[_ Old Earth _] Genome Intelligently Designed

[Vaccine]

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.1 From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.â€

1The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.



Just thought I'd share this.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see that on the ENCODE website. Do you have a link?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.1 From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.â€

1The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.



Just thought I'd share this.

The problem with this, is that you have a misunderstanding of facts and propaganda.

I could create a website that says "The common ancestor of humans and pigs lived only a hundred thousand years ago".

Would people be using my declaration as evidence against mainstream evolution?

No.

Why?

Because they are not driven by a desire to believe that we are closely related to pigs.


But, the key is, I can post anything that I want, no matter how unscientific it is.




The statement that you posted is extremely pandering to Intelligent Design proponents.

As of right now, there are enough of you crying wolf about Intelligent Design to make the slightly gullible and extremely hopeful believe that it is a theory worth considering. As time goes on, the truth will eat away at those false hopes.


The bottom line is this:

Do most scientists want there to be an intelligent designer?

Yes.

Do most scientists believe that the facts point to an intelligent designer?

No.


Done deal.

 

[Vaccine]

The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements(ENCODE) Consortium is an international collaboration of research groups funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). The goal of ENCODE is to build a comprehensive parts list of functional elements in the human genome, including elements that act at the protein and RNA levels, and regulatory elements that control cells and circumstances in which a gene is active.
This is the collaborative effort of 594 scientists.
"These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22955616

These analyses portray a complex landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes (Supplementary Fig. 1, section Y). Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue specificity for gene–element connectivity49.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439153/

 

[Vaccine]

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.1 From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.”

1The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.



Just thought I'd share this.

The problem with this, is that you have a misunderstanding of facts and propaganda.

This was a collaborative effort of 594 scientists.

[I could create a website that says "The common ancestor of humans and pigs lived only a hundred thousand years ago".

They published their results in Nature, an international journal of science. After peer review it was republished in the National Institute of Health.

As of right now, there are enough of you crying wolf about Intelligent Design to make the slightly gullible and extremely hopeful believe that it is a theory worth considering. As time goes on, the truth will eat away at those false hopes.

Funny but I think the same thing is happening to evolution. Oh, the theory species change over time is solid. But as time goes on the idea humans came from apes will fade away. I was hoping to win you guys over.

A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.
Interestingly, the authors also searched the DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees for sections that were “flipped” in their orientation, called inversions. Large inversions, once they occur in a species and if they are tolerated, will stop recombination. However, the researchers found that inverted sequences accounted for very few differences in the regions they examined.
These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!
More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not!
http://www.icr.org/article/7526/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603309/

 

[Barbarian]

I gather you can't find it, either? I mean this:

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.1 From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.”

If you didn't actually read this, where did you get the story? BTW, I was an undergraduate in the 60s, and even then, scientists knew that some "junk DNA" had functions in the genome. So, I'm pretty sure the guys who sold you that story, aren't very up on genetics.

Edit:
Found the story. Not from ENCODE. It came from the ICR, a creationist organization. And they just made up the blurb you copied. No one at ENCODE supported those conclusions.

 

[Vaccine]

I gather you can't find it, either? I mean this:

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.1 From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.”

If you didn't actually read this, where did you get the story? BTW, I was an undergraduate in the 60s, and even then, scientists knew that some "junk DNA" had functions in the genome. So, I'm pretty sure the guys who sold you that story, aren't very up on genetics.

Edit:
Found the story. Not from ENCODE. It came from the ICR, a creationist organization. And they just made up the blurb you copied. No one at ENCODE supported those conclusions.

This IS from the ENCODE research paper (see post 4):


These analyses portray a COMPLEX landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY for gene-element connectivity.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

Observable, testable, repeatable specified complexity. Intelligent design.

 

[Barbarian]

This IS from the ENCODE research paper (see post 4):
These analyses portray a COMPLEX landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY for gene-element connectivity.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html

Observable, testable, repeatable specified complexity. Intelligent design.

It doesn't say anything about specified complexity or intelligent design. If a few words turn up in an article, you don't get to patch them together in a new way, and say the article said them. The ICR just made that story up, didn't they?

This is why people assume IDers are dishonest. I'm sure you were surprised to see that the ICR made up that story, with no support from ENCODE. But why would they do something that dishonest?

 

[Vaccine]

It doesn't say anything about specified complexity or intelligent design.

I worry about you sometimes:

These analyses portray a COMPLEX landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY for gene-element connectivity.

That is the summary paragraph for chromosome-interacting region from this article by ENCODE:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

Observable, testable, repeatable, evidence for specified complexity. "Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI)."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Vaccine. I don't pretend to know a lot about this type of thing but the thread got me looking anyway. So I looked up some things, here's one that I did http://creation.com/junk-dna-evolutionary-discards-or-gods-tools
Hello Edward too. From what I have read, they believe that DNA is the densest info storage mechanism known. That it can hold, one pinheads worth of DNA, the equal of 2 million 2 TB hard-drives of info.
And all that came out of no-where. We make computers that only contain a fraction of that, and they are made by intelligence. But something that leaves that for dead supposedly did not have an intelligent designer according to evolution!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It doesn't say anything about specified complexity or intelligent design.

I worry about you sometimes:

These analyses portray a COMPLEX landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY for gene-element connectivity.

That is the summary paragraph for chromosome-interacting region from this article by ENCODE:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

From your link:

However, the main reason why I have a hard time accepting that about 80% of the human genome sequence is functional and important is the data from other species with a similar number of genes, but extremely divergent amounts of DNA. For example, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has 0.165 billion nucleotide base pairs, whereas the butterfly Fritillaria assyriaca has 124.9 billion nucleotide base pairs. The human genome size lies between with about 3.2 billion nucleotide base pairs. While the fruit fly has 750-times less DNA than the butterfly, both insects have somewhat comparable characteristics in terms of body structure, size, life span, diet, etc.

There appears to be strong evolutionary pressure in multicellular organisms to retain excess baggage so as to simply make sure that the important parts are retained. There are countless cases of this ranging from the extensive remodelling of embryos during early development, to the hundreds of thousands of superfluous phosphorylation sites in the proteins encoded by the human genome. At the levels of gross anatomy down to the molecular, there are so many examples of inefficiencies in biology. As I have pointed out above, DNA sequencing studies in diverse organisms have increasingly demonstrated extreme ranges in the sizes of their genomes, whilst still having a relatively similar number of genes. It just seems highly unlikely that this is for increasing the amount of regulation of the genome in certain organisms over others.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html

Looks like the opposite of what you said. What's going on here?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

But as time goes on the idea humans came from apes will fade away. I was hoping to win you guys over.

Humans are apes.

 

[Vaccine]

Looks like the opposite of what you said. What's going on here?

I quoted the National Institute of health and Nature. These are accredited sceintific resourses. If you disagree with their findings I suggest you are in error and not them.

 

[Vaccine]

But as time goes on the idea humans came from apes will fade away. I was hoping to win you guys over.

Humans are apes.

You are entitled to your opinions but the scientific community says otherwise.

 

[Asyncritus]

I gather you can't find it, either? I mean this:

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.1 From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.”

If you didn't actually read this, where did you get the story? BTW, I was an undergraduate in the 60s, and even then, scientists knew that some "junk DNA" had functions in the genome. So, I'm pretty sure the guys who sold you that story, aren't very up on genetics.

Edit:
Found the story. Not from ENCODE. It came from the ICR, a creationist organization. And they just made up the blurb you copied. No one at ENCODE supported those conclusions.

This is pure nonsense barbarian. The ENCODE paper said:

"The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type. Much of the genome lies close to a regulatory event: 95% of the genome lies within 8 kilobases (kb) of a DNA–protein interaction (as assayed by bound ChIP-seq motifs or DNase I footprints), and 99% is within 1.7 kb of at least one of the biochemical events measured by ENCODE."

Those figures entirely justify the ICR comments, and show that the 'junk DNA' idea is completely nonsensical. I note that ICR does not say that they are 'quoting' or 'citing' the ENCODE paper.

They are merely making use of the facts ENCODE discovered, and your remarks about ICR are entirely unjustifiable.

Let me add my twopennyworth here with this citation:

"We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs).

[…]

Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale."

(Andrew B. Conley, Jittima Piriyapongsa and I. King Jordan, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics, Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008).)

So the 'junk DNA' idea is now shown to be total nonsense - junk in fact - and you'd do well to trash that nonsense.

So bang goes a big prop of the 'apes and mankind share a 'common ancestor' ' theory. You'll soon have nothing left. Emperor's new clothes anybody?

Nice thing about science. It moves on, and kicks tripe in the behind sooner or later.

 

[Vaccine]

Nice thing about science. It moves on, and kicks tripe in the behind sooner or later.

Amen!

 

[Asyncritus]

Just found this, guys: http://harunyahya.com/en/works/15117/"

But the theory of evolution is based on fictitious mutations that produce “new” living things and work miracles. Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations. This claim, a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is put forward by Darwinist scientists who know that mutations always harm an organism.

Moreover, although Darwinists are well aware of these harmful effects of mutations they still point to a mutant, four-winged fruit fly subjected to mutations in the laboratory in support of their claims. Darwinists portrayed the extra pair of wings produced in a fruit fly as a result of carefully performed mutations as the greatest evidence that mutations could lead to evolution.

But the two wings in question actually damaged the creature rather than benefiting it, leading to its losing the ability to fly. The University of California molecular biologist summarizes the position as follows:

In the 1970s, Cal Tech geneticist Edward B. Lewis discovered that by carefully breeding three mutant strains he was able to produce a fruit fly in which the balancers were transformed into a second pair of normal-looking wings.

At first glance, this might seem to provide evidence for Carroll's claim that small developmental changes in regulatory DNA can produce large evolutionary changes in form. But the fruit fly is still a fruit fly. Furthermore, although the second pair of wings looks normal, it has no flight muscles. A four-winged fruit fly is like an airplane with a second pair of wings dangling uselessly from its tail. It has great difficulty flying or mat­ing, so it can survive only in the laboratory. As evidence for evolution, a four-winged fruit fly is no better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow.1
​

Jonathan Wells continues:

Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.2
​

1 Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006, p.34
2 Ibid., p. 36

 

[Barbarian]

You are entitled to your opinions but the scientific community says otherwise.

You're wrong. Here's the tree of descent in the hominoids:

Genetic analysis shows humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to other apes.

 

[Vaccine]

They mutated it to have 4 wings so now it can't fly. Too funny.

 

[Vaccine]

You are entitled to your opinions but the scientific community says otherwise.

You're wrong. Here's the tree of descent in the hominoids:

Genetic analysis shows humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other than either is to other apes.

I hate to have to tell you this but that information is obsolete. ICR redid the comparison with the new research from ENCODE and found we share 70% with chimps. Thats not all:

A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.
Interestingly, the authors also searched the DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees for sections that were “flipped†in their orientation, called inversions. Large inversions, once they occur in a species and if they are tolerated, will stop recombination. However, the researchers found that inverted sequences accounted for very few differences in the regions they examined.
These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!
More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not!
http://www.icr.org/article/7526/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603309/