quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
However, evolutionary biologists have long argued the presence of "garbage" DNA was proof of evolution because they said that there was no other explanation about why the same "garbage" would be present in "later generations".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
However, evolutionary biologists have long argued the presence of "garbage" DNA was proof of evolution because they said that there was no other explanation about why the same "garbage" would be present in "later generations".

This makes no sense. Useless DNA would not be subject to natural selection so there should be less to conserve it against the effects of random mutation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
However, evolutionary biologists have long argued the presence of "garbage" DNA was proof of evolution because they said that there was no other explanation about why the same "garbage" would be present in "later generations". Such DNA (according to them) would be an indication that design was not part of the process. Now that they have discovered strong indications that this DNA has a function, will they now accept that design is a possibility?

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Researchers have also deleted millions of base pairs of noncoding mouse DNA, and produced seemingly healthy mice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
This makes no sense. Useless DNA would not be subject to natural selection so there should be less to conserve it against the effects of random mutation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
However, evolutionary biologists have long argued the presence of "garbage" DNA was proof of evolution because they said that there was no other explanation about why the same "garbage" would be present in "later generations". Such DNA (according to them) would be an indication that design was not part of the process. Now that they have discovered strong indications that this DNA has a function, will they now accept that design is a possibility?

Although actual and potential functions have been found for some noncoding DNA, I think it's still the case that there is plenty of functionless junk in the genome. Far be it from me to disparage the noble Amoeba dubia, but it's hard to see why it needs a genome 200 times larger than mine.

quote:


Researchers have also deleted millions of base pairs of noncoding mouse DNA, and produced seemingly healthy mice.

quote:

Although actual and potential functions have been found for some noncoding DNA, I think it's still the case that there is plenty of functionless junk in the genome.

quote:

Far be it from me to disparage the noble Amoeba dubia, but it's hard to see why it needs a genome 200 times larger than mine.

quote:

Researchers have also deleted millions of base pairs of noncoding mouse DNA, and produced seemingly healthy mice.

quote:

True. Which is why it's interesting that "about 3-5% of repetitive DNA is conserved, which suggests that it might do something."
The other 96% is not conserved, suggesting it does nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Whatever the case, there is no evolutionary explanation for why organisms would retain ‘useless’ genetic information for long periods of time.

quote:


There are some hypotheses, none conclusively established, from the most academic to the less expected, for how junk DNA arose and why it persists in the genome:

These chromosomal regions could be composed of the now-defunct remains of ancient genes, known as pseudogenes, which were once functional copies of genes but have since lost their protein-coding ability (and, presumably, their biological function). After non-functionalization, pseudogenes are free to acquire genetic noise in the form of random mutations.

8% of human junk DNA has been shown to be formed by retrotransposons of Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)[5], although as much as 25% is recognisably formed of retrotransposons[6]. This is a lower limit on how much of the genome is retrotransposons because older remains might not be recognizable having accumulated too much mutation.

New research suggests that genome size variation in at least two kinds of plants is mostly because of retrotransposons.[7]

In 1997, Steven Sparks proposed that "The end purpose of this "excess DNA" must be to reduce the probability of transcribable genes being cut by chromosomal crossover. Gametes can survive only when their important, transcribed genes are saved from meiotic cutting by being surrounded with "buffer DNA"."[8]

Junk DNA might provide a reservoir of sequences from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. In this way, it may be an important genetic basis for evolution[9].

Some junk DNA could simply be spacer material that allows enzyme complexes to form around functional elements more easily. In this way, the junk DNA could serve an important function even though the actual sequence information it contains is irrelevant.

Some portions of junk DNA could serve presently unknown regulatory functions, controlling the expression of certain genes, the development of an organism from embryo to adult[10], and/or development of certain organs/organelles[11].

More and more scientists believe that in fact regulatory layer(s) in the "junk DNA", such as through non-coding RNAs, altogether contain genetic programming at least on par with, and possibly much more important than protein coding genes.[12] But still how much of the 98% would be involved in such activity is unknown.

Junk DNA may have no function. For example, recent experiments removed 1% of the mouse genome and were unable to detect any effect on the phenotype[13]. This result suggests that the DNA is, in fact, non-functional. However, it remains a possibility that there is some function that the experiments performed on the mice were merely insufficient to detect.

quote:

Well, there are some hypothesis. I answered my own question about retroviruses here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Whatever the case, there is no evolutionary explanation for why organisms would retain ‘useless’ genetic information for long periods of time.

Well, there are some hypothesis. I answered my own question about retroviruses here:

Wikipedia:

quote:


There are some hypotheses, none conclusively established, from the most academic to the less expected, for how junk DNA arose and why it persists in the genome:

These chromosomal regions could be composed of the now-defunct remains of ancient genes, known as pseudogenes, which were once functional copies of genes but have since lost their protein-coding ability (and, presumably, their biological function). After non-functionalization, pseudogenes are free to acquire genetic noise in the form of random mutations.

8% of human junk DNA has been shown to be formed by retrotransposons of Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)[5], although as much as 25% is recognisably formed of retrotransposons[6]. This is a lower limit on how much of the genome is retrotransposons because older remains might not be recognizable having accumulated too much mutation.

New research suggests that genome size variation in at least two kinds of plants is mostly because of retrotransposons.[7]

In 1997, Steven Sparks proposed that "The end purpose of this "excess DNA" must be to reduce the probability of transcribable genes being cut by chromosomal crossover. Gametes can survive only when their important, transcribed genes are saved from meiotic cutting by being surrounded with "buffer DNA"."[8]

Junk DNA might provide a reservoir of sequences from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. In this way, it may be an important genetic basis for evolution[9].

Some junk DNA could simply be spacer material that allows enzyme complexes to form around functional elements more easily. In this way, the junk DNA could serve an important function even though the actual sequence information it contains is irrelevant.

Some portions of junk DNA could serve presently unknown regulatory functions, controlling the expression of certain genes, the development of an organism from embryo to adult[10], and/or development of certain organs/organelles[11].

More and more scientists believe that in fact regulatory layer(s) in the "junk DNA", such as through non-coding RNAs, altogether contain genetic programming at least on par with, and possibly much more important than protein coding genes.[12] But still how much of the 98% would be involved in such activity is unknown.

Junk DNA may have no function. For example, recent experiments removed 1% of the mouse genome and were unable to detect any effect on the phenotype[13]. This result suggests that the DNA is, in fact, non-functional. However, it remains a possibility that there is some function that the experiments performed on the mice were merely insufficient to detect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, there are some hypothesis. I answered my own question about retroviruses here:

You do realize the hypothesis you offered tend to verify what I said?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, there are some hypothesis. I answered my own question about retroviruses here:

You do realize the hypothesis you offered tend to verify what I said?

quote:

Some junk DNA could simply be spacer material that allows enzyme complexes to form around functional elements more easily. In this way, the junk DNA could serve an important function even though the actual sequence information it contains is irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Not only is that true, but the ones that didn't are being dismissed as the evidence proves them invalid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Not only is that true, but the ones that didn't are being dismissed as the evidence proves them invalid.

Good. That's how science is supposed to work. You are acting like science working as intended is a flaw. According to creationists, science just picks a favorite theory/hypothesis to use as a new religion. Thanks for proving them wrong.

quote:

How so? They suggest we have incomplete understanding. None of those hypothesis suggest the many logical leaps required to get from that point to infer design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Not only is that true, but the ones that didn't are being dismissed as the evidence proves them invalid.

Good. That's how science is supposed to work. You are acting like science working as intended is a flaw. According to creationists, science just picks a favorite theory/hypothesis to use as a new religion. Thanks for proving them wrong.

Yes, it does work sometimes; however, sometimes it can be like pulling teeth. Look at the few holdouts who still push for an eternal static universe.

On a different note and back to the original question. Because evolutionary biologists have repeatedly used the argument of "Garbage DNA" as a bases for rejecting the hypothesis of design, will they now accept that posibility as a valid option now that the "Garbage DNA" argument is proving itself invalid? If not, I really haven't proven "them" wrong, have I?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

How so? They suggest we have incomplete understanding. None of those hypothesis suggest the many logical leaps required to get from that point to infer design.

What they show (as well as the numerous links I posted of recent finds) is that the evolutionary presupposition about ‘junk’ (lack of design) is basically being disproved.

quote:

Those were all hypothesis about Junk DNA as functional (except the last one) that all work within the framework of evolution, were they not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Not only is that true, but the ones that didn't are being dismissed as the evidence proves them invalid.

Good. That's how science is supposed to work. You are acting like science working as intended is a flaw. According to creationists, science just picks a favorite theory/hypothesis to use as a new religion. Thanks for proving them wrong.

Yes, it does work sometimes; however, sometimes it can be like pulling teeth. Look at the few holdouts who still push for an eternal static universe.

On a different note and back to the original question. Because evolutionary biologists have repeatedly used the argument of "Garbage DNA" as a bases for rejecting the hypothesis of design, will they now accept that posibility as a valid option now that the "Garbage DNA" argument is proving itself invalid? If not, I really haven't proven "them" wrong, have I?

We don't really need evidence 'against' design, although there is plenty. There is no evidence for design other than 'life is complex' and/or we don't know how something works. Or the, what I contend is a gross categorization error, conflating of biological complex information systems with human designed complex information systems and jumping to the conclusion that since one is designed the other must be too, even though our knowledge of natural processes that could form such biological systems is grossly lacking (though we do have some solid hypothesis). It's a little like saying all rivers and streams must be designed because we can dig trenches and canals.

quote:

We don't really need evidence 'against' design, although there is plenty. There is no evidence for design other than 'life is complex' and/or we don't know how something works. Or the, what I contend is a gross categorization error, conflating of biological complex information systems with human designed complex information systems and jumping to the conclusion that since one is designed the other must be too, even though our knowledge of natural processes that could form such biological systems is grossly lacking (though we do have some solid hypothesis). It's a little like saying all rivers and streams must be designed because we can dig trenches and canals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

We don't really need evidence 'against' design, although there is plenty. There is no evidence for design other than 'life is complex' and/or we don't know how something works. Or the, what I contend is a gross categorization error, conflating of biological complex information systems with human designed complex information systems and jumping to the conclusion that since one is designed the other must be too, even though our knowledge of natural processes that could form such biological systems is grossly lacking (though we do have some solid hypothesis). It's a little like saying all rivers and streams must be designed because we can dig trenches and canals.

Well, no, even evolutionists like Dawkins admit life has every appearance of design, and design for most of human history has been the default position for this very reason.

Evolution claims to explain that design apart from intelligence, not deny the design exists.

And it is biologists that make the comparisons between human technology and the information systems and nano-machinery found in biology – because that is how biology is best understood.

quote:

Perhaps I should clarify. Design as ID describes it is design by some intelligence external to the forces of natural selection, random mutation, sexual selection etc... design as a result of some sentient being. There is ample evidence of biological systems that respond to environmental, natural pressures in order to function in the environment they find themselves in, but its not evidence of sentient design.

quote:

I do not contend that biologists dont make comparisons between biological systems and man made machines, especially for the purposes of teaching. However, unless one is careful, those comparisons can lead one to believe that the similarities are more than they really are. Looking at nice textbook diagrams of DNA splitting, RNA splicing and the building new proteins from mRNA looks awfully neat, precise and much like an assembly line in a manufacturing plant but its not correct to take all characteristics of those independent systems and just transpose them on one another (like design by intelligence).

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

We don't really need evidence 'against' design, although there is plenty. There is no evidence for design other than 'life is complex' and/or we don't know how something works. Or the, what I contend is a gross categorization error, conflating of biological complex information systems with human designed complex information systems and jumping to the conclusion that since one is designed the other must be too, even though our knowledge of natural processes that could form such biological systems is grossly lacking (though we do have some solid hypothesis). It's a little like saying all rivers and streams must be designed because we can dig trenches and canals.

Well, no, even evolutionists like Dawkins admit life has every appearance of design, and design for most of human history has been the default position for this very reason.

Evolution claims to explain that design apart from intelligence, not deny the design exists.

And it is biologists that make the comparisons between human technology and the information systems and nano-machinery found in biology – because that is how biology is best understood.

Perhaps I should clarify. Design as ID describes it is design by some intelligence external to the forces of natural selection, random mutation, sexual selection etc... design as a result of some sentient being. There is ample evidence of biological systems that respond to environmental, natural pressures in order to function in the environment they find themselves in, but its not evidence of sentient design. Sentient design is what I was referring to.