Salamander Genome and Junk DNA

[RonO]

I know that the IDiot junk DNA argument didn't make the top 6 and it is
worse than the junk that failed the scientific creationists over 30
years ago that made the top of the IDiot list of evidence for
intelligent design, but the salamander genome has been published last
month. Salamanders have very large genomes compared to other terrestial
vertebrates. The one that they sequenced has a genome 10 times the size
of the human genome, but it isn't tetraploid like it's relatives that
are over 30 times the size of the human genome.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25458

This genome is around 32 gigabases in size (the human genome is 3
gigabases). What they found was that the whole genome is expanded.
Genes are much bigger. The salamander genome has about as many genes as
a human. The coding sequences aren't any larger, but the introns (the
sequence between the coding bits that are cut out of the RNA and thrown
away to make the final mRNA) are 10 times as large as in humans. This
means that salamanders have to transcribe a whole lot more RNA to make
the same mRNA and express the same genes. The introns in this
salamander are over 20 thousand base pairs while humans have introns
around 2 thousand and birds average half that of humans. It turns out
that the genome is so huge because of repetitive elements. Very large
retrotransposons make up more than half the genome, my guess is that
most of the other half are ancient transposable elements that have
mutated into random sequence, and are no longer recognizable.

The IDiot argument against junk DNA is a pretty stupid argument, and
that is why it didn't make the grade above known creationist failures
like abiogenesis and fossil gap denial. The salamander genome is just
another reason why the junk DNA IDiot argument is pretty much worthless.

Here is another paper on intron size of other organisms so you can see
how much larger introns of over 20 thousand base-pairs are.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490418/

Ron Okimoto

[dale]

the following says there is very little "junk" DNA

http://origins.ctvn.org/2018/03/19/design-in-dna/

your mileage may vary ...



--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org/
Not a professional opinion unless specified.

[John Harshman]

Well, a random video from a creationist web site is certainly more
credible than a published scientific paper. No question on that.

[T Pagano]

That doesn't exactly sound like dale (or his source) are wrong. In your
usual lazy fashion you assume the creationist is always on the wrong
side. That hasn't worked out too well for you lately. Once the rest of
my creationist brethren realize that your side is mostly bluff and no
substance it'll be all over.

[RonO]

Your source ran out of gas years ago. This salamander paper
demonstrates that your creationist source is as wrong as it usually is
in these cases. What do you not get about that? You have the evidence
in front of your face, and what does it tell you? Not only that, but
the junk DNA argument didn't get rated above the bogus junk that has
already failed the scientific creationists over 30 years ago. The
recent paper is just pointing out why the junk DNA argument is worse
than the other known creationist failures.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Not only is Dale's source inconsistent with reality, but the IDiot junk
DNA argument has been rated as being worse than the other known
creationist failures that made the IDiot best list. The IDiot junk DNA
evidence rated lower than the other known creationist failures by the ID
perps own judgement based on decades of them lying about the issue. You
can't change that reality by running from it. This is just the reality
that all IDiots have to face.

Ron Okimoto

[William Morse]

I really wish we could have a discussion about this on
sci.bio.evolution, without the Pagano nonsense, but alas that is no
longer an option. There is a question about why such a large genome
exists in salamanders. Evolution does not have an obvious answer (but
does have the actual answer, which may simply be drift), while ID has no
answer whatsoever, because no intelligent designer would produce such a
large genome for no purpose.

Bill Morse

[John Harshman]

Really? Name one time.

> Once the rest of
> my creationist brethren realize that your side is mostly bluff and no
> substance it'll be all over.

I agree completely, assuming that would happen, and assuming the
realization was true. And once we realize that pigs can fly, I'll be
carrying a big umbrella and a shotgun.

[dale]

On 3/20/2018 11:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> once we realize that pigs can fly

prosthetics?

[Burkhard]

Please post photo of you with umbrella, shotgun only if local laws allow:

http://aviationhumor.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Claude-Moore-Brabazon-and-the-first-pig-to-fly.jpg

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:54:06 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 3/20/2018 11:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> once we realize that pigs can fly
>
>prosthetics?

More likely strong winds and/or a steep declination.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[erik simpson]

Pigs do not fly so much as plummet.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:21:27 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:30:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:54:06 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/20/2018 11:16 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> >> once we realize that pigs can fly
>> >
>> >prosthetics?
>>
>>
>> More likely strong winds and/or a steep declination.
>>
>

>Pigs do not fly so much as plummet.

Isn't that what I implied?

When very young, my daughter's favorite movie was "Land Before Time",
about some orphaned misfit dinosaur babies. One of the characters was
a pterodactyl who hadn't yet learned to fly. On one of its attempts,
it climbed a tree, flapped mightily and promptly plummeted to the
ground.

As it recovered consciousness, it asked one of its friends, "I flied?"
"No" said its friend, "You falled".