91.8% of human DNA may be junk

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12735
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
91.8% of human DNA may be junk

DNA mostly 'junk?' Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is 'functional', study finds

Date:
July 24, 2014

Source:
University of Oxford

Summary:
Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is likely to be doing something important -- is 'functional' -- say researchers. This figure is very different from one given in 2012, when some scientists involved in the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project stated that 80% of our genome has some biochemical function.

Exerpt:
To reach their figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution -- a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained.
'This is in large part a matter of different definitions of what is "functional" DNA,' says joint senior author Professor Chris Pointing of the MRC Functional Genomics Unit at Oxford University. 'We don't think our figure is actually too different from what you would get looking at ENCODE's bank of data using the same definition for functional DNA.
'But this isn't just an academic argument about the nebulous word "function." These definitions matter. When sequencing the genomes of patients, if our DNA was largely functional, we'd need to pay attention to every mutation. In contrast, with only 8% being functional, we have to work out the 8% of the mutations detected that might be important. From a medical point of view, this is essential to interpreting the role of human genetic variation in disease.'

Full Article/Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724141608.htm

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4524
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I guess that makes god

 I guess that makes god 8.2% functional.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12735
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Rofl.

Rofl.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4524
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I've debated previously with

I've debated previously with creationists that DNA is not code. They have claimed it is code, thus proving an "intelligent design". I recently was wondering if this idea could be reversed engineered. They think it is instructions for cells but what if it is the other way around. What if cells are transportion medium for DNA? DNA could be an intellgient life form. It might be using cells to multiple itself.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
No Subject (See: Image)

 

 

  http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/2156/mp3/140219_SOUNDDOGS__hu.mp3  Submitted by the ever lovin' danatemporary

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I've debated previously with  . .  What if cells are transportion medium for DNA? DNA could be an intellgient life form. It might be using cells to multiple itself.

 

 

 

 

   Hear Audio file(s)  as follows ::

 

http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/2156/mp3/140219_SOUNDDOGS__hu.mp3

 http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV05/07.mp3

 

 

 

================================

  Bender was a bad bad bad bad Robot  --
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/4ACV18/03.mp3

   




 

 

  Let not Thy tenderness and compassion be withheld forever, Oh HaShem

 

 


 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4524
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:   

danatemporary wrote:

http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/2156/mp3/140219_SOUNDDOGS__hu.mp3  Submitted by the ever lovin' danatemporary

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I've debated previously with  . .  What if cells are transportion medium for DNA? DNA could be an intellgient life form. It might be using cells to multiple itself.

Hear Audio file(s)  as follows ::

http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/2156/mp3/140219_SOUNDDOGS__hu.mp3

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/2ACV05/07.mp3

================================

  Bender was a bad bad bad bad Robot  --
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/EpisodeSounds/4ACV18/03.mp3

 Let not Thy tenderness and compassion be withheld forever, Oh HaShem

Often imitated but never duplicated


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
I have had

 I have had theists bring up that DNA is a language and therefore the only thing that can create a language is something intelligent type of argument.  

Of course, when you actually explain that one to them they usually just give you blank stares. Probably one of the reasons I simply just avoid debating them these days Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4175
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: I

harleysportster wrote:

 I have had theists bring up that DNA is a language and therefore the only thing that can create a language is something intelligent type of argument.  

Of course, when you actually explain that one to them they usually just give you blank stares. Probably one of the reasons I simply just avoid debating them these days Smiling




that's why i hate using analogies, and the quickest way a scholar (or pseudo-scholar) will piss me off and cause me to dismiss his book as rubbish is by using too many analogies. especially bad analogies like "DNA is language." i shouldn't have to "think of it this way." i should be able to think of it as it is or i have no business reading that book yet!


analogies are for belle-lettres and elementary school textbooks. they have no place in scientific or philosophical discussions.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12735
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
They can be good as teaching

They can be good as teaching aids when the right people use them. Bill Nye, for example, can make fairly good use of them. But they really have no place in debate. Usually if they are being relied upon the conversation isn't going anywhere.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4175
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
well, bill nye basically is

well, bill nye basically is an elementary school textbook. and it's really sad that he couldn't alter his mode of presentation at all when it came to explaining evolution to adult creationists rather than small children.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12735
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I would argue that it

I would argue that it wouldn't make much difference how he presented it, at least not to people like Ken Ham. These are people who are wilfully rejecting any evidence that contradicts their magic god. Bill Nye could win a billion consecutive debates using a billion different strategies and Ken Ham would still be a YEC when the dust settled.

The real question, I think, is what impact he had on those in the audience who aren't predisposed to ignore evidence against young earth creationism. A question that can't currently be answered. I would be interested to know how effective he was on the audience. It would be cool if the audience had been polled before and after the debate, and again a year later. The information coming out of such a poll would be useful.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4175
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
tbh, i'm betting that most

tbh, i'm betting that most of the audience were creationists or leaning toward creationism. i know from the couple of years i was a YEC that they constantly seek validation, and debates like that are prime examples. evolutionists don't really feel the need to cheer each other on, in my experience.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12735
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I operate under the

I operate under the assumption that not all YEC's necessarily reject other views. I think a significant percentage of them privately aren't as certain of themselves as they let on. If that assumption is correct, then more exposure to evolution cannot be a bad thing, and well formed analogies can help many of those people understand complex concepts that they are ignorant of, due to misinformation disseminated by their peers.

Granted this is based on an assumption, but I don't think it is an unreasonable assumption.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.