Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That might be useful...it might be a coffee stain.
It's not in a format that I can decipher.
And if it was deciphered, it might not be useful to me yet.
The majority of DNA is not understood as to why it exists.
But thanks for the picture.
actually alot of dna is understood why it exists, because it's just junk DNA and stuff that once had a use and no longer did, or parts of it that got duplicated. The stuff that helps us know its evolved, like genes that don't be long in our dna unless we came from ape ancestors.
What is that "prediction" based on? Anyone can throw out an unsupported claim. For it to be a prediction there has to be some support, not just a whim.The term "junk DNA" has fallen out of favor because the purpose has been found for a lot of what used to be called "Junk". One Creationist prediction is that 100% will be found to have purpose.
Huh...That might be useful...it might be a coffee stain.
It's not in a format that I can decipher.
Why not? Can't you measure its "information"?And if it was deciphered, it might not be useful to me yet.
What does that even mean?The majority of DNA is not understood as to why it exists.
It is a picture of DNA.But thanks for the picture.
LOL!The term "junk DNA" has fallen out of favor because the purpose has been found for a lot of what used to be called "Junk". One Creationist prediction is that 100% will be found to have purpose.
I suppose that if you're taught that everything has a purpose, that's inevitable. OTOH, 'purpose' is a weasel word - non-coding DNA can be an indicator to start transcription, stop transcription, or a telomeric cap, and so-on. DNA that has no apparent role whatsoever could potentially become useful. It wouldn't be hard to argue that some DNA is there 'just in case', or simply to take up space in the genome.The term "junk DNA" has fallen out of favor because the purpose has been found for a lot of what used to be called "Junk". One Creationist prediction is that 100% will be found to have purpose.
Many researchers have done that. The amount of "usable DNA" varies from 1% to 12% to 80% depending on the "value" assigned.I suppose that if you're taught that everything has a purpose, that's inevitable. OTOH, 'purpose' is a weasel word - non-coding DNA can be an indicator to start transcription, stop transcription, or a telomeric cap, and so-on. DNA that has no apparent role whatsoever could potentially become useful. It wouldn't be hard to argue that some DNA is there 'just in case', or simply to take up space in the genome.
LOL! One creationist that predicts such a thing is an idiot.
From a biochemist's blog:
Junk in Your Genome
Transposable Elements: (44% junk)
DNA transposons:
active (functional): <0.1%
defective (nonfunctional): 3%
retrotransposons:
active (functional): <0.1%
defective transposons
(full-length, nonfunctional): 8%
L1 LINES (fragments, nonfunctional): 16%
other LINES: 4%
SINES (small pseudogene fragments): 13%
co-opted transposons/fragments: <0.1% a
aCo-opted transposons and transposon fragments are those that have secondarily acquired a new function.Viruses (9% junk)
DNA viruses
active (functional): <0.1%
defective DNA viruses: ~1%
RNA viruses
active (functional): <0.1%
defective (nonfunctional): 8%
co-opted RNA viruses: <0.1% b
bCo-opted RNA viruses are defective integrated virus genomes that have secondarily acquired a new function.Pseudogenes (1.2% junk)
(from protein-encoding genes): 1.2% junk
co-opted pseudogenes: <0.1% c
cCo-opted pseudogenes are formerly defective pseudogenes those that have secondarily acquired a new function.Ribosomal RNA genes:
essential 0.22%
junk 0.19%
Other RNA encoding genes
tRNA genes: <0.1% (essential)
known small RNA genes: <0.1% (essential)
putative regulatory RNAs: ~2% (essential) Protein-encoding genes: (9.6% junk)
transcribed region:
essential 1.8%
intron junk (not included above) 9.6% d
dIntrons sequences account for about 30% of the genome. Most of these sequences qualify as junk but they are littered with defective transposable elements that are already included in the calculation of junk DNA.Regulatory sequences:
essential 0.6%
Origins of DNA replication
<0.1% (essential) Scaffold attachment regions (SARS)
<0.1% (essential) Highly Repetitive DNA (1% junk)
α-satellite DNA (centromeres)
essential 2.0%
non-essential 1.0%%
telomeres
essential (less than 1000 kb, insignificant)
Intergenic DNA (not included above)
conserved 2% (essential)
non-conserved 26.3% (unknown but probably junk)
Total Essential/Functional (so far) = 8.7%
Total Junk (so far) = 65%
Unknown (probably mostly junk) = 26.3%
For references and further information click on the "Genomes & Junk DNA" link in the box
LAST UPDATE: May 10, 2011 (fixed totals, and ribosomal RNA calculations)
There are all things that ARE understood:Just because it's value is not understood, doesn't mean it will never be understood.
Not really.And the trend is moving in the direction of 100% every day.
And the 80% figure refers to DNA just being able to interact with something. No actual function, just interaction..Many researchers have done that. The amount of "usable DNA" varies from 1% to 12% to 80% depending on the "value" assigned.
The term "junk DNA" has fallen out of favor because the purpose has been found for a lot of what used to be called "Junk". One Creationist prediction is that 100% will be found to have purpose.
I suppose that if you're taught that everything has a purpose, that's inevitable. OTOH, 'purpose' is a weasel word - non-coding DNA can be an indicator to start transcription, stop transcription, or a telomeric cap, and so-on. DNA that has no apparent role whatsoever could potentially become useful. It wouldn't be hard to argue that some DNA is there 'just in case', or simply to take up space in the genome.
What is that "prediction" based on? Anyone can throw out an unsupported claim. For it to be a prediction there has to be some support, not just a whim.
And the 80% figure refers to DNA just being able to interact with something. No actual function, just interaction.
actually alot of dna is understood why it exists, because it's just junk DNA and stuff that once had a use and no longer did, or parts of it that got duplicated.
Oh good grief, not the ENCODE stuff again... the difference between transcribed, biologically active, and functional has been done to death enough times on this forum...Lets suppose that the "Junk" DNA is potentially useful.
Because...that's what we have discovered:
Junk DNA Isn’t Junk, and That Isn’t Really News | Smart News | Smithsonian
Oh good grief, not the ENCODE stuff again... the difference between transcribed, biologically active, and functional has been done to death enough times on this forum...
Potentially active or potentially functional?Those three have nothing to do with potentially active. Good try though.
Those three have nothing to do with potentially useful, which is what I am discussing, that 100% of DNA has the potential to be used in future generations or currently has switch genes imbedded in it.Potentially active or potentially functional?
Oh good grief, you didn't read the OP yet?Oh good grief, not the ENCODE stuff again... the difference between transcribed, biologically active, and functional has been done to death enough times on this forum...
And? are you saying that if it has the potential to be useful it's not junk DNA?Those three have nothing to do with potentially useful, which is what I am discussing, that 100% of DNA has the potential to be used in future generations or currently has switch genes imbedded in it.
And? are you saying that if it has the potential to be useful it's not junk DNA?
The OP is asking what the definition of information is in ID; if you're suggesting that junk DNA is information because it's potentially useful, I agree - I'd go further, it's information whether or not it's potentially useful.Oh good grief, you didn't read the OP yet?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?