Scientific story of the year - Junk DNA ain't junk?

548 Views | 1 Replies | Last: 10 days ago by nortex97
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nobel for Discovery of Function for "Junk DNA" | Evolution News

Quote:

What's the biggest science story of the year? My vote goes to the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded for the discovery of function for a type of "junk DNA" that produces microRNA (miRNA), a crucial molecule involved in gene regulation. That so-called genetic junk would turn out to be functional was a prediction of intelligent design going back to the 1990s. On that, ID has been vindicated over and over again, now by the Nobel Committee. Our colleagues Richard Sternberg and Bill Dembski were early predictors, as critics of what Jonathan Wells called in a 2011 book, The Myth of Junk DNA.
Quote:

Now the official Nobel Prize press release does not say that microRNAs are produced by a type of DNA once considered "junk." But leading scientists make this exact point. An article in Current Science about this year's Prize states:
Quote:

Although, by the early 1990s some non-coding 'genes' including the hsr in Drosophila, Xist, H19, etc. in mammals were known to be essential for organisms' normal lives, they remained exceptions without making any dent in the widespread text-book level strong belief in 'selfish' or 'junk' DNA. In this backdrop, Ambros and Ruvkun groups' discovery that the lin-4 gene of C. elegans produces a small non-coding RNA (ncRNA) that inhibits activity of the lin-14 gene through RNA interference decisively catalysed a widespread interest in ncRNAs that hitherto had remained rather 'ostracized'. RNA interference also explained the mystery of the earlier known phenomena like post-transcriptional gene silencing and 'quelling'.
The Science Media Centre of Spain reports that a biochemist at the Autonomous University of Madrid remarked:
Quote:

This finding is of great importance, transforming our understanding of the regulation of gene expression and attributing critical functions to a fraction of the human genome that was previously considered 'junk DNA' because it does not code for proteins.

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's pretty fascinating. This, plus the 'myth' that we only use 10% of our brain really have seemed like poor science to me. A take as to 'intelligent design' being supported by the finding;



Quote:

Here are the topics:
  • Introduction
  • The Mystery of Protein Creation in the Cell
  • Replication, Transcription, and Translation
  • The Central Dogma and its Oversimplification
  • Junk DNA Isn't Junk After All
  • The Human Genome Project and The Revolution In Understanding DNA
  • Ambrose and Ruvkin's Discovery Micro RNA
  • Micro RNA and protein regulation
  • The Complex Interactions That Shows Design in the Cell
  • Pseudo Genes and Their Importance For the Cell
  • ID-Based Biology Finds Answers That Evolutionary Biology Misses
  • Does the Discovery of Micro RNAs show it Isn't Mutations That Provide New information In DNA?
  • The Evolutionary Paradigm Is Getting Harder to Explain
  • We See In the Cell Just What Designers Do
  • Predictions From an ID Paradigm
  • What The Nobel Means to ID as "Real Science"
  • Are There Any implications for the RNA World Hypothesis?

Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.