Category: ‘Junk DNA’
|October 13, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Genomics, Intelligent Design, News|
From obit: Inherent in the idea of gene regulatory networks was the concept that genome sequences that provided information about how genes should be expressed would be as important as the genome sequences that coded for the proteins themselves. Although non-protein-coding DNA was long considered to be “junk,” Davidson recognized that the key regulatory code […]
|August 24, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
From Quanta Magazine: Emerging data suggests the seemingly impossible — that mysterious new genes arise from “junk” DNA. Genes, like people, have families — lineages that stretch back through time, all the way to a founding member. That ancestor multiplied and spread, morphing a bit with each new iteration. For most of the last 40 […]
|July 14, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
Ken Miller is a feted Catholic scientist, friend of Darwinism, and foe of design in nature: From his 1994 textbook: Hundreds of pseudogenes have been discovered in the 1 or 2% of human DNA that has been explored to date, and more are added every month. In fact, the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, […]
|May 13, 2015||Posted by Eric Anderson under 'Junk DNA'|
Over at the ID The Future podcast, Casey Luskin has been doing a series on “the top 10 problems with biological and chemical evolution.” Some of the problems he discusses will no doubt be of more interest to certain listeners than to others. However, the segment on junk DNA is particularly worth hearing (about 13 […]
|May 6, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News|
Which happens purely as a result of natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinian evolution) building up huge quantities of complex, specified information, of course. Over at Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin talks about that new book, Junk DNA: A journey through the dark matter of the genome (Nessa Carey), on the newfound functions […]
|April 28, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Cell biology, Ecology, News|
Life forms always make sense. Some theories do not. From Phys.org: By sequencing multiple Trichodesmium genomes—and using a wide variety of samples to ensure that there was no error—researchers found that only about 63 percent of the bacteria’s genome is expressed as protein. That’s an incredibly low amount for a bacterium and unheard of for […]
|April 20, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Culture, Darwinism, News|
In response to Science writer boilerplate Jonathan Wells writes to say, Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled a template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we […]
|March 27, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News|
Not much “junk DNA.” From him: Dan Graur has snarled at the authors of a paper defending ENCODE. How could I then resist? I read the offending paper, and I have to say something that will weaken my own reputation as a snarling attack dog myself: it does make a few good points. But it’s […]
|March 9, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
Further to Junk DNA hires a PR firm (by the time you can’t tell the difference between Darwin’s elite followers and his trolls, you know something is happening): Rob Sheldon writes to say, There may be some very good reasons for onions to have large genomes. Let’s start with an analogy. My son says the […]
|March 9, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News|
Fights back. Well, that seems to be what’s happening. Further to: New York Times science writer defends junk DNA (Old concepts die hard, especially when they are value-laden as “junk DNA” has been—it has been a key argument for Darwinism), one of the conundrums on which the junk DNA folk rely heavily is the “onion […]
|March 7, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News|
Worries Carl Zimmer, a “No junk DNA” scenario could help creationists: It’s no coincidence, researchers like Gregory argue, that bona fide creationists have used recent changes in the thinking about junk DNA to try to turn back the clock to the days before Darwin. Zimmer is responding to the recent realization that there is very […]
|February 10, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
But old concepts die hard, especially when they are value-laden as “junk DNA” has been.
|January 15, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News|
Darwin’s followers get caught on the wrong side of so many battles these days.
|January 10, 2015||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Darwinism, News|
We thought the concept of junk DNA (noncoding DNA) was dead. But Darwin’s followers keep reanimating the corpse. Maybe they’ll reanimate junk RNA too.
|December 8, 2014||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
Research: non-protein-coding genomic DNA is not “junk” but specifies a range of regulatory RNA molecules
|November 28, 2014||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
Researchers: “biologically regulated translational events from transcripts formerly thought to lack coding potential.”
|November 26, 2014||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News|
Sternberg: Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species
|November 15, 2014||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA?
|November 2, 2014||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
Not a lot of room between those estimates, is there? Blogger finchtalk says that it all depends on what you count.
|August 27, 2014||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
Despite angry reactions to its finding little junk in human DNA