Good news for creationists - and evolutionists

[a_haworthroberts]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19202141 (lots of comments underneath; some from the ID contigent have visited eg see comment 20 - and YEC Luther Wesley Baxter, late of the BBC Religion mb, has also joined in)
http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-h ... ia-1.11312 (I only skimmed)
No mention in the BBC News report of the YEC hypothesis of 'genetic entropy'. Perhaps it is junk science.

[a_haworthroberts]

I added a comment: "I would be interested to hear from Luther Wesley Baxter and any other Young Earth Creationists on this thread (or more widely) what is the standing - following this ENCODE research http://www.nature.com/news/encode-the-h ... ia-1.11312 - of the YEC pseudo-scientific hypothesis of human genetic entropy http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genetic-Entropy ... 1599190028 (not read)"

[a_haworthroberts]

There's a new comment being made around every two minutes under the BBC News report.

[a_haworthroberts]

Ken Ham is on the case: http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

"This discovery shows up once again the arrogance of man and the pronouncements evolutionists have made over time about so called JUNK DNA. We ve said over and over again that it was called Junk DNA because fallible finite man had not worked out what it's real purpose is. Another reminder that man knows so little--a reminder that only God knows everything and we should ALWAYS trust God's Word over fallible man's word!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... -code.html"

80% is not 100%.

And the Bible never tells us anything about our DNA. Something that appears to have escaped Ken.

[a_haworthroberts]

In a way, this week's ENCODE Project news is confirmation of old news, from 2007: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... e05874.pdf

I'm not aware that Dawkins used the 'junk DNA' argument in 'The Greatest Show on Earth' in 2009, and indeed in one of his chapters within 'Should Christians Embrace Evolution?' (also 2009) creationist Norman Nevin flagged the above paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA#Junk_DNA

[Peter Henderson]

Ken Ham is on the case: http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

"This discovery shows up once again the arrogance of man and the pronouncements evolutionists have made over time about so called JUNK DNA. We ve said over and over again that it was called Junk DNA because fallible finite man had not worked out what it's real purpose is. Another reminder that man knows so little--a reminder that only God knows everything and we should ALWAYS trust God's Word over fallible man's word!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... -code.html"

80% is not 100%.

And the Bible never tells us anything about our DNA. Something that appears to have escaped Ken.

Exactly Ashley.

What a load of crap.

I think scientists have known for quite some time that much of what is termed "junk DNA" isn't really junk.

From the Telegraph article:

Certain “switches” have already been linked to 100 diseases including Crohn’s disease, childhood diabetes

As a U.C. sufferer, this is interesting. They've been trying for years to find the trigger and what causes I.B.D. without success.

[marcsurtees]

Ken Ham is on the case: http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

"This discovery shows up once again the arrogance of man and the pronouncements evolutionists have made over time about so called JUNK DNA. We ve said over and over again that it was called Junk DNA because fallible finite man had not worked out what it's real purpose is. Another reminder that man knows so little--a reminder that only God knows everything and we should ALWAYS trust God's Word over fallible man's word!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... -code.html"

80% is not 100%.

We are working on it!
Lets go with we do not know what the 20% does, rather than conclude that it is junk. Lets do some science and find out what it does.

[Brian Jordan]

Oh dear, semantics again - it's a wonder Ham doesn't have a couple of semantics for the kids to ride on in his "museum" - I'd love to see PZ on one!

In biological labs, the term junk DNA is commonly used to describe portion of the genome which have no described function. When I first moved my blog to Scienceblogs, I wrote a little summary of a great theory advanced by William Martin and Eugene V. Koonin on the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus. (Basically the nucleus developed to separate RNA processing from RNA translation, due to the multiplication of introns which made the process of RNA processing that much more complicated.) Well the ID-ots jumped on my little blog entry and accused me of knowing nothing because I called introns “junk DNA”. At the time I thought that the whole thing was ludicrous. These ID guys clearly are not involved in the scientific process, let alone talk to people who do primary research (like me!) In cell biology/biochemistry/molecular biology circles “junk DNA” is just shorthand for portion of the genome which have no described function. To pounce on that term is playing “Gotcha”. Well I was reading Sandwalk where Larry Moran has an entry on “junk DNA” and the orgin of that term (a 1972 paper by Susumu Ohno.) The post was initiated by a SciAm article that describes this term as unfortunate because:

Although very catchy, the term “junk DNA” repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years. After all, who would like to dig through genomic garbage?

Hmmm.

There are two comments I’d like to make here …

FIRST. I always though that Sydney Brenner (one of the smartest guys in science) coined the term “junk DNA”. So I dug a bit and here is what I came up with … this quote of his:

I said it was ‘junk’ DNA, not ‘trash’. Everyone knows that you throw away trash. But junk we keep in the attic until there may be some need for it.

In anycase it is possible that Brenner said this after 1972 … (anyone know when/where that quote comes from?) … but I wanted to share it with you because it’s a real gem and explains perfectly how most scientists I know use the term.
<snip>
ADENDUM. Googling “Junk DNA origins of term” I got this crazy creationist wiki site. Now I understood why the ID-ots reacted to my post by criticizing the term “junk DNA”. They don’t know lab lingo. All they know are talking points that they get from some wiki site or blog. Do they even read primary literature? Do they talk to experimentalists? Man … to all you ID folk, go talk to people in wet labs or do some experiments yourself. Sites, like the one I described here, just demonstrate that you are nothing but an ideological movement and not some intellectual enterprise.

http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2007/02/12/junk-dna-origin-of-the-term-1/

[marcsurtees]

80% is not 100%.

And the Bible never tells us anything about our DNA. Something that appears to have escaped Ken.

Exactly Ashley.

What a load of crap.

I think scientists have known for quite some time that much of what is termed "junk DNA" isn't really junk.

Not so fast.....
the debate still rages, see:
http://apomorph.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/ ... -junk.html

[Brian Jordan]

Not so fast.....
the debate still rages, see:
http://apomorph.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/ ... -junk.html

No debate, Marc. In scientific terms, there may be uncertainty about the nature and function - or not - of some material previously termed "junk DNA". For our purposes there is no debate, just two alternative possibilities and a dichotomy of interpretation.
1) Junk DNA really is accumulated trash or
2) Junk DNA was frivolously named and misinterpreted, being actually DNA of undetermined function.
A) Creationists say it couldn't be accumulated trash because goddidit.
B) Neither its being accumulated trash nor being unrecognised functional material gives us any reason to believe goddidit.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[a_haworthroberts]

The BBC spoke to Sir Paul Nurse about the ENCODE findings at the start of today's Radio 4 'Material World':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 6_09_2012/

[a_haworthroberts]

My email to blogger Tim Gilleand just now:


"
http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2012/09/ ... rediction/
Unfortunately your blog post title appears to be misleading because you fail completely to tell us which creationist(s) predicted the (near) demise of 'junk DNA' - were you thinking perhaps of a DVD by Dr David DeWitt, first made available in 2003 (which I've heard of but not viewed)? This discovery is something that evolutionists have been aware might be coming since at least 2007.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... e05874.pdf
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... dna-part-1
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... dna-part-2
and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3085

I can see no mention here of YEC John Sanford's claimed 'genetic entropy'."

[GrumpyBob]

Actually, the real answer is that the ENCODE project hasn't shown a function for 80% of the human genome. That's a ridiculous figure inflated by a rather odd and over-broad usage of the word 'function'.

For example, the association of DNA with modified histone proteins is considered to be a 'function'. That seems a bit of a stretch 9in some cases it may reflect a function). That DNA motifs with a binding site for a protein may be widespread does not make them functional, in any biological meaningful sense. And so on, and so on.

The whole ENCODE project has been overwhelmed by the predictable media response to one percentage figure given in a total of 30 research papers: a figure given specifically to ensure a media push. And boy, has that worked. It's an excellent example of a science publicity machine run riot and with predictably dire results. The media are incompetent at science, and this is merely the latest example.

What ENCODE has produced is a map of the human genome showing where all sorts of factors bind, which bits are transcribed, where modified histones are associated and so forth. It's too important a piece of work to be hijacked by spurious claims of 80% function. And let's be clear, these are spurious claims which do the authors no credit.

In actual fact, ENCODE is probably closer to showing that 20% of the human genome has a biological function.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that Fugu (a pufferfish) gets on by with a similar number of genes, but with a genome eight-fold smaller than the human genome. Or that a lungfish has a genome of 130 billion base pairs, quite a bit more than the human 3 billion. Let's face it, that's the real evidence that the majority of the human genome lacks a biological function.

Ignore the creationists' (be they YEC, ID creationist or any other example of such buffoonery) retrospective claims of predictions. They remain individuals with wilful incomprehension of the science, but who are willing to lie about the data.

[Michael]

Actually, the real answer is that the ENCODE project hasn't shown a function for 80% of the human genome. That's a ridiculous figure inflated by a rather odd and over-broad usage of the word 'function'.

For example, the association of DNA with modified histone proteins is considered to be a 'function'. That seems a bit of a stretch 9in some cases it may reflect a function). That DNA motifs with a binding site for a protein may be widespread does not make them functional, in any biological meaningful sense. And so on, and so on.

The whole ENCODE project has been overwhelmed by the predictable media response to one percentage figure given in a total of 30 research papers: a figure given specifically to ensure a media push. And boy, has that worked. It's an excellent example of a science publicity machine run riot and with predictably dire results. The media are incompetent at science, and this is merely the latest example.

What ENCODE has produced is a map of the human genome showing where all sorts of factors bind, which bits are transcribed, where modified histones are associated and so forth. It's too important a piece of work to be hijacked by spurious claims of 80% function. And let's be clear, these are spurious claims which do the authors no credit.

In actual fact, ENCODE is probably closer to showing that 20% of the human genome has a biological function.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that Fugu (a pufferfish) gets on by with a similar number of genes, but with a genome eight-fold smaller than the human genome. Or that a lungfish has a genome of 130 billion base pairs, quite a bit more than the human 3 billion. Let's face it, that's the real evidence that the majority of the human genome lacks a biological function.

Ignore the creationists' (be they YEC, ID creationist or any other example of such buffoonery) retrospective claims of predictions. They remain individuals with wilful incomprehension of the science, but who are willing to lie about the data.

Nothing else to say.

[Brian Jordan]

There's a sensible comment in The Register, which in passing shows the nature of the creationists' deception. Towards the end, it refers to Evolution News - without the and Views bit. The author knows it's a creationist rag, and refers to it as creationist: but many people, without that warning, will be taken in by its deliberately deceptive title. Especially when, as here, shortened - as intended, of course.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/06/bio_boffin_bunfight/