Evolutionary theory hinders scientific progress.

[bob b]

Here is another example where the slavish adherence to an obsolete theory has hindered scientific progress in real microbiology of the cell.

---------

April 24, 2007
'Junk' DNA Now Looks Like Powerful Regulator, Scientists Find

Science Daily — Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.

Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and of computer science at Stanford, found more than 10,000 nearly identical genetic snippets dotting the human chromosomes. Many of those snippets were located in gene-free chromosomal expanses once described by geneticists as "gene deserts." These sections are, in fact, so clogged with useful DNA bits - including the ones Bejerano and his colleagues describe - that they've been renamed "regulatory jungles."

"It's funny how quickly the field is now evolving," Bejerano said

---

 

[fool]

And what did TOE have to do with them not knowing what that stuff did?
Were the discoverers Creationists and the junk crowd Evolutionists that were blocking their papers from journals and sabotageing their expiriments and giving them wedgies in the locker room?

 

[Sealeaf]

And what did TOE have to do with them not knowing what that stuff did?
Were the discoverers Creationists and the junk crowd Evolutionists that were blocking their papers from journals and sabotageing their expiriments and giving them wedgies in the locker room?

Like he said.

 

[noguru]

Here is another example where the slavish adherence to an obsolete theory has hindered scientific progress in real microbiology of the cell.

---------

April 24, 2007
'Junk' DNA Now Looks Like Powerful Regulator, Scientists Find

Science Daily — Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.

Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and of computer science at Stanford, found more than 10,000 nearly identical genetic snippets dotting the human chromosomes. Many of those snippets were located in gene-free chromosomal expanses once described by geneticists as "gene deserts." These sections are, in fact, so clogged with useful DNA bits - including the ones Bejerano and his colleagues describe - that they've been renamed "regulatory jungles."

"It's funny how quickly the field is now evolving," Bejerano said

---

Here we go again. We have been through this all before Bob. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the situation again. I am virtually certain that this has been clarified for you before in the past. Yet you continue to resurrect this poorly thought out argument.

The term "junk DNA" is a misnomer. There are two major factors for this. 1.) Researchers in that field used the word "junk" but should have use the word "mysterious". This is because they did not know the effects of this DNA then, but for the most part realized that the effects were still a mystery to them. 2.) Laypeople caught wind of this term and took it for what it seemed to be saying. That being that this DNA was useless or unutilized. Rather than understanding that the effect of such DNA was still a mystery to researchers.

At any rate, it is non-sequititir that you blame evolutionary theory for this breakdown in communication.

 

[bob b]

Here we go again. We have been through this all before Bob. You are misrepresenting the situation again. The term "junk DNA" is a misnomer. There are two major factors for this. 1.) Researchers in that field used the word "junk" but should have use the word "mysterious". This is because they did not know the effects of this DNA then, but for the most part realized that the effects were still a mystery to them. 2.) Laypeople caught wind of this term and took it for what it seemed to be saying. That being that this DNA was useless or unutilized. Rather than understanding that the effect of such DNA was still a mystery to researchers.

At any rate, it is non-sequititir that you blame evolutionary theory for this breakdown in communication.

You are forgetting the connection with "neutral" mutations, which many are only now beginning to suspect are also non-existent.

 

[noguru]

You are forgetting the connection with "neutral" mutations, which many are only now beginning to suspect are also non-existent.

I do not think that I am forgetting this. "Neutral" is in regard to the reproductive advantage that a genetic variation offers. Most genetic variations are considered to be neutral for the most part. This is because they do not create a situation where the genetic variation's effect on the phenotype has a statistically significant reproductive disadvantage. You seem to be conflating this concept with that of "junk DNA". The concept of neutral genetic variation is not confined to variations that have no effect on the phenotype.

Be that as it may, I do not see the logical connection you are trying to illuminate here as being relevant to the reality of the situation.

 

[Johnny]

Please inform us all how the theory of evolution hindered this "progress".

By the way, just because some sort of news media tells you that it's a new find, that doesn't mean it is. I realize your primary source for science comes from the news, but you should realize that papers regarding the various "functions" of junk DNA span all the way back into the 70s.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Ok, I'm not seeing how science was hindered here. lain:

 

[bob b]

I do not think that I am forgetting this. "Neutral" is in regard to the reproductive advantage that a genetic variation offers. Most genetic variations are considered to be neutral for the most part. This is because they do not create a situation where the individual has a statistically significant reproductive disadvantage..

"Neutral" and "junk" are connected because it was assumed that most mutations did not have any effect (were "neutral") because they occurred in the 80% of DNA which was "junk", compared with the far lesser amount of DNA which coded for proteins (which was where all the "action" was). It was previously believed that this "junk" had accumulated over the hypothetical millions of years that mutations had been occurring, and could safely be ignored. Only relatively recently have people begun to question this "dogma" and begun to actually take the time (and get research dollars) to "dig deeper".

A further myth or dogma in evolutionary theory is the assumption that any difference in DNA between one lifeform and another must be due to the accumulation of random mutations in germ cells. What else?

 

[Real Sorceror]

"Neutral" and "junk" are connected because it was assumed that most mutations did not have any effect (were "neutral") because they occurred in the 80% of DNA which was "junk", compared with the far lesser amount of DNA which coded for proteins (which was where all the "action" was). It was previously believed that this "junk" had accumulated over the hypothetical millions of years that mutations had been occurring, and could safely be ignored. Only relatively recently have people begun to question this "dogma" and begun to actually take the time (and get research dollars) to "dig deeper".

A further myth or dogma in evolutionary theory is the assumption that any difference in DNA between one lifeform and another must be due to the accumulation of random mutations in germ cells. What else?

Ok, but this assumption has been corrected, yes? By scientists, right?
So science wins. An assumption was made and then later corrected. Thats supposed to happen.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Ok, I'm not seeing how science was hindered here. lain:

Me too ... science is constantly changing and reevaluating and learning. So how does Bob B's OP tie up with the title of the post.

The opposite is more scary ... ID, Creationism and the god did it crowd have not progressed a single scientific theory... why ?

Because according them we all ready have the answers.

Creationism, ID , GDI = Stagnant adhesion to the past

Science = Progress into the future through reason.

 

[Johnny]

"Neutral" and "junk" are connected because it was assumed that most mutations did not have any effect (were "neutral") because they occurred in the 80% of DNA which was "junk", compared with the far lesser amount of DNA which coded for proteins (which was where all the "action" was). It was previously believed that this "junk" had accumulated over the hypothetical millions of years that mutations had been occurring, and could safely be ignored. Only relatively recently have people begun to question this "dogma" and begun to actually take the time (and get research dollars) to "dig deeper".

By relatively recently Bob actually means "40 years". Read the opening post of this thread (telling us about the HOT NEW RESEARCH), then read the abstract to the following paper from 1969.

Britten RJ, Davidson EH. Gene regulation for higher cells: a theory. Science. 1969 Jul 25;165(891):349–357.

A quote from the paper, "The existence of repeated sequences in higher organisms led us independently to consider models of gene regulation of the type we describe here. This model depends in part on the general presence of repeated DNA sequences. This model suggests a present-day function for these repeated DNA sequences in addition to their possible evolutionary role as the raw material for creation of novel producer gene sequences. The apparently universal occurrence of large quantities of sequence repetition in the genomes of higher organisms (14) suggests strongly that they have an important current function."

BUT BUT TEH EVOLUSHION HELD US BACK!!!!!11!oneone

 

[noguru]

"Neutral" and "junk" are connected because it was assumed that most mutations did not have any effect (were "neutral") because they occurred in the 80% of DNA which was "junk", compared with the far lesser amount of DNA which coded for proteins (which was where all the "action" was).

Assumed by who? Laypeople or professional's in the respective fields? As I pointed out in my previous post "neutral genetic variation" is in regard to reproductive advantage. A genetic variation that does have an effect on phenotype can also be neutral in regard to reproductive advantage. The term "neutral" is not confined to genetic variations that have no effect on phenotype. Again this is a misrepresentation that is the result of either your poor understanding or your misperception.

It was previously believed that this "junk" had accumulated over the hypothetical millions of years that mutations had been occurring, and could safely be ignored. Only relatively recently have people begun to question this "dogma" and begun to actually take the time (and get research dollars) to "dig deeper".

I already explained to you how this layperson's view is innacurate.

A further myth or dogma in evolutionary theory is the assumption that any difference in DNA between one lifeform and another must be due to the accumulation of random mutations in germ cells. What else?

You seem to be off on another tangent here. Can you elaborate on how this relates to the claim in your OP?

 

[bob b]

Ok, but this assumption has been corrected, yes? By scientists, right?
So science wins. An assumption was made and then later corrected. Thats supposed to happen.

Real science eventually overcame the erroneous assumption, but the delay caused by slavish adherence to evolutionary dogma was real and was the factor responsible for the original erroneous assumption.

Your error is in equating "evolutionary dogma" with "science".

"Evolutionary dogma" is actually "anti-science".

 

[noguru]

Real science eventually overcame the erroneous assumption, but the delay caused by slavish adherence to evolutionary dogma was real and was the factor responsible for the original erroneous assumption.

You have made this assertion twice now in this thread. But you have yet to clearly and accurately explain how this assertion is supported by the evidence.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Real science eventually overcame the erroneous assumption, but the delay caused by slavish adherence to evolutionary dogma was real and was the factor responsible for the original erroneous assumption.

Your error is in equating "evolutionary dogma" with "science".

"Evolutionary dogma" is actually "anti-science".

Blind dogma of any kind is harmful to science, including Creationist dogma.
No one was stopping people from studying the mystery DNA, and in this instance, any "hindrance" or oversight pales in comparison to the advances in science that ToE has brought us.

As a side note, where the scientists who made the discovery Creationist?

 

[Johnny]

Because I fear my post is going to get lost and Bob is going to get a free pass with his deceitful assertions:

Britten RJ, Davidson EH. Gene regulation for higher cells: a theory. Science. 1969 Jul 25;165(891):349–357.

The HOT NEW IDEAS ABOUT JUNK DNA THAT WERE DELAYED BECAUSE OF EVOLUTIONARY THINKING are actually from 1969.

 

[noguru]

Because I fear my post is going to get lost and Bob is going to get a free pass with his deceitful assertions:

Britten RJ, Davidson EH. Gene regulation for higher cells: a theory. Science. 1969 Jul 25;165(891):349–357.

The HOT NEW IDEAS ABOUT JUNK DNA THAT WERE DELAYED BECAUSE OF EVOLUTIONARY THINKING are actually from 1969.

I guess it's all relative Johny. Perhaps 38 years ago is recent for Bob.

 

[Sealeaf]

Bob, You have made yourself look stupid again. Your hot new evidence is 38 years old. You have asserted that TOE had some how slowed down this discovery but 38 years ago is about when the first work with DNA was being done. You have totally failed to offer evidence of TOE or its adherents delaying or hindering any science.

 

[bob b]

I guess it's all relative Johny. Perhaps 38 years ago is recent for Bob.

Yes, unfortunately that is true, but in addition that one "clue" from 38 years ago did not instantly overturn the "junk" DNA dogma or affect the "neutral mutation" assumptions, because revolutions in science typically take far longer. And with regard to textbooks we are talking more like generations. Just check yor child's textbook treatment of evolution and see.

The point of this thread was that evolutionary dogma "hinders" scientific progress, not that it stops it dead in its tracks.

Real science will eventually prevail to overturn all of the evolutionary myths that are held, but teaching it as "dogma" slows this process down, and being in the twilight of my earthly existence, I am impatient for science to do its job and discard even more of Darwin's misconceptions.