Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What, you don't know that lemurs are a species of primate, as are humans?
You actually believe in that fairy tale?
Human genome contains 97% "junk DNA aka noncoding DNA aka We DON'T know the function of it....
Quote:
Aside from genes and known regulatory sequences, the human genome contains vast regions of DNA the function of which, if any, remains unknown. These regions in fact comprise the vast majority, by some estimates 97%, of the human genome size.
So you allow these con-men to convince you that we "evolved" from primates with only 3% known function of the human genome? Geez.
Do you really believe that we don't know the reason humans have non coded (junk) DNA or it's function?
Many noncoding DNA sequences have very important biological functions. Comparative genomics reveals that some regions of noncoding DNA are highly conserved, sometimes on time-scales representing hundreds of millions of years, implying that these noncoding regions are under strong evolutionary pressure and positive selection.
For example, in the genomes of humans and mice, which diverged from a common ancestor 65–75 million years ago, protein-coding DNA sequences account for only about 20% of conserved DNA, with the remaining majority of conserved DNA represented in noncoding regions.
Yes...and those "new species" are still all of the same kind. Thus my argument variation through natural selection produce different kinds of the the same species. For instance different kinds of eagles. Different kinds of tigers. The different kinds are the variations that are produced through natural selection. You call them new species (I call them kinds), but the variation is within the species nevertheless. It does not turn a whale to a cow or a dinosaur to a bird.
It seems to me that you fail to comprehend the effect of vast spans of time. If you can comprehend the concept that natural selection can create different kinds of eagles, then it stands to reason that if two different eagle "types" (say Haast's Eagle, an extinct super-sized raptor far bigger than anything alive today that used to prey on extinct giant flightless birds) vs a Booted Eagle (about the size of your average Red Tailed Hawk) can diverge to be so different in size and appearance, what is stopping an eagle species from effectively being a hawk (like a red tailed hawk)? And if an eagle can become a hawk with enough time, what is stopping some of the species from becoming a vulture? A chicken? a dinosaur? Given enough time, if an animal species can change a little, than it can obviously change A LOT with A LOT of little changes accumulated over vast amounts of time. Of course, the actual evolution of eagles went the other way around, but it is not impossible to conceive of birds evolving back into huge dinosaur-like creatures in another 50-100 million years. We are by no means at the "pinnacle of creation".
The other false piece of reasoning here is the concept of species in general. All of the categorization of life made up by humans Biological classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... you see, we have this innate need (call it an instinct ) to neatly organize, classify and label everything we see, including dynamic forces like organic life that doesn't always fit into neat little categories and never, ever stays the same forever. (even the oldest species on earth are only 200 million years old... long for us, true... but the history of life on Earth is well over 3 billion years)
To me it is a far more beautiful, elegant and workable plan than the: "god created a base creature and lets them change a little bit, but not too much" sort of system that you suggest. Even if there was a god, he'd know life would have to change and adapt to perpetuate itself over the long haul or it would simply atrophy and die out... so a creator would necessarily set up life to work through the evolutionary process.
Do you really believe that we don't know the reason humans have non coded (junk) DNA or it's function?
Many noncoding DNA sequences have very important biological functions. Comparative genomics reveals that some regions of noncoding DNA are highly conserved, sometimes on time-scales representing hundreds of millions of years, implying that these noncoding regions are under strong evolutionary pressure and positive selection.
For example, in the genomes of humans and mice, which diverged from a common ancestor 65–75 million years ago, protein-coding DNA sequences account for only about 20% of conserved DNA, with the remaining majority of conserved DNA represented in noncoding regions.
Some noncoding DNA sequences are genetic "switches" that do not encode proteins, but do regulate when and where genes are expressed. Functions of Junk DNA
Ok I was under the impression that noncoding DNA was the same as junk DNA. It is not. Junk DNA is a term for the noncoding regions that are UNKNOWN.
Quote:
Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA"
I am now aware that some noncoding DNA has known function. But MOST of it does not. I am also now aware that noncoding DNA is not synonymous with junk DNA, as I previously thought. But this still does not change the fact that 97% of the human genome has no known function, and they tell us we are related to primates anyway. It's taught as fact with 97% of human genome function UNKNOWN. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is.
I am now aware that some noncoding DNA has known function. But MOST of it does not. I am also now aware that noncoding DNA is not synonymous with junk DNA, as I previously thought. But this still does not change the fact that 97% of the human genome has no known function, and they tell us we are related to primates anyway. It's taught as fact with 97% of human genome function UNKNOWN.
Gene studies are fascinating, but you don't need them to see we're related:
That's more than a passing resemblance. In fact, it's a lot like comparing Hawks and Eagles:
I am now aware that some noncoding DNA has known function. But MOST of it does not. I am also now aware that noncoding DNA is not synonymous with junk DNA, as I previously thought. But this still does not change the fact that 97% of the human genome has no known function, and they tell us we are related to primates anyway. It's taught as fact with 97% of human genome function UNKNOWN. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is.
So are you disputing that this DNA who's function is yet unknown came from our evolutionary past? Just because something's function is unknown, does not mean that it has NO function.
In any case progress is being made in discovering the purpose of non coding DNA.
Some studies have found that noncoding DNA plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression during development
Some noncoding DNA sequences are genetic "switches" that do not encode proteins, but do regulate when and where genes are expressed.
Over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes.
Over 60 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes.
Some studies indicate that non-coding DNA regulate translation of proteins. Recently, experimental results by Gariaev et al indicate that some, and perhaps important, aspects of genetic regulation are mediated at a quantum level. Moreover, in this respect they suggest that non-coding "Junk DNA" plays a crucial role.... Junk DNA" - Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function
So are you disputing that this DNA who's function is yet unknown came from our evolutionary past? Just because something's function is unknown, does not mean that it has NO function.
That was never my argument. My argument was that 97% of the human genome is unknown, yet we are told we evolved from monkey. Moreover, they claim we are 97% genetically related. Which is of when they admit that they only know 3% of human genome function currently.
See how they teaching this stuff as fact even though they admit they do not know 97=% of the human genome. That plain dishonesty.
Quote:
In any case progress is being made in discovering the purpose of non coding DNA.
Some studies have found that noncoding DNA plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression during development
Some noncoding DNA sequences are genetic "switches" that do not encode proteins, but do regulate when and where genes are expressed.
Over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes.
Over 60 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes.
Some studies indicate that non-coding DNA regulate translation of proteins. Recently, experimental results by Gariaev et al indicate that some, and perhaps important, aspects of genetic regulation are mediated at a quantum level. Moreover, in this respect they suggest that non-coding "Junk DNA" plays a crucial role.... Junk DNA" - Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown function
There is no "in any case". It's being taught as fact even though they do not know 97% of the human genome. Why are you ignoring that to push the "we're looking for the answers" card? Yes they are "searching for the answers". But in the meantime they are indoctrinating youth even though they cannot scientifically prove it right now. Yes studies have shown function of noncoding DNA...BUT 97% of human genome is UNKNOWN. That's just dishonest.
From your article...
Quote:
However, the knowledge is still very incomplete about this DNA. And there is little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes.
Without this knowledge it is completely impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.
Quote:
Presently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be "junk". The most exhaustive knowledge is about the genes responsible for the bodily structures, the structural genes, which are the simplest part of the system. But the knowledge about the most important part of this system, the regulator genes, is incomplete. The genetic code language of these genes is only partially known. More than 98 percent of all DNA, was called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists, because they were unable to ascribe any function to it. They assumed that it was just "molecular garbage". If it were "junk", the sequence of the "syllables", i.e. the nucleotides in DNA should be completely random.
...but humans are related to apes...???
Hey since there is no current scientific evidence to back that claim you can always start posting pictures like Chango.
Last edited by Bar'el; 03-24-2012 at 12:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) to neatly organize, classify and label everything we see, including dynamic forces like organic life that doesn't always fit into neat little categories and never, ever stays the same forever. (even the oldest species on earth are only 200 million years old... long for us, true... but the history of life on Earth is well over 3 billion years)
