85% of our DNA is JUNK, Hardly 'Intelligent design'

[abu afak]

Another Kweationist Buster string that Lutroo, et al, wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll, even if they had 3-digit IQs. They can't discuss Science strings, only TROLL the section with their own garbage: goofy boobtubes and empty claims.


DNA: optimised source code?
by Matthew Cobb
DNA: optimised source code?

[......] This isn’t right. DNA is NOT subject to ‘the most aggressive optimisation process in the universe’. Our genes are NOT perfectly adapted and beautifully designed. They are a Horrible, historical Mess. That is partly what distinguishes biology from physics and maths – it is the outcome of historical processes – evolution and natural selection* – which leave their past traces in the genome.

For reasons we don’t understand, many eukaryotic genes (that is, genes in organisms with a nucleus – so all multicellular organisms and some single-celled forms, too) are sometimes split up, interspersed by apparently meaningless sequences, called ‘introns’. Although the average intron is only 40 bases long, one of the introns in the human dystrophin gene is more than 300,000 bases long! In some rare cases, the intron of one gene can even contain a completely separate, protein-encoding gene.

This isn’t the result of ‘optimisation’: it’s due to the fact that, as François Jacob put it, evolution does not design, it tinkers. It fiddles around with stuff to hand, and as long as it works, that’s all that matters.

We know that only 5% of the human genome encodes proteins (when Francis Crick was working on the meaning of the genetic code in the 1950s, he assumed that’s all that a gene would ever do). We now know that another 5-10% is regulatory DNA, which produces RNA that regulates the activity of other genes. As to the remaining 85% – around 2.7 billion base pairs – it appears mainly to be ‘junk’,
which has No apparent function – if it were deleted, it would Not affect the fitness of the organism at all.
[.......]

abu afak/mbig
`​

 

[TheOldSchool]

Another Kweationist Buster string that Lutroo, et al, wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll, even if they had 3-digiot IQs. They can't discuss Science strings, only TROLL the section with their own garbage: goofy boobtubes and empty claims.


DNA: optimised source code?
by Matthew Cobb
DNA: optimised source code?

[......] This isn’t right. DNA is NOT subject to ‘the most aggressive optimisation process in the universe’. Our genes are NOT perfectly adapted and beautifully designed. They are a Horrible, historical Mess. That is partly what distinguishes biology from physics and maths – it is the outcome of historical processes – evolution and natural selection* – which leave their past traces in the genome.

For reasons we don’t understand, many eukaryotic genes (that is, genes in organisms with a nucleus – so all multicellular organisms and some single-celled forms, too) are sometimes split up, interspersed by apparently meaningless sequences, called ‘introns’. Although the average intron is only 40 bases long, one of the introns in the human dystrophin gene is more than 300,000 bases long! In some rare cases, the intron of one gene can even contain a completely separate, protein-encoding gene.

This isn’t the result of ‘optimisation’: it’s due to the fact that, as François Jacob put it, evolution does not design, it tinkers. It fiddles around with stuff to hand, and as long as it works, that’s all that matters.

We know that only 5% of the human genome encodes proteins (when Francis Crick was working on the meaning of the genetic code in the 1950s, he assumed that’s all that a gene would ever do). We now know that another 5-10% is regulatory DNA, which produces RNA that regulates the activity of other genes. As to the remaining 85% – around 2.7 billion base pairs – it appears mainly to be ‘junk’,
which has No apparent function – if it were deleted, it would Not affect the fitness of the organism at all.
[.......]

abu afak/mbig
`​

It's just God forgetting his techies advice to clear his cache

 

[alpine]

"85% of our DNA is JUNK"

I wonder how those 'scientists' claiming "99% of DNA is junk" 10 years ago feel about themselves now

 

[Ozone]

evolution tinkers and fiddles? where would evolution ever get the idea to do that?

 

[FA_Q2]

Another Kweationist Buster string that Lutroo, et al, wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll, even if they had 3-digit IQs. They can't discuss Science strings, only TROLL the section with their own garbage: goofy boobtubes and empty claims.


DNA: optimised source code?
by Matthew Cobb
DNA: optimised source code?

[......] This isn’t right. DNA is NOT subject to ‘the most aggressive optimisation process in the universe’. Our genes are NOT perfectly adapted and beautifully designed. They are a Horrible, historical Mess. That is partly what distinguishes biology from physics and maths – it is the outcome of historical processes – evolution and natural selection* – which leave their past traces in the genome.

For reasons we don’t understand, many eukaryotic genes (that is, genes in organisms with a nucleus – so all multicellular organisms and some single-celled forms, too) are sometimes split up, interspersed by apparently meaningless sequences, called ‘introns’. Although the average intron is only 40 bases long, one of the introns in the human dystrophin gene is more than 300,000 bases long! In some rare cases, the intron of one gene can even contain a completely separate, protein-encoding gene.

This isn’t the result of ‘optimisation’: it’s due to the fact that, as François Jacob put it, evolution does not design, it tinkers. It fiddles around with stuff to hand, and as long as it works, that’s all that matters.

We know that only 5% of the human genome encodes proteins (when Francis Crick was working on the meaning of the genetic code in the 1950s, he assumed that’s all that a gene would ever do). We now know that another 5-10% is regulatory DNA, which produces RNA that regulates the activity of other genes. As to the remaining 85% – around 2.7 billion base pairs – it appears mainly to be ‘junk’,
which has No apparent function – if it were deleted, it would Not affect the fitness of the organism at all.
[.......]

abu afak/mbig
`​

What does that have to do with ID?

Here is a hint - nothing at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another Kweationist Buster string that Lutroo, et al, wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll, even if they had 3-digit IQs. They can't discuss Science strings, only TROLL the section with their own garbage: goofy boobtubes and empty claims.


DNA: optimised source code?
by Matthew Cobb
DNA: optimised source code?

[......] This isn’t right. DNA is NOT subject to ‘the most aggressive optimisation process in the universe’. Our genes are NOT perfectly adapted and beautifully designed. They are a Horrible, historical Mess. That is partly what distinguishes biology from physics and maths – it is the outcome of historical processes – evolution and natural selection* – which leave their past traces in the genome.

For reasons we don’t understand, many eukaryotic genes (that is, genes in organisms with a nucleus – so all multicellular organisms and some single-celled forms, too) are sometimes split up, interspersed by apparently meaningless sequences, called ‘introns’. Although the average intron is only 40 bases long, one of the introns in the human dystrophin gene is more than 300,000 bases long! In some rare cases, the intron of one gene can even contain a completely separate, protein-encoding gene.

This isn’t the result of ‘optimisation’: it’s due to the fact that, as François Jacob put it, evolution does not design, it tinkers. It fiddles around with stuff to hand, and as long as it works, that’s all that matters.

We know that only 5% of the human genome encodes proteins (when Francis Crick was working on the meaning of the genetic code in the 1950s, he assumed that’s all that a gene would ever do). We now know that another 5-10% is regulatory DNA, which produces RNA that regulates the activity of other genes. As to the remaining 85% – around 2.7 billion base pairs – it appears mainly to be ‘junk’,
which has No apparent function – if it were deleted, it would Not affect the fitness of the organism at all.
[.......]

abu afak/mbig
`​

Has it occurred to you that the reason might be contained in the phrase "for reasons we don't understand"? Maybe the problem isn't that DNA "isn't optimized"; maybe it's just that we don't understand it very well yet.

Once upon a time, we believed that tonsils were useless and could be removed any time someone had a sore throat. Then we suddenly found out that they DO have a function, which we just hadn't understood, and stopped doing that.

Is there a lack of pattern, or a lack of discernment in the ones viewing the pattern?

 

[abu afak]

"85% of our DNA is JUNK" I wonder how those 'scientists' claiming "99% of DNA is junk" 10 years ago feel about themselves now

Link?
Even if true, and even it goes down to 60% or 50%, that's still not Immaculate creation, that's messy, piled-on, trial and error, evo.

evolution tinkers and fiddles? where would evolution ever get the idea to do that?

Evolution is trial and error.
Most mutations are useless/don't work out.
see below.

What does that have to do with ID?
Here is a hint - nothing at all.

Hint:
Having 85% of our DNA being useless is NOT ID.
Witness, 85% of your 85 IQ is useless.

Has it occurred to you that the reason might be contained in the phrase "for reasons we don't understand"? Maybe the problem isn't that DNA "isn't optimized"; maybe it's just that we don't understand it very well yet.

Our understanding is best it's ever been.
Maybe we don't fully understand Gravity yet either, but that is the current State of the Art.

Once upon a time, we believed that tonsils were useless and could be removed any time someone had a sore throat. Then we suddenly found out that they DO have a function, which we just hadn't understood, and stopped doing that.
Is there a lack of pattern, or a lack of discernment in the ones viewing the pattern?

The "pattern'" IS that we, and most other species, do have anatomical Remnants (not just tonsils) and this is just one incredibly strong evidence of Evolution.

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

...Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions....​

Yup, the "pattern" throughout the animal Kingdom, as observed at least centuries ago, is antaomical remnants created by Common Descent.
`

 

[alpine]

"85% of our DNA is JUNK" I wonder how those 'scientists' claiming "99% of DNA is junk" 10 years ago feel about themselves now

Link?
Even if true, and even it goes down to 60% or 50%, that's still not Immaculate creation, that's messy, piled-on, trial and error, evo.

evolution tinkers and fiddles? where would evolution ever get the idea to do that?

Evolution is trial and error.
Most mutations are useless/don't work out.
see below.

What does that have to do with ID?
Here is a hint - nothing at all.

Hint:
Having 85% of our DNA being useless is NOT ID.
Witness, 85% of your 85 IQ is useless.

Has it occurred to you that the reason might be contained in the phrase "for reasons we don't understand"? Maybe the problem isn't that DNA "isn't optimized"; maybe it's just that we don't understand it very well yet.

Our understanding is best it's ever been.
Maybe we don't fully understand Gravity yet either, but that is the current State of the Art.

Once upon a time, we believed that tonsils were useless and could be removed any time someone had a sore throat. Then we suddenly found out that they DO have a function, which we just hadn't understood, and stopped doing that.
Is there a lack of pattern, or a lack of discernment in the ones viewing the pattern?

The "pattern'" IS that we, and most other species, do have anatomical Remnants (not just tonsils) and this is just one incredibly strong evidence of Evolution.

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

...Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions....​

Yup, the "pattern" throughout the animal Kingdom, as observed at least centuries ago, is antaomical remnants created by Common Descent.
`

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com

"Junk. Barren. Non-functioning. Dark matter. That’s how scientists had described the 98% of human genome that lies between our 21,000 genes, ever since our DNA was first sequenced about a decade ago. The disappointment in those descriptors was intentional and palpable."

 

[abu afak]

"85% of our DNA is JUNK" I wonder how those 'scientists' claiming "99% of DNA is junk" 10 years ago feel about themselves now

Link?
Even if true, and even it goes down to 60% or 50%, that's still not Immaculate creation, that's messy, piled-on, trial and error, evo.

evolution tinkers and fiddles? where would evolution ever get the idea to do that?

Evolution is trial and error.
Most mutations are useless/don't work out.
see below.

What does that have to do with ID?
Here is a hint - nothing at all.

Hint:
Having 85% of our DNA being useless is NOT ID.
Witness, 85% of your 85 IQ is useless.

Has it occurred to you that the reason might be contained in the phrase "for reasons we don't understand"? Maybe the problem isn't that DNA "isn't optimized"; maybe it's just that we don't understand it very well yet.

Our understanding is best it's ever been.
Maybe we don't fully understand Gravity yet either, but that is the current State of the Art.

Once upon a time, we believed that tonsils were useless and could be removed any time someone had a sore throat. Then we suddenly found out that they DO have a function, which we just hadn't understood, and stopped doing that.
Is there a lack of pattern, or a lack of discernment in the ones viewing the pattern?

The "pattern'" IS that we, and most other species, do have anatomical Remnants (not just tonsils) and this is just one incredibly strong evidence of Evolution.

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

...Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions....​

Yup, the "pattern" throughout the animal Kingdom, as observed at least centuries ago, is antaomical remnants created by Common Descent.
`

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com

"Junk. Barren. Non-functioning. Dark matter. That’s how scientists had described the 98% of human genome that lies between our 21,000 genes, ever since our DNA was first sequenced about a decade ago. The disappointment in those descriptors was intentional and palpable."

The problem is largely one of definition, but the OP remains substantially correct.

ENCODE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....The ENCODE project's claim that 80% of the human genome has biochemical function[17] was rapidly picked up by the popular press who described the results of the project as leading to the death of junk DNA.[37][38]

However the conclusion that most of the genome is "functional" has been criticized on the grounds that ENCODE project used a liberal definition of "functional", namely anything that is transcribed must be functional.

This conclusion was arrived at Despite the widely accepted view, based on genomic conservation estimates from comparative genomics, that many DNA elements such as pseudogenes that are transcribed are nevertheless non-functional. Furthermore, the ENCODE project has emphasized sensitivity over specificity leading possibly to the detection of many false positives.[39][40][41].....​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We don't understand it therefore it's junk = LOL.

 

[abu afak]

We don't understand it therefore it's junk = LOL.

No, No, that's YOUR line/'logic" Haji.. "If we don't understand it must be god".
aka 'Goddidit'
aka God of the gaps - RationalWiki

Consistent with 'Junk DNA', we have anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
as well as DNA from even further back/useless ancestors.
+

 

[alpine]

"85% of our DNA is JUNK" I wonder how those 'scientists' claiming "99% of DNA is junk" 10 years ago feel about themselves now

Link?
Even if true, and even it goes down to 60% or 50%, that's still not Immaculate creation, that's messy, piled-on, trial and error, evo.

evolution tinkers and fiddles? where would evolution ever get the idea to do that?

Evolution is trial and error.
Most mutations are useless/don't work out.
see below.

What does that have to do with ID?
Here is a hint - nothing at all.

Hint:
Having 85% of our DNA being useless is NOT ID.
Witness, 85% of your 85 IQ is useless.

Has it occurred to you that the reason might be contained in the phrase "for reasons we don't understand"? Maybe the problem isn't that DNA "isn't optimized"; maybe it's just that we don't understand it very well yet.

Our understanding is best it's ever been.
Maybe we don't fully understand Gravity yet either, but that is the current State of the Art.

Once upon a time, we believed that tonsils were useless and could be removed any time someone had a sore throat. Then we suddenly found out that they DO have a function, which we just hadn't understood, and stopped doing that.
Is there a lack of pattern, or a lack of discernment in the ones viewing the pattern?

The "pattern'" IS that we, and most other species, do have anatomical Remnants (not just tonsils) and this is just one incredibly strong evidence of Evolution.

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

...Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions....​

Yup, the "pattern" throughout the animal Kingdom, as observed at least centuries ago, is antaomical remnants created by Common Descent.
`

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com

"Junk. Barren. Non-functioning. Dark matter. That’s how scientists had described the 98% of human genome that lies between our 21,000 genes, ever since our DNA was first sequenced about a decade ago. The disappointment in those descriptors was intentional and palpable."

The problem is largely one of definition, but the OP remains substantially correct.

ENCODE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....The ENCODE project's claim that 80% of the human genome has biochemical function[17] was rapidly picked up by the popular press who described the results of the project as leading to the death of junk DNA.[37][38]

However the conclusion that most of the genome is "functional" has been criticized on the grounds that ENCODE project used a liberal definition of "functional", namely anything that is transcribed must be functional.

This conclusion was arrived at Despite the widely accepted view, based on genomic conservation estimates from comparative genomics, that many DNA elements such as pseudogenes that are transcribed are nevertheless non-functional. Furthermore, the ENCODE project has emphasized sensitivity over specificity leading possibly to the detection of many false positives.[39][40][41].....​

It is called "epigenetics"

Read it up... Interesting and pretty deceive stuff.

Lamark was not that off after all.........

 

[FA_Q2]

Another Kweationist Buster string that Lutroo, et al, wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll, even if they had 3-digit IQs. They can't discuss Science strings, only TROLL the section with their own garbage: goofy boobtubes and empty claims.


DNA: optimised source code?
by Matthew Cobb
DNA: optimised source code?

[......] This isn’t right. DNA is NOT subject to ‘the most aggressive optimisation process in the universe’. Our genes are NOT perfectly adapted and beautifully designed. They are a Horrible, historical Mess. That is partly what distinguishes biology from physics and maths – it is the outcome of historical processes – evolution and natural selection* – which leave their past traces in the genome.

For reasons we don’t understand, many eukaryotic genes (that is, genes in organisms with a nucleus – so all multicellular organisms and some single-celled forms, too) are sometimes split up, interspersed by apparently meaningless sequences, called ‘introns’. Although the average intron is only 40 bases long, one of the introns in the human dystrophin gene is more than 300,000 bases long! In some rare cases, the intron of one gene can even contain a completely separate, protein-encoding gene.

This isn’t the result of ‘optimisation’: it’s due to the fact that, as François Jacob put it, evolution does not design, it tinkers. It fiddles around with stuff to hand, and as long as it works, that’s all that matters.

We know that only 5% of the human genome encodes proteins (when Francis Crick was working on the meaning of the genetic code in the 1950s, he assumed that’s all that a gene would ever do). We now know that another 5-10% is regulatory DNA, which produces RNA that regulates the activity of other genes. As to the remaining 85% – around 2.7 billion base pairs – it appears mainly to be ‘junk’,
which has No apparent function – if it were deleted, it would Not affect the fitness of the organism at all.
[.......]

abu afak/mbig
`​

Has it occurred to you that the reason might be contained in the phrase "for reasons we don't understand"? Maybe the problem isn't that DNA "isn't optimized"; maybe it's just that we don't understand it very well yet.

Once upon a time, we believed that tonsils were useless and could be removed any time someone had a sore throat. Then we suddenly found out that they DO have a function, which we just hadn't understood, and stopped doing that.

Is there a lack of pattern, or a lack of discernment in the ones viewing the pattern?

There is also the fact that evolution must come from somewhere and if all the DNA in the genetic code were used and/or necessary then changing that code through mutation would end up destroying something else in the code that was beneficial.

That 'junk' DNA that is not really used is likely the source of useful mutations as well as the source for 'new' information that is mutated.