Rethinking junk DNA

[cyghost]

willfully ignorant doesn't seem too be too different from lying tbh

I am neither.

What do you think constitutes posting 'anything scientific'? Bear in mind that I am not a scientist and have said so clearly on a few occasions.

 

[Phronesis]

What do you think constitutes posting 'anything scientific'? Bear in mind that I am not a scientist and have said so clearly on a few occasions.

Ah, there is your problem and always will be. If I were you I would stop telling others that they are rarely posting anything scientific because you are incapable of knowing a science related post from a trolling post as you make it so eloquently obvious in this and other threads.

Looks like you are not lying or willfully ignorant. Just plain ignorant. Lol and then you pretend to be all pro-science and stuff. Shame man.

 

[cyghost]

Ah, there is your problem and always will be.

No it isn't. Acting like this is a surprise to you is unbecoming of an honest individual. Especially as I *know* I have told you this before. I cannot help that you are a) either lying of b) have a short memory.

If I were you I would stop telling others that they are rarely posting anything scientific because you are incapable of knowing a science related post from a trolling post as you make it so eloquently obvious in this and other threads.

I am too capable of making such distinctions. I do it all the time.

Looks like you are not lying or willfully ignorant. Just plain ignorant. Lol and then you pretend to be all pro-science and stuff. Shame man.

I am ignorant about a great many things and happy to admit to such. You are the one who knows everything.

Here is a quick exercise for you - you have over 50 posts today in the science sub-forum, it should be a breeze to indicate how many of those were 'scientific' and why.

 

[Phronesis]

Only a handful. Everything was fine until the usual trolls pitched up to lay a few eggs. Now I have learned my lesson. It does not help to report posts to the MODS in this section. Goodness knows I have tried. They do nothing and are not interested in keeping this section clean. What is left to do? Well, instead of letting the usual trolls have a field day, I decided to engage with the nonsense. The funniest thing happened. You said I am off topic by responding to their trash. Can you spot the idiocy? Yes, I was stupid to engage with the MyBB trolls (can you blame me, it is not like the MODS here are interested in keeping it clean), but it is hugely idiotic to accuse me of being off topic just because I engaged with the MyBB trolls. you seem oblivious of that sadly...

 

[alloytoo]

Hey, look who still can't use pubmed. Shame man.

Waiting for you to provide scientific evidence that you have a mind though. At least you understand that something that doesn't exist cannot be detected.

How many papers have been published on DNA since Susumu Ohno coined the phrase in 1972?

(I wonder if you can answer this without the customary insults)

 

[Phronesis]

Hey, look who still can't use pubmed. Shame man. If you were really interested, you would have used pubmed. Either you are not interested or don't know how to use pubmed.

Waiting for you to provide scientific evidence that you have a mind though. At least you understand that something that doesn't exist cannot be detected.

 

[alloytoo]

Only a handful. Everything was fine until the usual trolls pitched up to lay a few eggs. Now I have learned my lesson. It does not help to report posts to the MODS in this section. Goodness knows I have tried. They do nothing and are not interested in keeping this section clean. What is left to do? Well, instead of letting the usual trolls have a field day, I decided to engage with the nonsense. The funniest thing happened. You said I am off topic by responding to their trash. Can you spot the idiocy? Yes, I was stupid to engage with the MyBB trolls (can you blame me, it is not like the MODS here are interested in keeping it clean), but it is hugely idiotic to accuse me of being off topic just because I engaged with the MyBB trolls. you seem oblivious of that sadly...

It seems that anyone who asks a question, relevant or not gets labelled a troll.

This is, as Wizard pointed out, a forum, not a blog.

Here's an interesting article on 'Junk DNA'.

To 'quote mine' a few sentences:

It is commonly suggested by anti-evolutionists that recent discoveries of function in non-coding DNA support intelligent design and refute "Darwinism". This misrepresents both the history and the science of this issue.

...there was speculation about what role the "extra" DNA might be playing.

In 1972, Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA". The idea did not come from throwing his hands up and saying "we don't know what it does so let's just assume it is useless and call it junk". He developed the idea based on knowledge about a mechanism by which non-coding DNA accumulates: the duplication and inactivation of genes. "Junk DNA," as formulated by Ohno, referred to what we now call pseudogenes, which are non-functional from a protein-coding standpoint by definition. Nevertheless, a long list of possible functions for non-coding DNA continued to be proposed in the scientific literature.

Evidence currently available suggests that about 5% of the human genome is functional. The least conservative guesses put the possible total at about 20%. The human genome is mid-sized for an animal, which means that most likely a smaller percentage than this is functional in other genomes. None of the discoveries suggest that all (or even more than a minor percentage) of non-coding DNA is functional, and the corollary is that there is indirect evidence that most of it is not.

You can tell someone who knows very little about the science or history of "junk DNA" when they make one or more of the following claims: 1) All scientists have always thought it was all totally irrelevant to the organism. 2) New evidence is suggesting that it is all functional. 3) "Darwinism" led to the assumption that non-coding DNA is non-functional. The opposite is true in each case.

 

[alloytoo]

(I wonder if you can answer this without the customary insults)

Hey, look who still can't use pubmed. Shame man. If you were really interested, you would have used pubmed. Either you are not interested or don't know how to use pubmed.

Apparently not.

(I wonder if you can answer this without the customary insults)

Waiting for you to provide scientific evidence that you have a mind though. At least you understand that something that doesn't exist cannot be detected.

Please stay on topic.

How many papers have been published on DNA since Susumu Ohno coined the phrase in 1972?

What percentage of the DNA labeled 'Junk' in 1972 was subsequently found to be functional?

(I wonder if you can answer this without the customary insults)

 

[Phronesis]

It seems that anyone who asks a question, relevant or not gets labelled a troll.

This is, as Wizard pointed out, a forum, not a blog.

Here's an interesting article on 'Junk DNA'.

To 'quote mine' a few sentences:

I am sorry, but did you read the articles published since January 23 2008? Sheesh, helloooo, there is a whole thread.

Quick question:
A) Junk DNA was provisionally labeled because scientists did not know what its function was.
B) Junk DNA was labeled as such because it does not have a function.
C) Junk DNA is DNA with no known function and is evidence of bad design.

A or B or C.

 

[alloytoo]

I am sorry, but did you read the articles published since January 23 2008? Sheesh, helloooo, there is a whole thread.

Actually I'm still waiting for the number of DNA related publications since 1972.

Quick question:
A) Junk DNA was provisionally labeled because scientists did not know what its function was.
B) Junk DNA was labeled as such because it does not have a function.
C) Junk DNA is DNA with no known function and is evidence of bad design.

A or B or C.

None of the above.

“Junk DNA” had a specific meaning when it first was formulated. It was meant to describe the loss of protein-coding function by deactivated gene duplicates, which in turn were believed to constitute the bulk of eukaryotic genomes.

Now if you've finished with the theatrics, can we return to my simple question:

How many papers have been published on DNA since Susumu Ohno coined the phrase in 1972?

(I wonder if you can answer this without the customary insults)

Furthermore, how many functions were found for genes (previously labeled 'Junk') before 1987?

Everything was fine until the usual trolls pitched up to lay a few eggs. Now I have learned my lesson. It does not help to report posts to the MODS in this section. Goodness knows I have tried. They do nothing and are not interested in keeping this section clean.

I've found the mods very helpful, especially with people with a penchant for distasteful descriptions.

 

[rwenzori]

Hey, if you can't post anything scientific in the science section so be it. but ppuhlease just troll somewhere else.

And that from someone who wants to base science on the presumption of design:

"Would science proceed better if one were to assume function and design"

ROFL!

If you don't actually have a clue about scientific inquiry, "ppuhlease just troll somewhere else." In fact - go post your ID rubbish in the PD section.

 

[cyghost]

Only a handful.

Can you identify one or two for me please? I'm curious what you think a 'scientific' post looks like. Oh and cut and paste isn't, ok?

Everything was fine until the usual trolls pitched up to lay a few eggs.

And perhaps if you didn't see anyone who disagrees with your own frame of mind as trolls and actually engage them a little as you claim to want to do, things may go differently. In other words, plain as can be, perhaps the problem is *you*. Think about it.

Now I have learned my lesson. It does not help to report posts to the MODS in this section. Goodness knows I have tried. They do nothing and are not interested in keeping this section clean.

And perhaps they are doing exactly what they are paid for so well. And you are simply wrong about all the trolling and other insulting remarks you make when people ask you questions. How about just answering these questions and see where that leads? Is it because you are incapable of saying "I don't know"?

What is left to do? Well, instead of letting the usual trolls have a field day, I decided to engage with the nonsense. The funniest thing happened. You said I am off topic by responding to their trash. Can you spot the idiocy?

I could if that was what happened. I said you are a hypocrite for always yelling at people when you think they are off topic, while you have no problem with following the rabbit down the hole when it suits you. No please learn to follow other's arguments and reasoning and not persist in substituting your own version of events. You'll get further. And you won't look so silly.

Yes, I was stupid to engage with the MyBB trolls (can you blame me, it is not like the MODS here are interested in keeping it clean), but it is hugely idiotic to accuse me of being off topic just because I engaged with the MyBB trolls. you seem oblivious of that sadly...

Sleights at mods and fellow forumites aside for now (although I am going to start asking you for what you constitute as evidence of trolling from now, I think the uncalled for insults have gone on for long enough), I didn't "accuse" you off being off topic. I don't *mind* off topic as much as you seem to. I merely stated that for someone who hates when others go off topic, you have no problem doing it yourself. That, sir, is hypocritical to the tee. Remember this thread? You think I didn't notice how you happily went along with the derails? Again I am not accusing you off being off topic (even though you are as much as anyone else), I am saying this unreasonable labeling of others who disagree with you as trolls and screaming at people for going off topic is absolute nonsense and some reflections is direly needed from you.

 

[Phronesis]

Isn't this interesting:
Some look at Wiki and get this from it:

Like here:
junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified

"Some consider the "junk" label as something of a misnomer, but others consider it appropriate as junk is stored away for possible new uses, rather than thrown out; others prefer the term 'noncoding DNA'"

And here:
In evolutionary biology and molecular biology, junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has been identified. The term was introduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno[1], but is as of 2008 somewhat outdated, being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications. If DNA does not seem to have a function now it may have had a function in the past or may yet have a function in future.

While others choose other sources and get this:
“Junk DNA” had a specific meaning when it first was formulated. It was meant to describe the loss of protein-coding function by deactivated gene duplicates, which in turn were believed to constitute the bulk of eukaryotic genomes.

So, from the above information, which one of these would most accurately describe "junk DNA":

A) Junk DNA was provisionally labeled as such because scientists did not know the function of particular stretches of DNA.
B) Junk DNA was provisionally labeled as such because scientists discovered that deactivated gene duplicates had a loss of protein-coding function.
C) Junk DNA was provisionally labeled as such because scientists discovered that deactivated gene duplicates had a loss of protein-coding function. Junk DNA was provisionally labeled as such because scientists did not know the function of particular stretches of DNA.


Can we all at least agree that the term "junk DNA" did not imply that junk DNA was actually functionless junk.

 

[rwenzori]

Can we all at least agree that the term "junk DNA" did not imply that junk DNA was actually functionless junk.

No. Let us rather call it DNA sequences that might or might not have a function, but for which no function is at present known.

 

[Phronesis]

Good, "junk DNA" then does not imply that junk DNA is actually functionless junk. Currently unknown, that's all.

 

[alloytoo]

Good, "junk DNA" then does not imply that junk DNA is actually functionless junk. Currently unknown, that's all.

No. "Junk DNA" might actually have no function.

(Of course in the true definition of `Junk' it may well acquire a function in future)

Generous estimates put at most 20% of the human genome as functional.

 

[Phronesis]

No. "Junk DNA" might actually have no function.

Err, no, "junk DNA" does not imply that junk DNA is actually functionless junk.
It is just DNA that is a provisionally labeled for sequences of DNA for which no function has been identified. Nothing more, nothing less.

Generous estimates put at most 20% of the human genome as functional.

Really? You did not give any references. Did you pull that number out of your arse? Probably not. You like to latch onto stale articles without referencing them and can't even discuss the actual data there and in this thread. Try again.

 

[rwenzori]

Good, "junk DNA" then does not imply that junk DNA is actually functionless junk. Currently unknown, that's all.

Currently unknown, some possibly functionless, as stated above.

 

[Phronesis]

Good, then it is settled that:
Junk DNA does not imply that junk DNA is actually functionless junk. It may turn out to be functionless, it may turn out to have a function.

The question now is: How do you scientifically determine function and confirm non-function.

 

[alloytoo]

Err, no, "junk DNA" does not imply that junk DNA is actually functionless junk.
It is just DNA that is a provisionally labeled for sequences of DNA for which no function has been identified. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please learn to read English.

Really? You did not give any references. Did you pull that number out of your arse? Probably not. You like to latch onto stale articles without referencing them and can't even discuss the actual data there and in this thread. Try again.

The article is from last year, and referenced in a previous post. In the context of a term coined in 1972 it's hardly stale.

Do you have more recent data?

What percentage of the human genome is believed to be functional? Is it now more than 5%, more than 20%?

Oh yes, and how many DNA related articles have appeared since 1972?

and.

How many DNA related articles appeared between 1972 & 1987?