"Junk" DNA? There's no "junk" DNA

Even scientists are "only human."

So I've been telling all my detractors Larry.

You'd think it would be obvious to them, too. :-)

Now featured at Losing Your Religion. (I'm holding my comments on the science of non-coding DNA until later).

I'm dying to see them. I hope Sy comes here also. Two years ago, he made a brief comment about the importance of non-coding DNA in the evolution process. I know very little about them.

There's nothing like spewing out a bunch of science at the beginning of the thread to kill a discussion. But I will mention that Wikipedia's treatment of the topic seems pretty good.

I've just read some of it Ann. Many thanks.

God doesnt make Junk L.O.L After they discover the purpose of these "Unknown"
genomes then it will be regarded worthwhile or important. It's Old Hat, they always disregard things they may not fully understand. The DNA strand is so huge its foolish of them to think just because they find a genome with an unknown purpose ( that is has no purpose)??? I shudder to think what they would do if they could map out DNA

Designer Babies Perhaps ( shudders with fear) Dr Frankenstein all over again

I will take a look at Wikipedia.


People have to remember this: The most macho of sports are: (not in ascending or descending order:)

Science
Politics
Law
Football

(belly laugh!)

Kathryn, I think biology needs to be excepted from that. More than 50% of biology degrees are now awarded to women.

:-D

That is a good point, Ann. I do think though, having known women in science, medicine, to be exact - my stepmother and mother, that the women have to work alongside of ...or compete with men in their P...ing contests. I find now so many more studies in science ( I generally read biological sciences/health sciences and such and neuropharmcological sciences) that so many MORE these days are based on such SHAKY premises OR or AND/OR shaky CONCLUSIONS or CONCLUSIONS they are trying to OVER INTERPRET and I just see it all as:

I'm more important than you (Mine is bigger than yours)
and the women who sat in the bull pens like my mother and stepmother way back when they were the unique XX amidst the XYs... was just astounding.

I DO agree that it is a great thing that 50 percent of biology degrees are now awarded to women; and for about 15 years or so there have been MORE female med students than male med students.

THE PTA controlled woman society has its own rules not unlike the pissing contest societies.

But I think when women are in fields that are either mostly men or half men, it is still difficult, because the atmosphere of pissing contest is in the air and all have to play, in one world or another. And it is still difficult for women in academia.

Remember that book in the 80s? How to Succeed in Business Without a Penis?

I also think it is easier for women to succeed in areas now that were more difficult in the 40s, 60s, 80s and such because of

increased opportunities in education
increased opps anyway
greater education in science, math, business, politics

and also that the role of team sports, for example, has had on girls who grew up in the 80s and 90s and 00s reflect their ability to better see the whole picture in office politics - to keep their eye on the ball -so to speak, to borrow the metaphors used in some of these 'how women can succeed in business' books.

Of course, the main thing was training, education and opps. The pink typing pool was nowhere, yet women who graduated Barnard or other Seven Sisters in the 50s had to go into the typing pool, hoping to find someone they could latch onto to help them propel a career in TV production and so on. And various other problems in that ilk.

Ha! I never heard of that book, but it sounds fun.

I think medicine is a natural fit for women because it tends to be nurturing and detail oriented. Biology also seems to appeal to many women who like science, although I'm not sure why. In my case, it was because I wanted to immerse myself in the beauty of nature as well as care for it.

Kathryn,
Boxing was my best sport, does that make me a wuss?

Seems like you're trying to pick a fight here, Dennis, but from the Wiki article, it would appear to me that genetic science has moved far beyond the point of your argument.
You are "aping" the creationists who still ridicule Darwin for saying that Man evolved from apes. The fossil record has long since shown that apes and Man are on different and parallel branches of the Tree of Life. But Creationists still harp on that.
Frankly, I find your diatribe against "atheist" scientists a bit overdone, maybe even tongue-in-cheek. Are you pulling our leg here?

My thoughts exactly, Bert.

Actually Bert, I picking this fight to learn new stuff. I actually hate a lot of the rubbish arguments of creationists as you should have noticed.

You are correct about the "tongue in cheek".

A non-scientist atheist and an atheistic biologist kept suggesting that I "twist facts", "ignore evidence", that I was "not objective"; that I let my religious belief affect my interpretation of the scientific evidence. The last time the accusation was made, mischief came over me and I made this comment as a reply to him. I then realized that I knew almost nothing about these non-coding DNA, so I copied that comment and pasted here as a post.

Sneaky, sneaky.

Bert,
Careful, you are in the lions den here. Now as you know I find young earth creationist ideas crazy. But when I see, as I fequently do, comments by people claiming to be "scientists" like one I saw a couple of days ago stating that humans have no free will, "everything you think, do and say," (to quote Zager and Evans again - In the year 2525 video - lyric) is pre - programmed in your DNA I can't help but conclude the science side has crazies in equal measure.

I have read about that, Ian, and I must admit I'm not smart enough to know the answer. Brain functions are so little understood. And yes, there are crazies on the science side, no doubt about it.
But claiming that "science is crap," as Willy does below, is even crazier.

I dont know much about DNA, but I do know that what most people call science is just so much crap. It signifies nothing.

Oh, that is very interesting, Willy. Thanks for enlightening us.
First you admit your ignorance, and then you tell us that you "know" that science is crap.
Maybe you should learn a little about science before demeaning it.
Otherwise, you will just sound like an idiot.

Whereas I know a lot about science yet after reading several papers, I also conclude that a lot of what some of them call science is crap.

One embarrassing example was a dig in which they found a grave of what they ascribed to the species homo floresiensis even though they said that the artifacts in the grave were obviously crafted by homo sapiens. My reaction was, "What a load of crap." One expert in the group said that it was a microcephalus homo sapiens baby, yet nobody believed her. Her conclusion made perfect sense, yet none of the others accepted her opinion!

Bert,
Life is a gather threat told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing (not quite Macbeth)

Scientists are people too, Dennis, just as capable (but no more capable) of bigotry, fraud and other human failings as Christians.
That does not justify a criticism of science or the Scientific Method.
I think most scientists are honest, competent people, and most creationists are full of crap.
Your mileage may differ. :>)

It justifies a criticism of some of the scientific papers that I've read Bert, but not the scientific method. I embrace the scientific method; some scientists don't, they just pretend to use it.

Most of the parers I've read are from very honest, competent scientists and although I will criticize his inferences, I admire Dawkins' honesty and competence.

". . . most creationists are full of crap."

You and I agree on that :-D)

Chuckling here.

Glad you enjoyed it.

You all have junk (DNA) in the trunk, lol

 

Dennis,
Good, provocative post, you should get a long thread out of it. As I mentioned above I see a lot of comments (mostly on British sites, from people claiming to be scientists who are quite sure we are just machines and every thought and action is programmed in our DNA. Now I am not a biologist and don't even take a layman's interest, but from casual reading I know that is untrue.

Why would any sane person want to be a preprogrammed machine?

Thanks Ian

Why would any sane person want to be a preprogrammed machine?

Why indeed? I see you and I have the same problem with the idea of The Selfish Gene as proposed by Dawkins in his book

Ian, I am a Dalek exterminate exterminate.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Dennis,
There is something completely wonderful about being human whether we come at it from the direction of faith or existentialism. I think most people would be with us on that.

Graham,
A Geordie Dalek, now that is really scary. Can you say:

"HOW - WAY - THE - LADS"

(Sorry Denius, English joke related to regional identities)

No problem Ian.

I can Ian but I am not from that Newcastle try junction 15 M6 and first left at the roundabout. Come on the potters

Actually, I rather like Dawkins' notion that humans...and other life forms...are just receptacles for genes, and that the genes determine whether individuals survive long enough to reproduce and propagate their genetic material.
If you get a good set, you get a chance to prove orgasmically that you are fit enough to send them along. If not...or if you got caught on the beach at Dunkerque or Normandy or Iwo Jima...well then, tough crackers, old chap.

Dawkins himself is well aware of the problems with that simplistic approach. He well knows the shortcomings of natural selection. Often, if not most times, theeris a price paid for surviving. There is always a loss of genetic diversity. Often the survivors have a reproductive disadvantage. Often the mutation that caused the survival shortens the life span. Also disadvantageous mutations among the survivors get spread to the rest of the population.

He knows all that but has apparently chosen to depress such realities.

So...in your opinion...everyone looks great in their genes...? Did I get that right?

You get into some pretty deep things, Dennis. I'm impressed!

Thank you posting to the Triple Name Club.