DNA, and how as a species we weed these mutations out for the benefit of all.
These kinds of genetic variants, called deleterious mutations, appear in our genome over time, subtly shifting or reordering the four chemical bases that make up DNA – adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine – in parts of our genetic code.
When mutations take place in junk DNA, they're considered neutral – since that genetic code doesn't do anything, anyway – but when mutations occur to our functional, defining DNA, they can often be harmful and even ultimately lethal, as they mess up the instructions that code for healthy tissue and biological processes.
On that basis, it's better for our evolutionary prospects if less of our DNA is functional, because less of it is then exposed to the risk of mutation and the increased chances of early death it invites.
In Graur's calculations, given the risk of deleterious mutations to the survival of the species on one hand – and the known stability of population and reproduction rates throughout human history on the other – the limit of functional DNA has to be very low.
Otherwise dangerous mutations would keep stacking up, meaning we'd have to produce impossibly huge numbers of offspring for the small percentage of healthy bubs to survive.
"Under the assumption of 100 percent functionality and the range of deleterious mutation rates used in this paper, maintaining a constant population size would necessitate that each couple on average produce a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 5 × 1053 children," he writes in his paper.
Of course, nobody really other than creationists is suggesting that we carry around zero junk DNA, but a huge 2012 study called the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project did claim that as much as 80 percent of human DNA was functional.
That study was controversial – partly because many scientists claimed that the ENCODE definition of 'functional' was too broad.
Dan Graur from the University of Houston calculates that the functional portion of the human genome probably constitutes only about 10 to 15 percent of our overall DNA, with an upper limit of 25 percent.
The rest of our genome – somewhere between around 75 to 90 percent of our DNA – is what's called junk DNA: not necessarily harmful or toxic genetic matter, but useless, garbled nucleotide sequences that aren't functional in terms of encoding proteins that spur all the important chemical reactions going off inside our bodies.
The rationale for Graur's model is based on the way mutations creep into DNA, and how as a species we weed these mutations out for the benefit of all.
These kinds of genetic variants, called deleterious mutations, appear in our genome over time, subtly shifting or reordering the four chemical bases that make up DNA – adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine – in parts of our genetic code.
When mutations take place in junk DNA, they're considered neutral – since that genetic code doesn't do anything, anyway – but when mutations occur to our functional, defining DNA, they can often be harmful and even ultimately lethal, as they mess up the instructions that code for healthy tissue and biological processes.
On that basis, it's better for our evolutionary prospects if less of our DNA is functional, because less of it is then exposed to the risk of mutation and the increased chances of early death it invites.
In Graur's calculations, given the risk of deleterious mutations to the survival of the species on one hand – and the known stability of population and reproduction rates throughout human history on the other – the limit of functional DNA has to be very low.
Otherwise dangerous mutations would keep stacking up, meaning we'd have to produce impossibly huge numbers of offspring for the small percentage of healthy bubs to survive.
"Under the assumption of 100 percent functionality and the range of deleterious mutation rates used in this paper, maintaining a constant population size would necessitate that each couple on average produce a minimum of 24 and a maximum of 5 × 1053 children," he writes in his paper.
Of course, nobody really other than creationists is suggesting that we carry around zero junk DNA, but a huge 2012 study called the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project did claim that as much as 80 percent of human DNA was functional.
That study was controversial – partly because many scientists claimed that the ENCODE definition of 'functional' was too broad.
Human Genome 2.0: ENCODE project debunks ‘junk’ DNA
DNA previously written off as junk actually acts as a lever controlling genetic activity, leading to health or illness, reveals a massive new genetic mapping project.
Dan Graur is allowed to make speculations, and assumptions, and say they are correct, while accusing other scientists of making assumptions that are wrong.
Moreover, assumptions are made about how much of the genome is functional, and even though they don't know, by some genius, they know which mutations occur in the non-functional, so that they are considered neutral, and which mutations occur in the functional, so that they are harmful.
So the functional percentage must be very small, get this... in order for our evolutionary history to be true.
So let's ignore the five-year collaboration of more than 440 scientists in 32 labs around the world, whose study has helped them to get a comprehensive amount of information able to help us understand mutations in diseases that we never understood before.
Don't mind those scientists, who think, “It is a huge leap forward. Before we could understand the sequence, now we understand how those genes are switched on and switched off,”
Why they must be that handful of Creationist scientists, with an agenda.
So just 1% of the genome, considered to be non-functioning, was found to be 80% functional.
Why Your DNA Is Still Uncharted Territory
What's wrong... What's right?
Pseudogene
Because pseudogenes were initially thought of as the last stop for genomic material that could be removed from the genome, they were often labeled as junk DNA.Pseudogenes are sometimes difficult to identify and characterize in genomes, because the two requirements of homology and loss of functionality are usually implied through sequence alignments rather than biologically proven.Pseudogenes for RNA genes are usually more difficult to discover as they do not need to be translated and thus do not have "reading frames".Pseudogenes can complicate molecular genetic studies. For example, amplification of a gene by PCR may simultaneously amplify a pseudogene that shares similar sequences. This is known as PCR bias or amplification bias. Similarly, pseudogenes are sometimes annotated as genes in genome sequences.Processed pseudogenes often pose a problem for gene prediction programs, often being misidentified as real genes or exons. It has been proposed that identification of processed pseudogenes can help improve the accuracy of gene prediction methods.Recently 140 human pseudogenes have been shown to be translated. However, the function, if any, of the protein products is unknown.Pseudogenes
Noncoding regions of human genome in general were thought to be nonfunctional and “junk,” or of no purpose DNA. Nowadays, scientists are conceding that junk DNA terminology is far from true since recent studies indicate that they have some regulatory roles. This work focuses on pseudogenes of junk DNA.
The shared mutations in different organisms are thought to depend on common descent or evolutionary ancestry
Conclusion
I could have used many more examples, but it's long enough as it is.
I just highlighted these in the hope it will make my point clear enough for you to understand.
If you are a scientist, I do not fault you for doing your work. By all means, do your work as best you know how.
I understand that scientists make many assumptions, some without any particular or specific evidence, but when they do gather evidence, they do they best to fit this evidence into a naturalistic understanding.
I believe, based on what I have seen, the evidence - how ever little, or insufficient - is interpreted to fit a presupposition... actually, a presumption.
This is based on my observation, and experience... especially where the Darwinian view is concerned.
This is even seen in the assumptions made for millions of years required for XYZ.
Flash vaporization during earthquakes evidenced by gold deposits
Much of the world’s known gold has been derived from arrays of quartz veins. The veins formed during periods of mountain building that occurred as long as 3 billion years ago, and were deposited by very large volumes of water that flowed along deep, seismically active faults. The veins formed under fluctuating pressures during earthquakes, but the magnitude of the pressure fluctuations and their influence on mineral deposition is not known.
Earthquakes Make Gold Veins in an Instant
Scientists have long known that veins of gold are formed by mineral deposition from hot fluids flowing through cracks deep in Earth’s crust. But a study published today in Nature Geoscience has found that the process can occur almost instantaneously — possibly within a few tenths of a second.
Much of the world’s known gold has been derived from arrays of quartz veins. The veins formed during periods of mountain building that occurred as long as 3 billion years ago, and were deposited by very large volumes of water that flowed along deep, seismically active faults. The veins formed under fluctuating pressures during earthquakes, but the magnitude of the pressure fluctuations and their influence on mineral deposition is not known.
Earthquakes Make Gold Veins in an Instant
Scientists have long known that veins of gold are formed by mineral deposition from hot fluids flowing through cracks deep in Earth’s crust. But a study published today in Nature Geoscience has found that the process can occur almost instantaneously — possibly within a few tenths of a second.
I understand that you accept this system, where you cannot prove these claims, but you believe the best opinions offered in support of those claims.
If those opinions you argue for so strongly, became history the next week, month, or year, you would argue just as strongly for the newly accepted opinion.
That's your system of belief. I understand.
Mine is different, and I understand that you don't accept it.
However, each of us has to weight the evidence, and decide what to believe.
The gauge I use for measuring truth, does not change, and adjust. Rather, it often turns out, that discoveries that seem to be true, measure up correctly, to this gauge.
There is a lot that scientists are in the dark about, regarding the genome. Even their best instruments do not give accurate reading.
I hope I have explained clearly, and you understand.
One day, I think things will become clearly evident, to be undeniable.
That's not the case with your belief, apparently.
Thank you.
