Mysterious Phenomenon in Genomes Provides Opportunity

One of the most intriguing areas of research could be found in Eukaryotes which genomes contain many intragenic regions, commonly known as introns. Sophisticated DNA-transcribing machinery cuts into this area so that true gene sections can be spliced together. Introns can vary from 20 base pairs to over 500,000 and is currently considered for the most part as “meaningless junk”  but the winds of change are knocking at it’s front door!

Could this be a test case for the explanatory power of intelligent design vs evolution?  This would be a great opportunity for creation scientists who have a different outlook than those who have embraced evolution. This research can also be easily compared to “junk DNA” as stated in science daily

Tiny strands of RNA previously dismissed as cellular junk are actually very stable molecules that may play significant roles in cellular processes, according to researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.”

Jumping to conclusions is something commonly practiced in the hypothesis of evolution. Sometimes it’s the result of justifying the funding or other things. Although some have argued they never jumped to a conclusion with junk DNA only re-defined the word “junk” to non-function.  However, those two terms mean the same thing. Now we are seeing similar labels and a beginning of reversals with introns…

“The sequences of nonsense DNA that interrupt genes could be far more important to the evolution of genomes than previously thought, according to a recent Science report by Indiana University Bloomington and University of New Hampshire biologists.”

“Their study of the model organism Daphnia pulex (water flea) is the first to demonstrate the colonization of a single lineage by “introns,” as the interrupting sequences are known.”

For evolutionary scientists, how it evolved is less important than “it did evolve” one way or another over long periods of time. This what they consider progress in science. Just like junk DNA, introns may appear as nonsense to us right now but it’s role could have a purpose in prevention genetic catastrophes in the whole scheme of it’s design.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Mysterious Phenomenon in Genomes Provides Opportunity

  1. Do we really need any further proof that Michael’s anonymous source doesn’t know one end of his alimentary canal from the other when speaking of matters biological? But here it is—

    (A) “Introns can vary from 20 base pairs to over 500,000 and is currently considered for the most part as “meaningless junk” but the winds of change are knocking at it’s front door!”
    (B) “Tiny strands of RNA previously dismissed as cellular junk are actually very stable molecules that may play significant roles in cellular processes, according to researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.”

    Michael apparently doesn’t know the difference between DNA and RNA. The “introns” of snippet (A) above are DNA, and are part of the genome. The strands of snippet (B) are RNA, and are not part of the genome, but free-floating small molecules in the cell fluid. Therefore, Michael’s two statements have nothing to do with each other. Except in his febrile imagination.

    Don’t you readers (if any) ever get tired of being hoodwinked by this charlatan?

  2. “Although some have argued they never jumped to a conclusion with junk DNA only [sic] re-defined the word “junk” to non-function [sic]. However, those two terms mean the same thing.”

    Yes they do. Your problem, once more, is basic reading comprehension. “Junk DNA” was redefined as “non-coding” DNA, not as “non-functional.” Eighth-grade biology students can tell you that “non-coding” means that this DNA doers not code directly into proteins. Some of it does have function, such as gene regulation.

  3. Once again, we have the true irony of creationism.

    Creationists toss off unsubstantiated “predictions,” then do not lift a finger to test them. Most of the “predictions” prove wrong. Those are ignored—they never happened.. A random few turn out to be at least partially correct. These are loudly trumpeted, as if the creationists themselves had demonstrated them.

    But of course it is not the creationists who run the experiments to verify these predictions. It is evolutionary scientists!

    Because creationists do not do research. And that is the simple fact of the matter.

  4. Michael: “For evolutionary scientists, how it evolved is less important than “it did evolve” one way or another over long periods of time.”

    Michael and his puppeteer are of course totally unfamiliar with evolutionary research. You can see this from thge many mistakes that they make—many of their bizarre inferences can be traced directly to a complete lack of understanding of the research process, the nature of evidence, and the design of experiments.

    I am only aware of one major recent paper that looked at the question of “if” evolution occurred. This is the 1982 Penny paper mentioned in connection with a recent post.

    The other 1800 papers per year studied “how” evolution occurred in particular situations. Just look at the recent articles Michael himself has cited: How the phylogenetic tree of horses is arranged. How the early radiation of dinosaurs occurred. When the bird groups arose. Analysis of transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods. Analysis of soft tissue from fossils to populate dinosaur cladograms.

    I can think of many other examples just offhand from recent Science articles. How snake toxin syringes evolved toward two different jaw locations. How a single protein controlled the evolution of the 4-chambered heart in mammals. How the mammalian jaw evolved multiple times from the reptilian configuration. Several articles on how the function of the ribosome evolved. How corn evolved from teosinte—the steps involved. How bats evolved rapidly by means of a single gene controlling finger length. How butterflies speciate, from discovery of a polymorphic specimen. How animal pollination of plants began. How religion might have evolved in primitive societies. How arteries and veins evolved from single tubes. How ardipithecus fits into the human evolutionary bush. And many more, of course.

    All those article on “how” evolution occurred, not a single on one on merely “if” evolution happened.

    There comes a time, Michael when the boundary between sheer stupidity and deliberate lie becomes hazy. Was your statement above a deliberate lie, or merely reckless disregard for the truth?

  5. Michael: “This what they consider progress in science. Just like junk DNA, introns may appear as nonsense to us right now but it’s role could have a purpose in prevention genetic catastrophes in the whole scheme of it’s design.”

    Yes. Scientists consider progress to be making hypotheses, designing experiments to rest thm, analyzing data, and determining whether the hypothesis is true—and, by the way, generating ideas for new hypotheses. As with looking for functions in “junk DNA,” for example.

    What creationists consider to be progress is sitting in a dark corner, sifting real scientists’ efforts for things that can be bent to their preconceived ideas, then jumping up and down the few times they find any—claiming that they “predicted” it all along.

    I’ll take scientific progress over the creationist definition any day.

  6. “Could this be a test case for the explanatory power of intelligent design vs evolution? This would be a great opportunity for creation scientists who have a different outlook than those who have embraced evolution. This research can also be easily compared to “junk DNA” as stated in science daily…”

    I don’t see how this is best explained by intelligent design. In fact, nothing is best explained by intelligent desing, that’s why it isn’t the accepted theory.

    Pablo
    Pablo’s Origins Blog

  7. Pablo: “In fact, nothing is best explained by intelligent desing, that’s why it isn’t the accepted theory.”

    In fact, nothing at all is—or can be—explained by intelligent design.

    Consider this conversation:

    8-year-old child: “Dad, why is the sky blue?”
    Father: “Because God made it that way.”
    Child: “Well, why is grass green?”
    Father: “Because God made it that way.”
    Child: “Then why do trees grow tall and why doesn’t grass?”
    Father: “Because God made them that way.”
    Child:

    As opposed to this one:

    8-year-old child: “Dad, why is the sky blue?”
    Father: “Because the air affects different colors differently.”
    Child: “Why does it do that?”
    Father: “Because different colors have different wavelengths, and the size of the air molecules affects how the different waves will bend.”
    Child: “Why do the molecules bend the light waves?”
    Father: “Because they make the waves slow down when they hit.”
    Child:

    The second conversation probes deeper and deeper into the nature of the thing studied, whereas the first chokes off all inquiry with the same opaque answer.

    With that kind of home background, is it any wonder that creationists’ kids do not become scientists?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s