South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

April 25, 2018, 08:44:16 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Rethinking junk DNA

 (Read 12009 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2009, 17:22:10 PM »

Mmm, where did you get this hypothesis? Who's idea is it? Could you perhaps point to any scientifically peer-reviewed articles stating this hypothesis. I am interested.
No, I’m afraid can’t cite you any papers off the top of my head.  Nor should it be necessary to do so because it is plainly implicit in the concept and definition of “Junk DNA” (or here and here and here).

These facts are also NOT indicative of no intentional design or NO directed purpose either. Such claims are outside the scope of science.
I’m puzzled and intrigued.  Not by the assertion itself (which is in any case wrong), but by your actually making it to begin with. If you really think that it is so, what on earth possessed you to initiate this topic here in the “Science and Technology” subforum!?

'Luthon64
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2009, 17:52:11 PM »

I’m puzzled and intrigued.  Not by the assertion itself (which is in any case wrong), but by your actually making it to begin with. If you really think that it is so, what on earth possessed you to initiate this topic here in the “Science and Technology” subforum!?

Brilliant! LOL!  Grin Grin

Remind me never to cross verbal swords with you!
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2009, 19:47:01 PM »

Which facts have rendered which hypothesis useless?

The absence of facts. Please pay attention!

Ugh... which facts (or lack thereof) have made which hypothesis useless? Do elaborate on this hypothesis.

It is gratifying that you know this. What you do not seem to realise that if there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. Not proof, perhaps not very strong evidence either, but evidence nonetheless.

Quote
Hold on, are you actually proposing that science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds? That is new. How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward? Do elaborate on this wild idea of yours.
And what evidence in nature will yield evidence of other minds (other than human that is) for you? You do believe humans have minds don't you?

lol. I'm not sure you have one! I was not speaking about minds at all. re-read?

Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something. Like this  Tongue:
You say science would have picked it up.
I will ask you again how you would propose science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human)? How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward?

EDIT: it suddenly struck me that I know you and there is something that you hate. "I don't know"

How does this apply? Quite easily. By analogy if you will. We found an object. Is this object designed or not? The default position is "We don't know". To change this position we need evidence either way. Or, and I know this will kill you, it stays "We don't know"!

The onus of evidence resides on your shoulders, you claim design.

So... how about you apply your "I don't know" hypothesis to "junk DNA"?
How does this "I don't know" attitude hold with the hypothesis that:
"More or less neutral genetic junk that has accumulated through evolutionary processes over the history of the genotype because DNA rarely “trims the fat” so to speak."

While no peer-reviewed literature has been provided for this hypothesis, and no clear definition has been given for "neutral genetic junk", do you think this kind of attitude should be applied to genetic regions we do not fully understand yet?

Mmm, where did you get this hypothesis? Who's idea is it? Could you perhaps point to any scientifically peer-reviewed articles stating this hypothesis. I am interested.
No, I’m afraid can’t cite you any papers off the top of my head.  Nor should it be necessary to do so because it is plainly implicit in the concept and definition of “Junk DNA” (or here and here and here).

Still no peer-reviewed literature about that hypothesis of yours? Come on, you can do better than wiki links.

These facts are also NOT indicative of no intentional design or NO directed purpose either. Such claims are outside the scope of science.
I’m puzzled and intrigued.  Not by the assertion itself (which is in any case wrong), but by your actually making it to begin with. If you really think that it is so, what on earth possessed you to initiate this topic here in the “Science and Technology” subforum!?

Yes, it must be wrong because you said so right? But, let's not get too far off topic here.

More functions of "neutral genetic junk"...


'Junk' DNA Has Important Role, Researchers Find
Quote
ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009) — Scientists have called it "junk DNA." They have long been perplexed by these extensive strands of genetic material that dominate the genome but seem to lack specific functions. Why would nature force the genome to carry so much excess baggage?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2009, 21:08:15 PM »

Still no peer-reviewed literature about that hypothesis of yours? Come on, you can do better than wiki links.



Yes, it must be wrong because you said so right? But, let's not get too far off topic here.
No, thank you.  You win.  I’ll pass on all counts – in keeping with this thread’s ruling spirit of not answering questions, not reading supplied material, evasion, deflection and having next to nothing to offer.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2009, 08:13:50 AM »

Still no peer-reviewed literature about that hypothesis of yours? Come on, you can do better than wiki links.



Yes, it must be wrong because you said so right? But, let's not get too far off topic here.
No, thank you.  You win.  I’ll pass on all counts – in keeping with this thread’s ruling spirit of not answering questions, not reading supplied material, evasion, deflection and having next to nothing to offer.

'Luthon64

That is a pity really. But.... more about "neutral genetic junk"  Grin.

'Junk' DNA Proves To Be Highly Valuable
Quote
ScienceDaily (June 6, 2009) — What was once thought of as DNA with zero value in plants--dubbed "junk" DNA--may turn out to be key in helping scientists improve the control of gene expression in transgenic crops.


Quote
That's according to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) plant pathologist Bret Cooper at the agency's Soybean Genomics and Improvement Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and collaborators at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md.

For more than 30 years, scientists have been perplexed by the workings of intergenic DNA, which is located between genes. Scientists have since found that, among other functions, some intergenic DNA plays a physical role in protecting and linking chromosomes. But after subtracting intergenic DNA, there was still leftover or "junk" DNA which seemed to have no purpose.

Cooper and collaborators investigated "junk" DNA in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, using a computer program to find short segments of DNA that appeared as molecular patterns. When comparing these patterns to genes, Cooper's team found that 50 percent of the genes had the exact same sequences as the molecular patterns. This discovery showed a sequence pattern link between "junk" and coding DNA. These linked patterns are called pyknons, which Cooper and his team believe might be evidence of something important that drives genome expansion in plants.

The researchers found that pyknons are also the same in sequence and size as small segments of RNA that regulate gene expression through a method known as gene silencing. This evidence suggests that these RNA segments are converted back into DNA and are integrated into the intergenic space. Over time, these sequences repeatedly accumulate. Prior to this discovery, pyknons were only known to exist in the human genome. Thus, this discovery in plants illustrates that the link between coding DNA and junk DNA crosses higher orders of biology and suggests a universal genetic mechanism at play that is not yet fully understood.

The data suggest that scientists might be able to use this information to determine which genes are regulated by gene silencing, and that there may be some application for the improvement of transgenic plants by using the pyknon information.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2009, 10:05:24 AM »

Ugh... which facts (or lack thereof) have made which hypothesis useless? Do elaborate on this hypothesis.
It is your hypothesis. Why should I elaborate on it?
Quote
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something.
Some indications of design or directed purposes then please?
Quote
Like this  Tongue
How very apt seeing what you sprout  Grin
Quote
You say science would have picked it up.
Yes. Science measure things that can be... measured.
Quote
I will ask you again how you would propose science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human)? How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward?
Can we first clarify what you mean with minds other than human minds? When birds build a nest, is that design by mind? When aliens build UFO's, is that design by mind? When Gods create universe by speaking words, is that design?

The onus remains on *you* you give an example of your hypothesis. Don't shift the burden of proof yo!
Quote
So... how about you apply your "I don't know" hypothesis to "junk DNA"?
Been there, done that. *shrug*
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2009, 11:11:10 AM »

Ugh... which facts (or lack thereof) have made which hypothesis useless? Do elaborate on this hypothesis.

It is your hypothesis. Why should I elaborate on it?

Oh do elaborate if you can... What is this hypothesis? That intentions are real and we are not delusional? That intentionality, chance and necessity are three ways of describing modes of being? That reason, logic and science depends on intentional agents and not delusional, self-refuting zombies? Do elaborate here if you want.

Quote
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something.

Some indications of design or directed purposes then please?

What would you take as an indication? An indication that you are the author of your intentions? I am curious how science will be able to provide you with these "indications", whatever you believe them to be.
 
Quote
Like this  Tongue
How very apt seeing what you sprout  Grin
Quote
You say science would have picked it up.

Yes. Science measure things that can be... measured.

So science can measure design and detect minds? Do elaborate on this wonderful concept of yours.

Quote
I will ask you again how you would propose science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human)? How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward?

Can we first clarify what you mean with minds other than human minds? When birds build a nest, is that design by mind? When aliens build UFO's, is that design by mind? When Gods create universe by speaking words, is that design?

Minds other than humans? How about any entity that can create something... change matter from one form to another reflecting the intentions of the author.

When birds build a nest, is that design by mind? When aliens build UFO's, is that design by mind?
Well, these would reflect the intentions of the authors don't you think.
Birds building/making nests in order to house eggs perhaps?
Aliens building UFOs to... I don't know fly perhaps? If aliens exist that is...

How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind? Say an alien discovered this human-made artifact on planet X but has no knowledge of the human race, how would you conclude this object is the product of an author{s} with intentions.

The onus remains on *you* you give an example of your hypothesis. Don't shift the burden of proof yo!

How about the fact that you have intentions and you can think about and towards things? You do believe you are thinking not?
Quote
So... how about you apply your "I don't know" hypothesis to "junk DNA"?

Been there, done that. *shrug*

Don't you mean... been there, done nothing?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2009, 12:33:23 PM »

You keep on wanting to shift the burden of proof. I understand why. It is quite a heavy one. I'm not going to let you.

You propose design, you prospose we have to assume design - defend this notion or admit defeat once more.  Cheesy
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2009, 12:44:17 PM »

You keep on wanting to shift the burden of proof. I understand why. It is quite a heavy one. I'm not going to let you.
Not so easy there. You made a few interesting assertions. Now support them if you can. Here they are again for ALL to see.
You say:
If there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up.

I say:
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something. You say science would have picked it up.

I ask you again:
How you would propose science to scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human) when indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something?
How do you think science can do that?
Which methods would you put forward?
What would you take as an indication?
Can science measure design?
How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind?

You say science would have picked up indications of design or directed purposes... your turn to back up that assertion!

You propose design, you prospose we have to assume design - defend this notion or admit defeat once more.  Cheesy
I asked the question whether science would proceed better and if it is better to assume function and design and then try and figure out what it is and how it works than to assume junk that accumulated for no reason.
Also, is the null hypothesis as stated (without reference to any peer-reviewed literaure, still waiting) still valid according to you? Why?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #24 on: July 20, 2009, 15:05:19 PM »

If there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up.
It would. It will. It didn't and it doesn't. Evolution adequately explains how we get here without a designer. QED.

You are asking me to explain something to you that doesn't exist.  Shocked Not about to do it mate. If you want to accept that as an assertion not backed up, I'll not try to convince you otherwise. I accept that the scientific method works and I think that it would, if it existed, be able to identify design. It does an adequate job in birds' nests and beavers' dams and ants' heaps for instance.

If we speak about specifics, I'll easily answer "I don't know" which is *not* a nod to design. I can't help that you don't accept "I don't know". The fault, I submit, lies entirely with you.
Quote
I asked the question whether science would proceed better and if it is better to assume function and design and then try and figure out what it is and how it works than to assume junk that accumulated for no reason.
This has been explained to you. Above. Not very far up. None as deaf as they who will not hear or blind as they who will not see.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2009, 15:11:46 PM »

You still have not answered any of the questions... I wonders if someone else is going to point this out to you? MODS?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2009, 15:30:59 PM »

Irony, thy name is phrony.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #27 on: July 20, 2009, 15:36:41 PM »

You made a few interesting assertions. Now support them if you can. Here they are again for ALL to see.
You say:
If there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up.

I say:
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something. You say science would have picked it up.

I ask you again:
How you would propose science to scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human) when indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something?
How do you think science can do that?
Which methods would you put forward?
What would you take as an indication?
Can science measure design?
How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1404


Carpe diem


« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2009, 16:21:53 PM »

whiskey tango foxtrot. superserial.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2009, 16:52:10 PM »

Your assertion, you back it up.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.858 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page July 05, 2017, 11:35:44 AM
Privacy Policy