More or Less Junk

[Glenn]

""Almost 50% of our genome consists of repetitive DNA that does not code for protein," Zhu said. "These DNA sequences tend to be considered as 'junk DNA' or dark matters in our genome, and they are difficult to study. Our study describes that one of those units actually has a function in that it enhances the activity of the telomerase gene.""

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/07/210723105258.htm

You zhu say.

[RonO]

This is one short repeat. In humans it varies from 53 copies of the
short sequence that is repeated to 160 copies. The length of the repeat
seems to be associated with telomerase expression. The 50% of the
genome is talking about VNTRs (variable nucleotide repeats) like this
satellite sequence, and most of the heterochromatin is made is made up
of short repetitive sequences like this that do not code for a protein.
The VNTRs are dispersed all over the genome and we used to use them
for genetic mapping. Look up microsatellite markers. Most of them
don't seem to have any function that we could figure out, but some of
them were associated with genetic disease if they were found inside a
coding sequence because they are highly variable (mutation rate of E-5
or more).

What is also strange about you putting this up is that Telomerase is
used to maintain a short VNTR on the ends of chromosomes. The longer
the telomeres the longer the life of the cell is a general observation.
What does this tell you about any stupid notions that you have about
junk DNA?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

In other words, nothing to see here, move along.


"In consideration of their evolutionary origins and inherent limitations in genome annotation practices, we posit that pseudogenes have been classified on a scientifically unsubstantiated basis. We reflect that a broad misunderstanding of pseudogenes, perpetuated in part by the pejorative inference of the ‘pseudogene’ label, has led to their frequent dismissal from functional assessment and exclusion from genomic analyses. With the advent of technologies that simplify the study of pseudogenes, we propose that an objective reassessment of these genomic elements will reveal valuable insights into genome function and evolution."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-019-0196-1

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think it's kind of funny. Take a given genetic event. Call it gene duplication leading to one copy losing it's original function and acquiring a novel function, and creationists will tell you why it could not really happen or that it's not a really novel function. Call the same event a pseudogene acquiring a function even though it had been called "junk" before and, not only could it really have happened, but it's evidence against evolution.

[Glenn]

Who said that?

[RonO]

You should have acted on your own projection before you posted the junk.
Why keep posting the second rate creationist junk. The IDiot junk DNA
argument did make the Top Six that you are running from. It is second
rate by IDiot standards.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Good to know the article was posted by a second rate creationist. Apparently the PNAS article is from creationists as well.

They hide under your bed at night, Ron.

[RonO]

The IDiot junk DNA argument is crap, you know it because it did not make
the Top Six, and you can't deal with the Top Six and have been running
from them for nearly 4 years. The PNAS paper is real science that the
IDiots are lying to themselves about. You should know the difference by
now.

How long have you known that we knew that regulatory sequences were
found in the non coding DNA? It isn't news to find regulatory sequences
in the non coding DNA. The paper is talking about a VNTR. Just Google
VNTR and gene regulation. The first hit is a paper from 1997 for VNTR
regulation of the insulin gene, the second hit is a paper from 2002 for
VNTR regulation of the dopamine transporter gene, the third is a repeat
of the insulin gene, but the fourth is a review on regulatory nature of
VNTRs from 1998. They knew enough about VNTR gene regulation to write a
review in 1998.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9100625/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12457396/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9747025/

Science has obviously known that non coding DNA can be regulatory
sequences for decades. We knew it from the first regulatory sequences
deduced in the 1960's.

The ID perps are just lying to you about this junk DNA argument.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You're absolutely insane.

[RonO]

The quote is about the 50% of the genome that is repetitive. The paper
is talking about a fraction of that repetitive DNA that we class as
VNTR. Who cares that most of the repetitive DNA is classified as "junk"
by some people? We have known that regulatory sequences are found in
the noncoding DNA since we figured out that there were noncoding
regulatory sequences. The ID perps are just using the junk DNA argument
to lie to you about something stupid. They don't want to do anything
positive with the argument. All they want to do is allow rubes like you
to keep believing.

Just provide the positive evidence for IDiocy that this lame denial
argument is. How long have we known that VNTRs could be regulatory
sequences? Why is it that we knew this before the ID perps started to
lie to rubes like you about it?

Projection of instanity should make you wonder and reassess. Look at
Kalk and Bill. Why are they claiming to nolonger be as lost and insane
as you?

Is any IDiot rube ever going to get any ID science out of the ID perps?

Ron Okimoto