| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:03:00 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,529 |
https://phys.org/news/2025-07-reveals-hidden-regulatory-roles-junk.html
QUOTE:
Today, TEs make up nearly half of the human genome. While they were once thought to serve no useful function, recent research has found that some
of them act like "genetic switches," controlling the activity of nearby genes in specific cell types.
END QUOTE:
This was likely never true from McClintock's first papers on
transposable elements in the late 1930's.-a She found them to regulate
gene expression, and the regulation could be developmentally regulated. Transposons would become active at certain developmental stages of the plant.
They were not considered to be part of junk DNA because they had no
effect on gene regulation.-a They were considered to be junk because they were obviously repetitive parasitic DNA sequences.-a It would be the organims that had to adapt to dealing with how they altered the
regulation of genes that they jumped into or around.-a It has been known
for decades that some transposons are responsible for interesting mutations.-a Morgan's famous white eyed fly was due to a copia element transposon.-a This is just overhype of the recent findings.-a My guess is that the ID perps will use the stupid misinformation to claim that junk
DNA isn't junk, when they never wanted their designer to be responsible
for parasitic DNA sequences.-a Why would a designer produce a parasitic
DNA parasite that is responsible for many de novo infant genetic defects when they move around the genome?-a Transposons do not account for over
half the human genome because they are good and useful.-a It is because
we can't get rid of them, and they are effective parasites.
Ron Okimoto
On 7/20/2025 2:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2025-07-reveals-hidden-regulatory-roles-junk.htmlhttps://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/another-case-where-junk-myth-impeded-science/
QUOTE:
Today, TEs make up nearly half of the human genome. While they were
once thought to serve no useful function, recent research has found
that some of them act like "genetic switches," controlling the
activity of nearby genes in specific cell types.
END QUOTE:
This was likely never true from McClintock's first papers on
transposable elements in the late 1930's.-a She found them to regulate
gene expression, and the regulation could be developmentally
regulated. Transposons would become active at certain developmental
stages of the plant.
They were not considered to be part of junk DNA because they had no
effect on gene regulation.-a They were considered to be junk because
they were obviously repetitive parasitic DNA sequences.-a It would be
the organims that had to adapt to dealing with how they altered the
regulation of genes that they jumped into or around.-a It has been
known for decades that some transposons are responsible for
interesting mutations.-a Morgan's famous white eyed fly was due to a
copia element transposon.-a This is just overhype of the recent
findings.-a My guess is that the ID perps will use the stupid
misinformation to claim that junk DNA isn't junk, when they never
wanted their designer to be responsible for parasitic DNA sequences.
Why would a designer produce a parasitic DNA parasite that is
responsible for many de novo infant genetic defects when they move
around the genome?-a Transposons do not account for over half the human
genome because they are good and useful.-a It is because we can't get
rid of them, and they are effective parasites.
Ron Okimoto
More misinformation about junk DNA from the ID perps.
QUOTE:
For decades, evolutionary biologists considered non-coding regions of
DNA as evolutionary junk, a paradigm that long dissuaded researchers
from studying these little-understood portions of the genome.
But a
series of discoveries starting in 2008 has forced a major change in
thinking about so-called rCLjunkrCY DNA. Many examples of function have since been identified for the non-coding regions of DNA, and more are
being uncovered each year.
On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Casey
Luskin reports on a pair of American biologists who were recently
awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery of function in what was previously considered junk DNA.
MicroRNAs are another case where the presumption of a genome bloated
with useless debris has proven to be an impediment to science. Back in
1993, when microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene regulation
was first identified, the development was met with skepticism and
silence by a scientific community largely wedded to the assumption that non-coding regions of DNA must be junk. Now, the 2024 Nobel Prize raises
the question with special poignancy: Did junk DNA thinking slow a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery from being recognized? The answer appears to be yes.
END QUOTE:
RNA genes were never considered to be junk DNA.-a The paper that is
always cited as designating junk DNA excluded regulatory sequences, and
then known RNA genes such as ribosomal RNA, small nuclear RNAs, and
tRNAs from being junk.-a We always understood that regulatory sequences existed in the noncoding sequence, and people were always actively
looking for regulatory sequences in noncoding DNA.-a We already
understood that there were RNA genes that did things in the cells before junk DNA was called junk DNA.-a The first two IDiotic paragraphs are
fiction (lies).-a Micro RNAs were never ignored.-a As soon as they were identified and characterized the results were readily accepted because
small RNA interference was already a working technology.-a RNA
interference was a widely used research tool in the 1990's.
Not only this fact, but the fact that small RNAs that regulated mRNA
post transcriptionally had already been discovered in plants, and were
the actual drivers of RNA interference research that was already up and running when these guys made their micro RNA discovery.-a Their research wasn't ignored it was just a me too accomplishment that had already
spawned a useful technology before they made their discovery.-a Micro RNA genes became useful when researchers discovered ways to change the
sequence of the micro RNA genes so that they would regulate different specific genes.-a Micro RNAs work just like RNA interference small RNAs
had always worked, but you could make constructs that would produce the micro RNA sequence that you wanted in the cell.
The reason why no one made a big deal about the discovery, was because
it wasn't anything that was really new and exceptional.-a I didn't think that it was very exceptional at the time.-a Using small RNAs to interfere with translation was already a working technology in animal research
that had been spawned by the plant discoveries.
The lab that I did my genomics post doc in was already using RNA interference in chicken cell culture in 1993.-a Finding out that animals also used RNA interference like plants did wasn't that exciting because researchers were already using RNA interference in animal tissue culture
to inhibit gene expression.-a Their findings were not rejected, just did
not spawn much excitement.-a Their findings were published in a very important journal (Cell) and were never rejected by the scientific community.
On 7/21/25 2:05 PM, RonO wrote:
On 7/20/2025 2:05 PM, RonO wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2025-07-reveals-hidden-regulatory-roles-junk.htmlhttps://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/another-case-where-junk-myth-
QUOTE:
Today, TEs make up nearly half of the human genome. While they were
once thought to serve no useful function, recent research has found
that some of them act like "genetic switches," controlling the
activity of nearby genes in specific cell types.
END QUOTE:
This was likely never true from McClintock's first papers on
transposable elements in the late 1930's.-a She found them to regulate
gene expression, and the regulation could be developmentally
regulated. Transposons would become active at certain developmental
stages of the plant.
They were not considered to be part of junk DNA because they had no
effect on gene regulation.-a They were considered to be junk because
they were obviously repetitive parasitic DNA sequences.-a It would be
the organims that had to adapt to dealing with how they altered the
regulation of genes that they jumped into or around.-a It has been
known for decades that some transposons are responsible for
interesting mutations.-a Morgan's famous white eyed fly was due to a
copia element transposon.-a This is just overhype of the recent
findings.-a My guess is that the ID perps will use the stupid
misinformation to claim that junk DNA isn't junk, when they never
wanted their designer to be responsible for parasitic DNA sequences.
Why would a designer produce a parasitic DNA parasite that is
responsible for many de novo infant genetic defects when they move
around the genome?-a Transposons do not account for over half the
human genome because they are good and useful.-a It is because we
can't get rid of them, and they are effective parasites.
Ron Okimoto
impeded-science/
More misinformation about junk DNA from the ID perps.
QUOTE:
For decades, evolutionary biologists considered non-coding regions of
DNA as evolutionary junk, a paradigm that long dissuaded researchers
from studying these little-understood portions of the genome.
Note the conflation of non-coding DNA with junk DNA, a common tactic
among IDers and other fans of a 100% functional genome. It's a fine
strawman to attack, but that's all it is.
But a series of discoveries starting in 2008 has forced a major change
in thinking about so-called rCLjunkrCY DNA. Many examples of function have >> since been identified for the non-coding regions of DNA, and more are
being uncovered each year.
....most of them in non-coding DNA that's never been considered junk.
On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Casey Luskin reports on a pair
of American biologists who were recently awarded the Nobel Prize for
their discovery of function in what was previously considered junk DNA.
MicroRNAs are another case where the presumption of a genome bloated
with useless debris has proven to be an impediment to science. Back in
1993, when microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene
regulation was first identified, the development was met with
skepticism and silence by a scientific community largely wedded to the
assumption that non-coding regions of DNA must be junk. Now, the 2024
Nobel Prize raises the question with special poignancy: Did junk DNA
thinking slow a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery from being recognized?
The answer appears to be yes.
Or perhaps no. MicroRNAs are conserved sequences, never thought of as
junk, just RNAs of unknown function. The most obvious sign of junk is a
lack of conservation of the sequence.
END QUOTE:
RNA genes were never considered to be junk DNA.-a The paper that is
always cited as designating junk DNA excluded regulatory sequences,
and then known RNA genes such as ribosomal RNA, small nuclear RNAs,
and tRNAs from being junk.-a We always understood that regulatory
sequences existed in the noncoding sequence, and people were always
actively looking for regulatory sequences in noncoding DNA.-a We
already understood that there were RNA genes that did things in the
cells before junk DNA was called junk DNA.-a The first two IDiotic
paragraphs are fiction (lies).-a Micro RNAs were never ignored.-a As
soon as they were identified and characterized the results were
readily accepted because small RNA interference was already a working
technology.-a RNA interference was a widely used research tool in the
1990's.
Not only this fact, but the fact that small RNAs that regulated mRNA
post transcriptionally had already been discovered in plants, and were
the actual drivers of RNA interference research that was already up
and running when these guys made their micro RNA discovery.-a Their
research wasn't ignored it was just a me too accomplishment that had
already spawned a useful technology before they made their discovery.
Micro RNA genes became useful when researchers discovered ways to
change the sequence of the micro RNA genes so that they would regulate
different specific genes.-a Micro RNAs work just like RNA interference
small RNAs had always worked, but you could make constructs that would
produce the micro RNA sequence that you wanted in the cell.
The reason why no one made a big deal about the discovery, was because
it wasn't anything that was really new and exceptional.-a I didn't
think that it was very exceptional at the time.-a Using small RNAs to
interfere with translation was already a working technology in animal
research that had been spawned by the plant discoveries.
The lab that I did my genomics post doc in was already using RNA
interference in chicken cell culture in 1993.-a Finding out that
animals also used RNA interference like plants did wasn't that
exciting because researchers were already using RNA interference in
animal tissue culture to inhibit gene expression.-a Their findings were
not rejected, just did not spawn much excitement.-a Their findings were
published in a very important journal (Cell) and were never rejected
by the scientific community.
Exactly. Note that another of Casey's main references for the supposed
death of junk DNA is the main ENCODE paper. What a maroon.