Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cell Requires Hundreds of Kilobases for Mature Micro-RNA

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s todays headscratcher from Phys.Org.

It appears that to contrive a “mature” micro-RNA (mi-RNA), involved in gene regulation, the cell requires hundreds of kilobases of sequence. How odd. “Mature” mi-RNA’s are ~22 bases in length, and hundreds of thousand of nucleotide bases are needed (of primary-mi-RNA) to effect this ~22-nucleotide regulatory element?

Here’s what they say:

MicroRNAs are short noncoding RNAs that play critical roles in regulating gene expression in normal physiology and disease. . . .

Although mature miRNAs are only ~22 nucleotides, their transcripts are up to hundreds of kilobases long. Primary miRNA transcripts, or pri-miRNAs, are quickly processed into mature miRNAs from hairpin structures located in the exons or introns of pri-miRNA transcripts.

One remarkable feature of primary miRNAs is their extreme length, even in cases where they function only to produce a single ~22 nucleotide miRNA,” said Joshua Mendell, corresponding author of the study. “Although it seems wasteful to produce such long RNAs, most of which will be immediately degraded, this organization may have arisen to allow complex mechanisms of regulation of the encoded miRNA.

As usual, they’re “surprised” about their findings (very likely they are ‘surprised’ because they weren’t expecting things to turn out so complex). And, as usual, the pro forma reaching out to “evolution” as the explanatory mechanism, when, in fact, no explanation is given at all: . . . this organization may have arisen to allow complex mechanism of regulation of the encoded mi-RNA.”

It may have; but, it may have not. Is this scientist willing to consider this other possibility, or is it simply an article of faith that “evolution-did-it”? One wonders.

Comments
Carpathian:
The debate is about whether we were designed.
That debate is over and you lost. You don't have an explanation for our existence. You don't have anything but your strawmen.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
When a student asks the IDist teacher the same ones I’m asking,
Students aren't as ignorant as you are. Students will be able to understand what ID is and why your questions are irrelevant.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
Obviously you still don’t have evidence for biological ID.
We have positive evidence for biological ID. Your ignorance is not a refutation. The science of ID is in the detection and study of design in nature. And no amount of your ignorant spewage will ever change that fact. Also that is more science than your position has- well any science is more than your position has.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
"Where do you think it comes from?" God, of course. Andrewasauber
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
"Our ability to design comes from years of evolutionary pressure." I'm not sure I understand what you mean by pressure in this context. Is this pressure detectable/measurable by some kind of calibrated instrument? Andrewasauber
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
asauber:
I’m asking you what you think. Can you let me know what you think?
Our ability to design comes from years of evolutionary pressure. Where do you think it comes from?Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
"Why are you implying that our ability to design came from some other intelligence?" I'm asking you what you think. Can you let me know what you think? Andrewasauber
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
asauber:
Debate indeed. From what did the ability for humans to design come from, do you think?
Why are you implying that our ability to design came from some other intelligence? Show me evidence that we were designed.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: If your side truly believes it’s science you should already have performed the analysis of whether it’s logistically possible. That doesn’t follow. Obviously you are just an ignorant arse.
Of course it follows. Do you believe in biological ID? If so, it should be possible for you come up with a plan. Show how to add an IC structure to an existing population of organisms.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
"LOL!!! Yes!!!! There is no debate that humans design things. The debate is about whether we were designed." Debate indeed. From what did the ability for humans to design come from, do you think? Andrewasauber
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Mapou:
I see that Carpie, the idiot materialist troll, is still swimming in a river of stupidity of his own making. Virgil, please stop feeding the carps.
I see that you don't have any scientific arguments either. When a student asks the IDist teacher the same ones I'm asking, they'll use your response, because they still won't have answer, 10, 20, 50 or a 100 years from now.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
I see that Carpie, the idiot materialist troll, is still swimming in a river of stupidity of his own making. Virgil, please stop feeding the carps.Mapou
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
asauber:
So in your world, humans can design without having been designed themselves? Do I have that right?
LOL!!! Yes!!!! There is no debate that humans design things. The debate is about whether we were designed.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
That doesn’t follow. Obviously you are just an ignorant arse.
Obviously you are still Joe. Obviously you still don't have evidence for biological ID. Show the logistics of biological ID. Logistics...., logistics......., logistics..... It doesn't exist.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
"The target of the ID is biological, not the designer." So in your world, humans can design without having been designed themselves? Do I have that right? Andrewasauber
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
If your side truly believes it’s science you should already have performed the analysis of whether it’s logistically possible.
That doesn't follow. Obviously you are just an ignorant arse.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Carpathian- You are obviously just an ignorant troll. The science of ID is in the detection and study of design in nature. And no amount of your ignorant spewage will ever change that fact. Also that is more science than your position has- well any science is more than your position has.
Does the ID side have evidence of biological ID being performed?
Yes, genetic engineering including Venter's synthetic DNA, Fox's protocells and GMOs.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: The logistics is a barrier to biological ID. Virgil Cain: That’s your opinion. And your opinion is shit so no one cares.
Neither of our opinions count so just show me the evidence. Point me to an ID book that has worked out the logistics of ID. If your side truly believes it's science you should already have performed the analysis of whether it's logistically possible.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
asauber:
One of the many pieces of evidence that biological ID exists is that human ID works (humans are biological). What about that do you not get?
What do you not get about what is meant by biological ID? The target of the ID is biological, not the designer . All that IDists have ever shown is that humans can perform non-biological ID like building airplanes or computers. Does the ID side have evidence of biological ID being performed? I'm not talking about gene splicing. I'm talking about rolling out a new IC structure in an existing organism for example. Where is a book that contains the logistics analysis of actually performing ID? It must exist if ID can be done at all.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
The logistics is a barrier to biological ID.
That's your opinion. And your opinion is shit so no one cares.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
"No, you have shown that human ID works. You have zero evidence that biological ID exists." Carpathian, One of the many pieces of evidence that biological ID exists is that human ID works (humans are biological). What about that do you not get? Andrewasauber
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: No IDist here has ever shown any work on the logistics side Virgil Cain: It’s a strawman that only losers on an agenda use.
The logistics is a barrier to biological ID. No scientist would leave such a huge unanswered question about their own theory.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
You have zero evidence that biological ID exists.
We have plenty of evidence that biological ID exists. You are just too ignorant to understand it. And you definitely don't have any alternative explanations.
No IDist here has ever shown any work on the logistics side
It's a strawman that only losers on an agenda use.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: You have not shown that biological ID exists. Virgil Cain: Yes, we have and you don’t have any other explanation. So stuff it.
No, you have shown that human ID works. Humans design computers and pyramids. You have zero evidence that biological ID exists. It's what the debate is about. No IDist here has ever shown any work on the logistics side and you have ducked that question too.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
You have not shown that biological ID exists.
Yes, we have and you don't have any other explanation. So stuff it.Virgil Cain
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
To sum up- Using scientific methodology we have shown that Intelligent Design exists.
You have not shown that biological ID exists. That is what the debate is about, biological ID. IDists have to prove that biological ID is possible. No IDist anywhere has proven that biological ID is possible by actually working through the logistics of doing it. I'm not talking about gene splicing, but rather the logistics and system analysis required. If you have an organism that needs an IC structure added, how do you get the change into the organism? How do you find them all? How many do you have to do to ensure sexual reproduction doesn't get rid of your change? Anyone who has thought about it could fill a book just describing the problems you would need to solve to perform biological ID.Carpathian
August 28, 2015
August
08
Aug
28
28
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
If he is not infallible, he’ll make mistakes he has to fix.
How do you know? Mistakes could be made that don't require fixing.
Does biological ID exist?
Yes, if we are to believe our knowledge and ability to scientific inferences. The work is shown by eliminating materialistic explanations, which was easy because there aren't any, and seeing if the design criteria is met. All of that has been done. OTOH you still have nothing but your ignorance. To sum up- Using scientific methodology we have shown that Intelligent Design exists. That means it was obviously possible. And until someone can come up with a way to test materialistic scenarios the design inference is very safe.Virgil Cain
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: Obviously, if biological ID is impossible, it doesn’t exist. Virgil cain: It exists so obviously it was possible, duh.
That is what the argument is about. Does biological ID exist? If it is impossible to do, by definition, it can't exist. Show that it's possible. Do the work. Don't just make assertions. Simply making assertions won't be accepted by students. Show your work.Carpathian
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Carpathian: 1) Unless he’s infallible, he would have to fix any mistakes he or his team have made. Virgil Cain: Your opinion is not an argument.
How is that an opinion? If he is infallible, he won't make mistakes he has to fix. If he is not infallible, he'll make mistakes he has to fix.Carpathian
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
Obviously, if biological ID is impossible, it doesn’t exist.
It exists so obviously it was possible, duh.
Show the world of biology that biological ID is possible.
We have shown the world it exists and no one has a viable alternative. IOW we have the science and all you have is whining.
1) Unless he’s infallible, he would have to fix any mistakes he or his team have made.
Your opinion is not an argument.
2) If an organism cannot “evolve” new functionality, he would have to add it.
Why would they need new functionality?Virgil Cain
August 27, 2015
August
08
Aug
27
27
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply