EvC Forum: Does Neo-Darwinian evolution require change ?

shadow71

Member (Idle past 2954 days)

Posts: 706

From: Joliet, il, USA

Joined: 08-31-2010

shadow71 Posts Only

Message 107 of 114 (608439)
03-10-2011 11:16 AM

Reply to: Message 103 by Wounded King
03-10-2011 4:16 AM

Re: Mutation rates

Thanks Wounded King

This message is a reply to:
	Message 103 by Wounded King, posted 03-10-2011 4:16 AM		Wounded King has not replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10033

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 5.3

Taq Posts Only

Message 109 of 114 (608469)
03-10-2011 3:22 PM

Reply to: Message 100 by shadow71
03-09-2011 7:45 PM

Re: Mutation rates

Is it agreed in the scientific biological community that Mattick is correct about "junk DNA" and their effect on the conrol of human development and brain function?

Mattick leaps to the conclusion, as seen in this sentence:

"Moreover, it is now evident that these non-coding sequences are transcribed in a dynamic manner, to produce tens, if not hundreds of thousands of noncoding RNAs, and that most complex genetic phenomena are RNA-directed, which suggests that there exists a vast hidden layer of regulatory RNAs that control human development and brain function."

Mattick leaps from "transcribed" to "has function" without ever showing that there is function. Also, if Mattick is relying on the ENCODE data sets I think most would agree that it is way to early to make any judgements. Some have even challenged the ENCODE data in that some of their data may be related to shorter products from known genes. Also, the number of transcripts from "junk DNA" is very low compared to RNA from known genes.

I would say that Mattick's conclusion is not supported by the evidence in hand.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 100 by shadow71, posted 03-09-2011 7:45 PM		shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 110 by shadow71, posted 03-10-2011 7:10 PM		Taq has not replied

shadow71

Member (Idle past 2954 days)

Posts: 706

From: Joliet, il, USA

Joined: 08-31-2010

shadow71 Posts Only

Message 111 of 114 (608507)
03-10-2011 7:20 PM

Reply to: Message 108 by Theodoric
03-10-2011 11:18 AM

Theodoric writes;

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Sorry, I have technological problems with providing cites that can be accessed from my posts.

In re above about facts. They certainly can be interpreted differently by many people , so in one way facts may just be facts, but the people citing them may have an agenda.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 108 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2011 11:18 AM		Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2011 7:32 PM		shadow71 has replied

shadow71

Member (Idle past 2954 days)

Posts: 706

From: Joliet, il, USA

Joined: 08-31-2010

shadow71 Posts Only

Message 113 of 114 (608511)
03-10-2011 7:42 PM

Reply to: Message 112 by Theodoric
03-10-2011 7:32 PM

Theodoric writes;

And it seems your source has an agenda

Would you care to enlighten me with your interpretation of the agenda of "my" source?

I just quoted a paper that seemed to be in conflict with what Percy had posted, and I merely asked for opinions from the scientists on this board as to Mattick's statement in his paper.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2011 7:32 PM		Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 114 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2011 7:45 PM		shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

3 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx, Theodoric
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0