Junk DNA

[Dak]

#2; Biologists are notoriously inept with numbers. I don't like statistics, it's boring, still, it's very important for biologists. In fact, statistics was in great part built for biology. Yet, most universities have only one (very easy) mandatory course in statistics. It's not enough. And what about mathematics! How many ecologists can understand the theoretical works of Peter Abrams or Stephen Hubbell ? Getting some info on an ecosystem, or about the structure of the genome of some drosophilids, it's not enough. We have to use these information to improve our theories. It can rarely be done without some maths.

 

I felt this after getting my bacholorate... i was kinda surprised at how little stats i actually knew I also didn't learn too much about the scientific method, tbh.

 

If anyone wants this split off from the main topic into it's own thread, just holler.

[PhDP]

Junk DNA was never pushed by real scientists. That was more the domain of those I like to refer to as "Religious Atheists" and pseudo-scientists trying to conjure up evidence for evolution. People have been finding various uses for "junk" DNA, such as regulation of proteins and genes, spacing, damage buffer, and more. Much of it we still do not understand, but that does not mean it has no purpose.

 

I you're being sarcastic. Very few scientists like the expression "Junk DNA", but it's a fact that a certain portion of the genome is functionless. But if by "real scientists" you mean "young earth creationists", then I agree, otherwise its nonsense.

[pioneer]

I used the term junk DNA for a lack of a better term. I am not a biologist but I do know about chemistry. I also specialized in polymers and am aware of how weak secondary forces is what defines the properties of polymers. DNA is just a special type of polymer, who properties are determined by secondary bonding forces, in particular, hydrogen bonds.

 

Even if the so-called junk is partial activity and some is inert, all this is contributing to the overall configurational properties of the DNA. What I was saying, parts that don't have any apparent role in genetic expression, such as the centromere regions, still have a bulk impact on the DNA.

 

Packed and unpacked by being two different states are DNA will have different configurational properties. For example, latex paints are often blends of acrylic and/or vinyl polymers. Depending the ratio, gives one different properties. In the case of adding packing proteins, as well as which order of packing, one has a discontinuous composite material, where the properties differ along the DNA, depending on the blend. The so called junk or stuff packed away, add more packing composite.

 

The cell keeps this extra stuff because it requires the packing composite. It plays a role in helping to define the composite potential and gradients that need to exist within the nucleus to make the DNA work right.

[Mr Skeptic]

Junk DNA was never pushed by real scientists. That was more the domain of those I like to refer to as "Religious Atheists" and pseudo-scientists trying to conjure up evidence for evolution. People have been finding various uses for "junk" DNA, such as regulation of proteins and genes, spacing, damage buffer, and more. Much of it we still do not understand, but that does not mean it has no purpose.

 

I you're being sarcastic. Very few scientists like the expression "Junk DNA", but it's a fact that a certain portion of the genome is functionless. [bold added by me] But if by "real scientists" you mean "young earth creationists", then I agree, otherwise its nonsense.

 

There you go. Real scientists search for explanations and proof, they don't just give up and say something is functionless. Care to back up that claim (I'm not saying the claim is false, just noting that you made a claim that is unprovable and offered no evidence besides)

[pioneer]

Configurational potential within the sum of the DNA structures make the entire DNA important to the final affect. An analogy is a business. There are certain key players who are most important to business performance. But all the employees are needed, even if their role has nothing to do with the product that is sold. For example, a janitor is not involved in the manufacture, sales or distribution of the product, yet his role is to support the business in a generic type way. He is interchangeable to any business. There are certain parts of the DNA involved directly in the cell's business. There are also parts of the DNA, whose function is so general, they could also be used by any cell and offer the same amount of practical support. It has to due with the entire DNA defining a configurational potential, with some parts of the DNA, offering primarily configurational support.

 

For example, if you look at the differentiated cells of the human body, what makes these differentiated ,are the genes used actively. The unique genes that make a neuron are not active within a bone cell. As far as the bone cell is concerned, these extra genes are like teats on a boar hog. Under bone cell conditions, these are sort of junk genes, since they are never suppose to be used, or else the cell would lose its differentiation. But the cell doesn't just cut them out to prevent changes. They are still acting as part of the configurational potential of bone cell differentiation.

[lucaspa]

Some engineers and physicists have made real contributions to biology. Maynard Smith and Thomas L. Vincent (both made important contributions to evolutionary game theory) were trained in engineering.

 

Smith started out as an aeronautical engineeer but went back to school for training in genetics. Therefore I would have thought that you would not count him. It remains to be seen how important Vincent's contributions are going to be. The cancer people I know haven't taken his work seriously, and I see that it hasn't been published in the main cancer journals.

 

Configurational potential within the sum of the DNA structures make the entire DNA important to the final affect. An analogy is a business.

 

Pioneer, forget the analogy. First you have to demonstrate the assertion before you try to make an analogy of it. What exactly do you mean by that first sentence? What "final affect"?

 

Some DNA has no use. Pseudogenes are not expressed and they do not serve as control regions. Someday they may have a use again, but right now they don't contribute to the phenotype of the organism.

 

For example, if you look at the differentiated cells of the human body, what makes these differentiated ,are the genes used actively. The unique genes that make a neuron are not active within a bone cell.

 

DUH! The term you want is "expressed". The difference between phenotypes are the genes expressed.

 

As far as the bone cell is concerned, these extra genes are like teats on a boar hog. Under bone cell conditions, these are sort of junk genes, since they are never suppose to be used, or else the cell would lose its differentiation. But the cell doesn't just cut them out to prevent changes. They are still acting as part of the configurational potential of bone cell differentiation.

 

As you noted, the repressed genes are not acting AT ALL! No "potential" of bone cell differentiation because the bone cells don't use them. The reason the unexpressed genes are not "cut out" is because there is no cellular mechanism to do so. Why? Because the energy needed to code for specific proteins to cut out specific sequences in EACH of the 200 or more differentiated phenotypes in the human body is greater than the energy to simply repress expression and keep the sequences in place. Also remember that those excising proteins would have to be actively suppressed in all but the intended differentiated cell. The benefit isn't worth the cost.

 

I have thought for a long time that biology education would benefit it it evolved into a more "professional" system, much like engineering.

I think that the programs often seem to be loosey goosey.....its a free for all.

Please be more specific. What do you consider a "professional" system? What does engineering do that biology does not?

[DrDNA]

Please be more specific. What do you consider a "professional" system? What does engineering do that biology does not?

 

Something along these lines would help.......

"Engineering licensure laws vary from state to state, but, in general, to become a PE an individual must be a graduate of an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, gain four years of experience working under a PE, and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam.

 

A state engineering licensure board regulates the licensed practice of engineering within a state.

 

The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), in conjunction with its state societies and chapters, represents the interests of PEs nationwide."

http://www.nspe.org/aboutnspe/ab1-what.asp

[CDarwin]

Something along these lines would help.......

"Engineering licensure laws vary from state to state, but, in general, to become a PE an individual must be a graduate of an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, gain four years of experience working under a PE, and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam.

 

A state engineering licensure board regulates the licensed practice of engineering within a state.

 

The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), in conjunction with its state societies and chapters, represents the interests of PEs nationwide."

http://www.nspe.org/aboutnspe/ab1-what.asp

 

"Who do you propose license biologists?" is the obvious question. It's just not a 'profession.' I don't know that there's much that could be done about that. Tougher entrance into graduate schools would be about the only equivalent I could think of.

 

What is a biologist anyway? It's such a heterogeneous field with so many people from so many different backgrounds doing different things but contributing to the same broad body of knowledge.

 

Junk DNA was never pushed by real scientists. That was more the domain of those I like to refer to as "Religious Atheists" and pseudo-scientists trying to conjure up evidence for evolution. People have been finding various uses for "junk" DNA, such as regulation of proteins and genes, spacing, damage buffer, and more. Much of it we still do not understand, but that does not mean it has no purpose.

 

The term is one "real scientists" (by which I mean real scientists, not Creationists as you seem to be implying) aren't particularly fond of because it is awkward, as Phil noted. I would like to point out that the "people" you speak of are the same as the "real scientists" I speak of which also happen to be the same as the "Religions Atheists" you speak of who work to "conjure up evidence for evolution." This isn't a Creation/evolution debate. This is all work within the framework of evolutionary science, which makes it pretty similar to all of the rest of modern biology.

 

You are right however, that it is improper to say that all "junk" DNA has no purpose, both because much of it does and because much of it might that we just don't know about yet.

[DrDNA]

"Who do you propose license biologists?" is the obvious question. It's just not a 'profession.' I don't know that there's much that could be done about that. Tougher entrance into graduate schools would be about the only equivalent I could think of.

 

Perhaps something not so extreme would work......along the lines of an ACS certified chemistry program.

 

What is a biologist anyway? It's such a heterogeneous field with so many people from so many different backgrounds doing different things but contributing to the same broad body of knowledge.

It is no more broad or heterogeneous than chemistry.

I was a biology undergrad that got his PhD in chemistry so I believe that I do have some insight.

 

Every biologist should know certain fundamentals....stats is one area sorely lacking in many programs. Certainly basic bench skills and working knowledge of the basic tools of the trade are important. Many bio graduates lack these.

[pioneer]

Here is how I look at the DNA. The centromere regions remains fully packed during the day to day life of the cell. This is one extreme pole of DNA's configurational potential. As we unpack the DNA, this extreme potential lowers, as the DNA unpacks further and further. Next we have the unpacked but inactive DNA, and then the unpacked and active DNA. The extreme opposite pole of the DNA, compared to the centromere, is the nucleolus. This zone of DNA contains have the longest lengths of RNA. One way to look at it, the centromere are rich in packing proteins that contain lot of postive charge. The nucleolus is rich in long lengths of negatively charged RNA. This long RNA tends to linger longer then the smaller mRNA, making the nucleolus the opposite configurational pole.

 

If we get back to the junk genes, so to speak, since they are not needed as part of the active genes, if these get packed away, they help add a little extra to the packing pole of the DNA. These could also be collected in partial packing configurations, which are a configurational potential step down relative to the centromere. The DNA could use this to shift its configurational polarity a little closer toward the nucleolus.

 

If we go outside the nuclear membrane, the activity in the cytoplasm sets a potential on the outside of the nuclear membrane. This can be chemical flux, as well as based on H-potential. This is the wild card variable that will have an impact on the configurational potential of DNA. It affects the bottom end of the DNA configurational polarity, i.e., active. Since the DNA is a gradient potential, shifting the bottom pole shifts both poles. It may require unpacking some new DNA to get the needed genes into the game. The top end just lost some of its impact, while the bottom end is stronger. This shift in DNA's structural polarity may then allow the nucleolus region to get larger, for the needed extra ribosome precursor production.

 

This analysis does not preclude all the chemical affects that occur. These add fine tuning to the DNA's configurational potential. For example, when helicase attaches to the DNA, it looks for starter regions on the gene and stops at termination regions. Genes are set up with a gradient potential or else the helicase could go from A to B or B to A. Point A allows helicase to define the best equilibrium on the DNA. Point B would cause it to form a composite in nonequilibrium, which is why this means, time to leave. At the same token, just because DNA is unpacked, this does not mean that helicase has to always attach to all the starter regions, all the time. The DNA can also tweak the starter potential to make it more or less favorable.

 

This is following is only presented as an intellectual example, the cell does not do this. If we took an active gene and moved it closer to the upper pole or centromere's potential, but not allow it to pack, its configurational potential will now be closer to that of packed genes and away from active genes, due to the impact of configurational structures on the water. This will not be a favorable equilibrium place for helicase. This is where the unpacking enzymes find their equilibrium.

 

The presence of our unpacked DNA, being forced not to pack, may cause a local potential that affects a small zone of local packing, ie., creates nonequilibrium. The way the DNA is packed, does not allow it to release this potential, by itself. This will require an unpacking enzyme to go there, to form a composite that will, at first, allow it to define equilibrium. If we pull our original gene back toward the nuclear membrane, the change of location will now affect the newly unpacked gene. It may now define nonequilibrium and may need to repack to define equilibrium. The new place, will also affect the potential of our gene's starter zone, causing helicase to return, since it is able to form an equilibrium composite.

 

I realize this is oversimplified but one has to crawl before they can run.

[Mr Skeptic]

The term is one "real scientists" (by which I mean real scientists, not Creationists as you seem to be implying) aren't particularly fond of because it is awkward, as Phil noted. I would like to point out that the "people" you speak of are the same as the "real scientists" I speak of which also happen to be the same as the "Religions Atheists" you speak of who work to "conjure up evidence for evolution." This isn't a Creation/evolution debate. This is all work within the framework of evolutionary science, which makes it pretty similar to all of the rest of modern biology.

 

You are right however, that it is improper to say that all "junk" DNA has no purpose, both because much of it does and because much of it might that we just don't know about yet.

 

By real scientists I mean people who use the scientific method. They would be unhappy with saying "junk DNA has no purpose because we don't know its purpose" because that is very flawed logic. That would be giving up.

 

The people I term "Religious Atheists" (perhaps "Religiously Atheistic" would convey the meaning better?) are people who treat Atheism as a religion. You could say, "Religious Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby for someone who spends a good portion of his time mocking people who collect stamps." These people will jump on anything that even appears to support evolution/disprove religion with about as much finesse as some Creationists use the second law of thermodynamics.

[foodchain]

Perhaps something not so extreme would

 

I think attempting to "license" biology will utterly fail. People coming from biology to say medical fields already have to pass rigorous certifications. Biology is not just physics or chemistry, its both plus even more really. It would be impossible I think to certify a person on every single real facet of biological study I would think. I am not trying to put biology on some large scale master of sciences or anything, its just the reality of it. A person can spend an enormous period of time studying even one species of insect.

[PhDP]

There you go. Real scientists search for explanations and proof, they don't just give up and say something is functionless. Care to back up that claim (I'm not saying the claim is false, just noting that you made a claim that is unprovable and offered no evidence besides)

 

First, you made two claims without any backup;

 

* Junk DNA was never pushed by real scientists.

 

Which is really absurd, Susumu Ohno and Motoo Kimura are among the greatest thinker in genetics and evolutionary biology, respectively. If you had read a thing about molecular evolution you would know most evolutionary molecular biologist believe that a great deal of DNA is noncoding, and probably all of them believes that at least some part of DNA is noncoding. I don't know how you can define "real scientists" to exclude them all. As a reference, just look at any book by W.-H. Li on molecular evolution.

 

* That was more the domain of those I like to refer to as "Religious Atheists" and pseudo-scientists trying to conjure up evidence for evolution.

 

I would really like to see how you can back this up, it looks similar to the conspiracy theories invoked by creationists. Do you have any evidence of "religious atheists pseudoscientists" trying to conjure up evidences for evolution by promoting "junk DNA" ?

 

Now getting back at "junk DNA". Just to be clear; nobody likes the expression "Junk DNA", and nobody really knows what it means. It was coined by Susumu Ohno, he thought that duplication would often lead to the inactivation of one copy; pseudogenes, fossils in the DNA. Other pseudogenes are caused by other factors, like neutral mutations. The term is also used for all noncoding DNA, and something for coding DNA which has no function for the organism.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why you say the claim that some DNA is "junk" is "pseudoscience", it seems to be for some religious reasons. I'm not going to list the proofs that at least some part of "junk DNA" is really junk, it would be easier for you to tell me what kind of proofs you're disputing. Mathematical proofs ? Empirical proofs ?

[Mr Skeptic]

First, you made two claims without any backup;

 

* Junk DNA was never pushed by real scientists.

 

Which is really absurd, Susumu Ohno and Motoo Kimura are among the greatest thinker in genetics and evolutionary biology, respectively. If you had read a thing about molecular evolution you would know most evolutionary molecular biologist believe that a great deal of DNA is noncoding, and probably all of them believes that at least some part of DNA is noncoding. I don't know how you can define "real scientists" to exclude them all. As a reference, just look at any book by W.-H. Li on molecular evolution.

 

I did give my reasons for that claim, and will expand it further to clarify: a real scientist would not make an argument from ignorance (we don't know what it does so it does nothing) without an incredibly good reason, and give up on trying to figure out its purpose.

 

Such good reason might be, "we understand what everything else in the genome does, but not this", or "removing the junk DNA has no effect on the viability of the affected organism, nor on its rate of evolution". Simply put, at the time people were pushing "junk DNA" there was nowhere near enough knowledge to say that it does nothing.

 

* That was more the domain of those I like to refer to as "Religious Atheists" and pseudo-scientists trying to conjure up evidence for evolution.

 

I would really like to see how you can back this up, it looks similar to the conspiracy theories invoked by creationists. Do you have any evidence of "religious atheists pseudoscientists" trying to conjure up evidences for evolution by promoting "junk DNA" ?

 

It is but a simple observation. If none of the real scientists were pushing "junk DNA" than the folks who were pushing it weren't very good scientists. Same thing with other things, such as the highly unlikely SETI program, the holy grail of finding life elsewhere other than earth, the creation of "missing links" from a pig's tooth (Nebraska man), deliberate forgery (Piltdown man), and countless extreme exaggerations, loudly proclaimed in the news and quietly forgotten. These people desperately want proof, and will go to great lengths to find it (as opposed to scientists who get their theories from their facts, not the other way around!). Now I am not saying there isn't good proof, only that there is an awful lot of bad evidence.

 

Actually, journalists may deserve the majority of the blame in this. Just pointing out that many (and I would dare say most) treat evolution and atheism like a religion, taking things on faith and parroting arguments that they do not understand and are sometimes wrong.

 

Now getting back at "junk DNA". Just to be clear; nobody likes the expression "Junk DNA", and nobody really knows what it means. It was coined by Susumu Ohno, he thought that duplication would often lead to the inactivation of one copy; pseudogenes, fossils in the DNA. Other pseudogenes are caused by other factors, like neutral mutations. The term is also used for all noncoding DNA, and something for coding DNA which has no function for the organism.

 

Yet there were quite a few people reveling in "junk DNA" and some still do so today.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why you say the claim that some DNA is "junk" is "pseudoscience", it seems to be for some religious reasons. I'm not going to list the proofs that at least some part of "junk DNA" is really junk, it would be easier for you to tell me what kind of proofs you're disputing. Mathematical proofs ? Empirical proofs ?

 

Oh, did you mean you have some proof other than argument from ignorance that some "junk DNA" really is completely useless? Yes, I know much DNA can be removed or changed with little or no noticeable effect, but is it really completely useless? Please show me.

[foodchain]

 

 

 

It is but a simple observation. If none of the real scientists were pushing "junk DNA" than the folks who were pushing it weren't very good scientists. Same thing with other things, such as the highly unlikely SETI program, the holy grail of finding life elsewhere other than earth, the creation of "missing links" from a pig's tooth (Nebraska man), deliberate forgery (Piltdown man), and countless extreme exaggerations, loudly proclaimed in the news and quietly forgotten. These people desperately want proof, and will go to great lengths to find it (as opposed to scientists who get their theories from their facts, not the other way around!). Now I am not saying there isn't good proof, only that there is an awful lot of bad evidence.

 

Finding life on other planets may not be at all what I think you are getting at. Finding life on another planet would be very enlightening to say the least for a majority of reasons I would say the primary one just being able to do comparative studies on life on earth or life on another planet. As for the other issues you bring up, maybe people in science happen to do corrupt things for more earthly reasons, such as money or funding, and it happens in more then biology. It could also be a person poured so much time and research into something when it turned out to be false they had to be right anyways. Lastly in regards to biology specifically, no other science is really attacked as much for a whole series of reasons. You don’t have presidents tossing out or playing with ideas or school boards attempting to ban natural history as much as you have them basically rejecting or attacking evolution for reasons that have little to do with science. I mean when was the last time Einstein was attacked in the press, in the classroom, or by a presidency?

 

 

 

Oh, did you mean you have some proof other than argument from ignorance that some "junk DNA" really is completely useless? Yes, I know much DNA can be removed or changed with little or no noticeable effect, but is it really completely useless? Please show me.

 

There is many different studies going on right now as to what "junk dna" is or was or does or did. I don’t find the concept of junk dna as a vestigial structure all to profound or whack either, I mean vestigial structures exist right? As for whatever junk dna may or may not be I cant say really, but like most things in biology eventually some empirically derived concrete answer or batch of them will emerge, which might show junk dna as being a product of more then one thing and not all of it being junk.

 

As for religious atheism, well, I would agree with you. They made a choice about how things are, and really if reality does not support it you have to do things, like religions do with attempting to ban evolution.

[Mr Skeptic]

Finding life on other planets may not be at all what I think you are getting at. Finding life on another planet would be very enlightening to say the least for a majority of reasons I would say the primary one just being able to do comparative studies on life on earth or life on another planet.

 

I do agree that there are very good reasons to look for life in our solar system. If it is there, it would probably be related to life on earth, either it seeded earth or earth seeded the solar system. I don't think life is so easy to create that it would occur twice separately within our reach. And if there is life up there, it would be incredibly different and a valuable study.

 

However, I think most people looking for extraterrestrial life are doing it for the wrong reason.

 

Ohhh, I forgot to mention martians. That was before my time. Did anyone believe in martians or was that just scifi?

 

As for the other issues you bring up, maybe people in science happen to do corrupt things for more earthly reasons, such as money or funding, and it happens in more then biology. It could also be a person poured so much time and research into something when it turned out to be false they had to be right anyways. Lastly in regards to biology specifically, no other science is really attacked as much for a whole series of reasons. You don’t have presidents tossing out or playing with ideas or school boards attempting to ban natural history as much as you have them basically rejecting or attacking evolution for reasons that have little to do with science. I mean when was the last time Einstein was attacked in the press, in the classroom, or by a presidency?

 

The reason for that is that evolution completely destroys the basis of Christianity. Anyone who says otherwise is completely deluded, lying, or at best uninformed. Also, if one starts with the premise that God exists, then evolution is fodder for Occam's Razor, but if one starts with the premise that gods don't exist, evolution or something similar must be true.

[foodchain]

I do agree that there are very good reasons to look for life in our solar system. If it is there, it would probably be related to life on earth, either it seeded earth or earth seeded the solar system. I don't think life is so easy to create that it would occur twice separately within our reach. And if there is life up there, it would be incredibly different and a valuable study.

I don’t know if that is exactly it. You know they did a space mission, or china did in which produced purple potatoes. The norm of reaction or relationship of an organism from an level to the environment is highly meshed and not completely deterministic. So then that’s a good deal of stuff about life on earth, but from the diversity of life on earth that is all we have to work with. Supposedly data has the amount of life living in the earth or its deeper areas such as crust as by in large a far greater mass then all life in the oceans and the surface combined. To add to this in such we can find a startling amount of diversity but of course because of evolution we can relate such and such is similar. If we found life in another environment, separate from the earth, it by chance could answer various questionings, chiefly what chemistry is required by life. Though the locality of say mars to earth as you point out could be an issue at some level, finding life on mars would allow for a great deal of questions to get more data, such as again does life require a certain chemistry or environment. I would say no overall from life on earth, but the bounds to life on earth even while vividly diverse again all relate and or share because of evolution.

 

 

 

Ohhh, I forgot to mention martians. That was before my time. Did anyone believe in martians or was that just scifi?

 

Finding intelligent life could be anything. It could mean a combative race that wants to destroy us, or a race so peaceful they want nothing to do with us. To the idea that evolution again as understood currently does not have to produce human like "intelligence" to what is the bounds again for life.

 

 

 

The reason for that is that evolution completely destroys the basis of Christianity. Anyone who says otherwise is completely deluded, lying, or at best uninformed. Also, if one starts with the premise that God exists, then evolution is fodder for Occam's Razor, but if one starts with the premise that gods don't exist, evolution or something similar must be true.

 

The ideas of other religions destroy religion. How does a follower of a religion like Buddhism go to hell? I really also could care less for occams razor, being if it truly did work its all we should really need to use. Also being an agnostic I don’t really follow either way. If there is something, it cant be supernatural or it could not exist, its all natural. I mean really, maybe something does, but its not conscious like we would think, maybe there are many of them, and they hate us and made this to play twisted games and we still all decompose in the ground into oblivion. Maybe life as we know it is some stage of evolution in which the afterlife is a hint to something else. Personally its all just philosophy, its subjective and it can be anything, its infinite really to an extent, or just another aspect of complex and or chaotic systems in my opinion.

 

For instance, the person. Here is my opinion. You have a genotype, and phenotype and an environment. So what is the bounds, and for every passing second do we all experience the same environment exactly the same with the exactly same biology? No, so in essence there is you individual. Its not very pretty though for an answer I guess, but a person after a head injury or a person on drugs shows very earthly and or real aspects to being alive and or biological...

 

You know its like QM. People found this aspect out about nature. What if QM is just a product of being human, maybe QM is sort of how our brains work and not nature? What’s the point of saying something like that if you cant prove it being right or wrong, or test such? That’s why following evolution is not an act of faith. We have proof, lots of it, and it constantly grows. Anything else besides that needs to be testable, needs to be able to become empirical in the essence of being falsifiable or not, or really all it will ever be at any point in time besides such is philosophy. So what you have then is humans at large, via whatever basically desiring to live outside of what truth we can gather about reality, which to me is a very sad state of affairs.

[DrDNA]

The reason for that is that evolution completely destroys the basis of Christianity. Anyone who says otherwise is completely deluded, lying, or at best uninformed. Also, if one starts with the premise that God exists, then evolution is fodder for Occam's Razor, but if one starts with the premise that gods don't exist, evolution or something similar must be true.

 

I have no idea why you believe that.

[Mr Skeptic]

I have no idea why you believe that.

 

Merging Christianity and evolution would destroy the vary basis of one or both. Consider:

1) the world was perfect and without death before Adam sinned. No natural selection.

2) the order of creation, eg the plants before the sun, the earth before the stars.

3) Original Sin -- as by one man (Adam) sin and death came into the world, by one man (Christ) salvation

4) Jesus' genealogy traced down to Noah then to Adam. In fact, every single genealogy in the Bible. Or were those figurative?

5) God having rights over us as our maker.

6) God having a plan for us before the creation of the world vs chance

7) Evolution being due to random mutations and natural selection

8) if evolution is true, then God has no business there (Occam's Razor)

 

So yeah, it would require some modification. And that's just off the top of my head. Basically, it would be "the Bible is not literal wherever it conflicts with science" also known as "ad hoc hypothesis".

 

The genealogies, if nothing else, are not the type of thing that can be taken poetically.

[DrDNA]

Merging Christianity and evolution would destroy the vary basis of one or both. Consider:

1) the world was perfect and without death before Adam sinned. No natural selection.

Perhaps just for humans and just perhaps. It says nothing about death regarding other creatures and plants. they died. Also, it says nothing about the possibility of human evolution before and after Adam. Man was the last created according to biblical text. How many species evolved into existence after man? There is certainly no conflict here.

In fact, according to Genesis 9, God tells Adam to "replinish" the earth. Sounds like the earth was full of something before Adam.

 

2) the order of creation, eg the plants before the sun, the earth before the stars.

What does the sun, stars or creation of the earth (directly) have to do with biological evolution?

3) Original Sin -- as by one man (Adam) sin and death came into the world, by one man (Christ) salvation.

What does this have to do with evolution?

4) Jesus' genealogy traced down to Noah then to Adam. In fact, every single genealogy in the Bible. Or were those figurative?

What does this have to do with evolution?

5) God having rights over us as our maker.

Does not conflict with evolution.

6) God having a plan for us before the creation of the world vs chance.

Does not conflict with evolution

7) Evolution being due to random mutations and natural selection.

Does not conflict Christianity.

8) if evolution is true, then God has no business there (Occam's Razor).

1. Occam's Razor is not a law.

2. Belief in evolution does not eleminate the existence of God nor does belief in God eleminate the existence of evolution. Where did you get this idea?

 

Sorry, but not one thing you listed requires eleminating one or the other.

[CDarwin]

Different people want to say that "Oh, a day was really a million years blah blah blah" and try to match up Genesis with earth's actual history, and it's when you do that that you get the problem with planets created before stars and plants before the sun. I'm personally more inclined to call the whole thing an allegory borrowed from the Creation myths of peoples that the Hebrews were in contact with. It's not supposed to mirror the real events at all; they're irrelevant.

[Mr Skeptic]

I will clarify some more

 

According to the theory of evolution, species, not individuals evolve. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans (as are Noah and his wife). Evolution would require many many others almost identical to Adam and Eve.

 

I didn't bother to mention the different timescales, because I thought it was common knowledge. In the Bible, God created everything in 6 days, not a few billion. Adam in particular was formed "from the dust of the earth".

 

People attempting to reconcile Christianity and evolution will usually sacrifice the first few chapters of Genesis, but in doing so would lose Adam, a figure about as important as Christ himself.

 

1) the world was perfect and without death before Adam sinned. No natural selection.

It is not completely clear that it would apply to non-humans, but after Adam sinned, the ground was cursed. This gives the impression that things such as thorns would not have existed beforehand, whereas evolution says they should have.

2) the order of creation, eg the plants before the sun, the earth before the stars.

Also has other changes, such as birds before land animals, that directly conflicts with evolution. Also, I doubt plants could evolve without sunlight.

3) Original Sin -- as by one man (Adam) sin and death came into the world, by one man (Christ) salvation

4) Jesus' genealogy traced down to Noah then to Adam. In fact, every single genealogy in the Bible. Or were those figurative?

These are (some) of the reasons that you can't just eliminate Adam.

5) God having rights over us as our maker.

6) God having a plan for us before the creation of the world vs chance

These conflict with the random aspect of evolution.

7) Evolution being due to random mutations and natural selection

8) if evolution is true, then God has no business there (Occam's Razor)

Often the reconciliation attempt claims that God "guided" evolution. But evolution is supposed to be random.

 

 

The genealogies, if nothing else, are not the type of thing that can be taken poetically.

 

If the genealogies are not to be taken literally, most of the bible also shouldn't be taken literally.

 

But lets not get too far off topic here. Just pointing out that the conflict between evolution and Christianity is why the issue is so politicized.

[PhDP]

I did give my reasons for that claim, and will expand it further to clarify: a real scientist would not make an argument from ignorance (we don't know what it does so it does nothing) without an incredibly good reason, and give up on trying to figure out its purpose.

 

Pseudogenes are predicted by the neutral theory and as far as I know, making predictions is not pseudoscience; it's something that "real" scientists do.

 

Oh, did you mean you have some proof other than argument from ignorance that some "junk DNA" really is completely useless? Yes, I know much DNA can be removed or changed with little or no noticeable effect, but is it really completely useless? Please show me.

 

"Completely useless" ? Nobody said "junk DNA" was completely useless (or if they did, they shouldn't), you're trying to change to definition. "Junk DNA" is noncoding or coding unnecessary products. As a gene, a pseudogene is functionless, but some believe the C value (size of the genome) has some adaptive value, so in a way, even if a gene is junk, it could have a function as "filler". In short, "junk DNA" doesn't means it's useless in every sense of the word.

 

I want to emphasize this; pseudogene are predicted by the neutral theory and the theoretical argument, in itself, is very solid (mostly because it's very simple). If the selective value of a gene wanders too close to zero, it'll eventually be hit by a mutation that will destroy the function of the gene, making it "junk", i.e.: nonsense mutations. In the case of true junk, it happens after a duplication event. So the concept of junk DNA relies on a limited numbers of things;

 

- Mutations can destroy genes (even creationists agree on that).

- Duplication (in the case of "true junk").

- Neutral theory; neutral, or even slightly deleterious mutations will reach fixation, also it explains why the pseudogene remains in the genome.

 

Which one of those poses a problem for you ? I really can't imagine how you could refuse the existence of pseudogene if you accept theses three concepts (unless you believe the earth sis 6000 years old or some other similar things...).

 

We found many of these genes, the most interesting are copies of known gene (functional in other organisms) with defects (sometime they are not even translated). You want me to find you one with a reference ? I'm sure I can easily find many interesting things abotu GULOP or some other pseudogene.

[halogirl]

i agree whith Dichotomy, last i heard it was proven wrong, not only that but it is quite possible that those "junk genes" are the basis of our natural instincts. everything about any living thing is genetic, even to how we think, the steps we take, and the associations we make to each individual thought. it seems absolutely impossible to me that we would have any "worthless" genes, even if they are to create a vestigial form.

[PhDP]

But what about gene duplications ? Neutral mutations ?

 

Obviously I believe in evolution, and from my point of view, it's absolutely impossible that we would have no "junk DNA", it's a basic consequence of population genetics.

 

It seems to me that nobody is even willing to consider the possibility that some things in life have no purposes, they're simply the results of some stochastic process. If populations were infinite in size, then, perhaps, we'll have no "junk" in our DNA. But it's not the case and at some point, a duplication occurs, one copy is destroyed by a mutation and it's carried by the host. Because it's neutral, it can reach fixation, and a whole species will then carry a dead gene.