tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post1918533067527624514..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: Introns. Let's think about this, people. Part III.Stephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-33082428191760428262010-07-28T10:11:12.429-07:002010-07-28T10:11:12.429-07:00Silence, fool.Silence, fool.chunkdznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-54461642543182771502010-07-23T18:50:37.857-07:002010-07-23T18:50:37.857-07:00Chunk,
You do realize that if you keep acting li...Chunk, <br /><br />You do realize that if you keep acting like this Sloth is not going to love you any more.kakaponoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-90882970982503824602010-07-20T19:00:01.769-07:002010-07-20T19:00:01.769-07:00So can we eat Sternberg's liver now?So can we eat Sternberg's liver now?chunkdznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-70351188113008275482010-07-18T10:33:34.275-07:002010-07-18T10:33:34.275-07:00Rich, the chance of you ever stepping back to look...Rich, the chance of you ever stepping back to look at the big picture (like, say, the hundreds of violations of the Ninth Commandment on your site) is pretty much zero, as is the chance of your engaging in honest discussion of any substantive point.Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-23156329447410148372010-07-15T05:34:37.069-07:002010-07-15T05:34:37.069-07:00I've never really found that whole line of ...I've never really found that whole line of 'reasoning' valid - that if junkDNA didn't do something, then we would have gotten rid of it. I didn't agree with Maynard Smith when I read that position the first time, and considering the energy expenditure required for DNA replication compared with the energy a typical cell uses just getting stuff across its membrane every day, I personally think that whole issue is way oversold.derwoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-60399089243943374632010-07-15T05:30:20.601-07:002010-07-15T05:30:20.601-07:00Especially when you've got a faith to prop up....Especially when you've got a faith to prop up... :)derwoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-29929851522317080252010-07-15T05:26:38.100-07:002010-07-15T05:26:38.100-07:00Hi Rich,
You don't still have that claim that...Hi Rich,<br /><br />You don't still have that claim that there is no evidence for positive selection on your website, do you? The one in which you relied on the little teaser blurb in Nature to claim that there is no such evidence, and ignored the fact that the teaser referred to a paper in that very issue in which such evidence was presented?<br /><br />Anyway, I see you are on the YEC/ID bandwagon of trying to e-write the history on junkDNA to suit your needs. Too bad that the facts do not support the YEC/ID fantasy on that.derwoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-36408754927146526922010-07-14T21:55:47.307-07:002010-07-14T21:55:47.307-07:00Oops, forgot to close that italics tag. The last ...Oops, forgot to close that italics tag. The last bit should read:<br /><br /><i>If we are all evolved from bacteria, there has to be a reason why the vast amount of complexity was introduced into the system.</i><br /><br />No, there doesn't.<br /><br /><i>It has to have a function or it would not have been selected and would not persist.</i><br /><br />This logic falls flat if one considers that it is likely harder or more costly to remove junk DNA in the course of evolution than to simply live with it.Arthur Hunthttp://www.aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-42726575878443869182010-07-14T18:26:44.457-07:002010-07-14T18:26:44.457-07:00Well, Rich, it appears that you are so busy readin...Well, Rich, it appears that you are so busy reading the scientific literature that you couldn't find the time to read my post. Worse, you're clearly over your head when reading about evolution, as evidenced by your recitation of ignorant platitudes. Please take the the preachy propaganda elsewhere; many of my readers are not as easily fooled as yours must be.SteveMathesonhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-49046996471157965602010-07-14T17:30:04.515-07:002010-07-14T17:30:04.515-07:00You do realize, don't you, that the Nature art...You do realize, don't you, that the <i>Nature</i> article you linked to is three years old, and that more recent work is available? You might want to check out, for example, the article that was <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/05/junk-dna-is-sti.html" rel="nofollow">discussed at Panda's Thumb last May.</a>SWTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-86274386302902468022010-07-14T17:06:20.268-07:002010-07-14T17:06:20.268-07:00Hey, what are nine or ten orders of magnitude amon...Hey, what are nine or ten orders of magnitude among friends ...SWTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-27446526255332707452010-07-14T17:04:38.542-07:002010-07-14T17:04:38.542-07:00You do realize, don't you, that the Nature art...You do realize, don't you, that the <i>Nature</i> article you linked to is about three years old; there is more recent work available. You might want to check out <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/05/junk-dna-is-sti.html" rel="nofollow">a discussion of more recent results</a> that took place at the Panda's Thumb last May.SWTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-76427562772890840662010-07-14T16:40:48.037-07:002010-07-14T16:40:48.037-07:00Not sure what literature you have been reading/not...Not sure what literature you have been reading/not reading, but the ENCODE project showed that the majority of all DNA is transcribed (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7146/full/nature05874.html). The idea that introns are just sitting there because evolution is so inefficient makes no sense. In fact, the introns do control alternate splicing through upstream splicing enhancers within the sequence. Besides this, they contain CpG sites that are methylated/demethylated to control transcription. If this isn't function, what is?<br /><br />Stepping back to look at the big picture, one sees that the bacteria do not possess all the intronic/"junk" baggage. If we are all evolved from bacteria, there has to be a reason why the vast amount of complexity was introduced into the system. It has to have a function or it would not have been selected and would not persist. Most scientists got off the junk DNA boat a long time ago.Rich Deemnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-9117784198128747532010-07-13T10:03:25.880-07:002010-07-13T10:03:25.880-07:00"... and for humans with 1,000,000,000,000 di..."... and for humans with 1,000,000,000,000 differentiated cell types..."<br /><br />1,000,000,000,000 TYPES of cells? The sources I looked up indicate that humans have about 100,000,000,000,000 cells total.<br /><br />So, are you saying that there are only about 100 cells per cell type, or are you using that ID/YEC math/biology again?<br />because just this morning I was looking at slides of endocrine glands, and in the thyroid slide alone, I am sure I saw far more than 100 thyrocytes...derwoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-69822240631623291122010-07-12T20:32:34.211-07:002010-07-12T20:32:34.211-07:00Sal wrote:
"Functions can exist in specific c...Sal wrote:<br />"Functions can exist in specific contexts which we do not observe right now primarily because of the amount of observation that may be required to detect it."<br /><br />So why is our side doing all the observing and your side doing none of the observing, Sal?Davisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-37618065800681864162010-07-12T16:24:29.168-07:002010-07-12T16:24:29.168-07:00Functions can exist in specific contexts which we ...Functions can exist in specific contexts which we do not observe right now primarily because of the amount of observation that may be required to detect it.<br /><br />Differing cell types are involved in various stages of development and even possibly the plascticity of the organism. Further, function might be elucidated by contingencies that may not be immediately accessible.<br /><br />For example, butterflies may have at least two if not more proteomes expressed from the same genome. There is a proteome for the catarpillar (larval form) stage and a separate proteome for the adult stage. <br /><br />Further, there are Batesian mimicry forms that are latent and not expressed in some individuals of the species, but these are carried around for generations and not used except in certain contexts. <br /><br />Thus we have lots of DNA carried around for known contingencies (like the multi-proteomes of the butterfly plus its mimcry forms). Not to mention there may be contingencies which we've even yet to explore (biology is very robust, and thus knockout experiments are notorious for presuming something is non functional, when indeed it is part of an alternative developmental or functional mechanism). <br /><br />All this in addition to the fact we may have the potential of positionally differentiated cell types. Till we explore those, we can't rule out where the information for the differentiation came from, it may well be in places we presume are functionless. And if the information is specifically used in differentiation, we'll only see it work during the differentiation process, and for humans with 1,000,000,000,000 differentiated cell types, that means that event only happens roughly speaking in around 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 duplication events! So it is eminently possible even if something is functional and part of cellular differentiation, we will have to be extremely lucky to actually see it happen, since the function will occur only 1 in 1,000,000,000 cellular duplication events!<br /><br />It is extremely presumptuous to say something has no function because we haven't observed it working. We haven't even begun to see all the workings of cells in multi-cellular organisms. It is even more presumptuous to say that knockout experiments demonstrate lack of function. That's like knocking out the backup navigation of the space shuttle and observing that it flies just fine.scordova of UDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-24036774030727218492010-07-12T15:04:07.576-07:002010-07-12T15:04:07.576-07:00Interesting piece Steve!!Interesting piece Steve!!Michaelbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-5972386283382594792010-07-11T09:25:16.006-07:002010-07-11T09:25:16.006-07:00Methinks Steve has fallen under Larry Moran's ...Methinks Steve has fallen under Larry Moran's spell :-). There truly can be no hope ....<br /><br />(firmly TIC this comment is.)Arthur Hunthttp://www.aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-35712064542490827182010-07-11T08:53:58.630-07:002010-07-11T08:53:58.630-07:00Um, I mean references to "true Darwinists&quo...Um, I mean references to "true Darwinists" who make the "dominant fraction" claim.RBHnoreply@blogger.com