If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   "Junk DNA", "dark matter", "missing heriaibility"--scientists have made some progress in figuring out just what 95% of your DNA is getting up to rather than making proteins. Rare "Hero of Science" tag awarded by Subby   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 69
    More: Hero, Junk DNA, dark matter, proteins, DNA, genomes, scientists, RNA, gene expression  
•       •       •

2681 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Sep 2013 at 1:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-20 04:04:10 PM

Dr Dreidel: Entropy doesn't work backwards, libtards - it takes more energy to make order than it does to make chaos, so how did proteins self-organize if not for a Prime Mover organizing them?

Evolution's just a theory, but everyone knows about the Eternal, Unchanging Bible.


I'm assuming Poe ("libtards"), but why troll, when there are already true believers arguing the point?

/Before any creationists in this thread try to use this argument: It's true that entropy has a very strong tendency to increase in closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system; the sun provides energy.
 
2013-09-20 04:08:54 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: Too many trolls in this thread baiting with creationist statements for me to take this thread seriously.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-20 04:13:48 PM
DNA"s "dark matter."  Is that the same as introns?
 
2013-09-20 04:15:29 PM

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz:

Why not both?

Take a small bottle of ink and pour it into a bucket. Now throw a book in that bucket. Shake the bucket. The odds of that book becoming a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannia are zero...


Take a deck of cards, shuffle it plenty of times.  Now look at the order of the cards.
You could shuffle them and deal them every second of your life, and you'd never get the same order.
If you shuffle them and deal them for a million years, and you'd never get the same order.
And yet, every time you shuffle them, they're in some order.

Amino acids form chains naturally.  And a long chain will have more information than the Encyclopedia Britannica.  You could shuffle those amino acids for a billion years and never get the Encyclopedia, but you will always have something with that much information.

And the Encyclopedia isn't necessary to create life.  There are billions of combinations that would create a one celled animal.  And the odds of that happening are certainly not zero.
.
 
2013-09-20 04:29:22 PM

draypresct: I'm assuming Poe ("libtards"), but why troll, when there are already true believers arguing the point?


Because no one mentioned entropy yet.
 
2013-09-20 04:41:45 PM

abb3w: So, how long until we get a serious "therefore, creationism instead of evolution" argument presented in this thread?


Ugh.

Notice that being preemptively self-righteous about it brought the topic of creationism to the forefront anyway. Thus derailing a perfectly good science thread right from the get go with an anti-creationism post, as opposed to a creationism post.

Maybe the creationism nutjobs, and the preemptively-butthurt-about-creationism people could have their own thread, and leave people with common sense out of it.
 
2013-09-20 05:00:28 PM
Ok, scientists need to stop making up "place-holder" material.

Just admit you don't what it truly is or what it does yet...and move on.
 
2013-09-20 05:01:35 PM

Prophet of Loss: Kome: Prophet of Loss: How cute, you think life started with sexual reproduction.

Two questions. First, why would you assume his analogy meant to indicate that life started with sexual reproduction as opposed to just any chemical reaction between 2+ compounds that interacted and resulted in something new? Second, why would you assume that the question of how life originally arose is the same thing as how varieties of life come to be once life began?

... natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them


How does that answer either of my questions?
 
2013-09-20 05:04:16 PM

rogue49: Ok, scientists need to stop making up "place-holder" material.

Just admit you don't what it truly is or what it does yet...and move on.


Then they wouldn't be scientists.
 
2013-09-20 05:08:01 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: If evolution is supposed to be helped along with sexual reproduction, how come my penis is so small?

I don't believe in intelligent design though: I believe in sarcastic design.


Some sarcasm is based on an intelligent design

Like there are some chicks with really hot tits and ass so you know they're gonna reproduce, but her face.
 
2013-09-20 07:15:55 PM
I just read about this in a book....Altar of Eden, by James Rollins.  VERY good!
 
2013-09-20 07:38:34 PM
Amino acids can self organize into protein chains, phospholipids can also be found in nature and can self organize into protocells, throw them in the same soup and wait for prions (the scary self replicating proteins involved in mad cow disease) to occur. Perhaps RNA will be formed from some protein chain that recieves a lot of radiation or was close to a phosphorus deposit. That RNA is capable of making DNA. That's all it takes to make one celled life. It may take a billion years, but it's worth it.

The reason creationists can't stand evolution is that it takes an arrogant, self absorbed Man out of the center of the universe and gives him no specific purpose. They feel that will result in another descent into barbarism and the destruction of civilization. They have no problem with any other aspect of the sciences that have brought them unprecedented physical comforts of all kinds, and would likely violently oppose you if you suggested taking those comforts away. But that same scientific process also necessarily questions their view of reality.

I say that realizing as a species that all we have is this tiny speck of life-sustaining dust and each other will bring us together finally in the common cause to improve and finalize this step in our evolution, shore up our base of operations here, and take a leap of real faith in ourselves, by sailing to the stars.

That step will either happen in the next hundred years or so, or we will spin down into the oblivion of dead evolutionary ends, frittering away our natural resources helping the ignorant elite compare bank accounts and sex organs until there is nothing left of us but bands of wandering nomads looking for bits of useful sharp metal among the rusted hulks of high technology left in our wake.
 
2013-09-20 08:38:07 PM
Careful. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is going to ban everyone for overfishing with their trollbait.
 
2013-09-20 11:29:04 PM

show me: sprawl15: show me: So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.

Natural selection would be picking the best encyclopedia that you pour out of a bucket. Since you never get an encyclopedia in the first place, there's nothing to select from

QED.

No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again. It's not an all-or-nothing one step process. And for fark's sake I hope you are playing devil's advocate and don't really believe that shiat.


At what point would it stop becoming an ever-improving encyclopedia and turn into say, a monkey?

Natural selection seems to enhance our chances to survive as humans.
 
2013-09-20 11:43:05 PM

cchris_39: show me: sprawl15: show me: So that's the argument. I hadn't seen it before. Too bad it ignores natural selection, arguably the most important part of evolution.

Natural selection would be picking the best encyclopedia that you pour out of a bucket. Since you never get an encyclopedia in the first place, there's nothing to select from

QED.

No, natural selection would be to select the two most encyclopedia-like objects out of all of them, mixing their best features, reproducing them billions of times, and starting the process over again. It's not an all-or-nothing one step process. And for fark's sake I hope you are playing devil's advocate and don't really believe that shiat.

At what point would it stop becoming an ever-improving encyclopedia and turn into say, a monkey?

Natural selection seems to enhance our chances to survive as humans.


Except we've mostly removed natural selection from the process, at least outside of third world countries.  If natural selection were in the driver's seat you wouldn't hear much about kids who will die from being in the same county as a peanut, except for an obituary and funeral announcement.
 
2013-09-21 02:42:41 AM
I guess no one's read this book.

upload.wikimedia.org

According to Dawkins, Natural Selection doesn't just happen on the species level, but also on the genetic level.  If the genes can reproduce within the DNA of an organism with no negative consequences, why shouldn't they be there?  Did you not also know that only about 10% of the cells in your body are human?  Yet, everyone hasn't keeled over from Bubonic plague.

Your body is just another eco-system for other organisms, just like the ocean or the rain forest.  As long as the organism doesn't destroy the environment, it's pretty much going to thrive.  And natural selection forces are going to create organisms to fit that environment.  And it's the exact same case with genes and your DNA.

Evolution is not teleological.  You cannot decide that Junk DNA is bad, therefore Evolution is crap.  Nature decides.  Nature always decides.
 
2013-09-21 04:14:21 AM

rogue49: Ok, scientists need to stop making up "place-holder" material.

Just admit you don't what it truly is or what it does yet...and move on.


That's the whole farking point of "placeholder materials".  And no, they don't just move on. They stay around and try to figure out what that particular placeholder does.
 
2013-09-21 04:39:54 AM

encyclopediaplushuman: Too many trolls in this thread baiting with creationist statements for me to take this thread seriously. Either that or I will be very ashamed of my species.


Be ashamed...
 
2013-09-21 08:41:52 AM

Ed Grubermann: rogue49: Ok, scientists need to stop making up "place-holder" material.

Just admit you don't what it truly is or what it does yet...and move on.

That's the whole farking point of "placeholder materials".  And no, they don't just move on. They stay around and try to figure out what that particular placeholder does.


Allow me to clarify...it is apparent that at times they simply just call something "junk" or "dark", etc...
thinking it is not important...NOT figuring out what it is or lumping it all together.

It is obvious that junk DNA wasn't truly junk
and dark matter or dark energy is something...just not defined or it is everything not observed lumped together.
And so on...

Often scientists declare something without knowing what it is or does.
I would prefer they DO figure it out, before declaring it.
Because what their job is...the other way is lazy or presumptuous.

Don't punt.
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report