A scientific Critique of the Function of Non-Coding DNA Part 1

Note that this is part one. This will be looking into junk dna

Response to "
Tacos25n28"

Claim "Lack of H1 shortenst the lifespan of the organism... That is not true.

In the multicelled filamentous ascomycete Ascolobus immersus, the single copy gene for histone H1 can be silenced by methylation in the process known as methylation-induced premeiotically (MIP). This is what shortens the lifespan. If the H1 is non existant or missing then this does not apply.

Read BioEssays 22:873-877, 2000. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc

This is one of many... Its more misinformation then quote mining. "
I just got hold of a copy of the paper and got as far as the abstract which states:

Interestingly, while none of
these effects appear to decrease the immediate viability
of this fungus, silencing of histone H1 results in a
significant decrease in its overall life span. These results
suggest that while linker histones may be dispensable for
the relatively short life span of an individual cell, they are
most likely indispensable for survival of higher eukaryote
organisms. BioEssays 22:873±877, 2000.

Im not sure what you are reading , but it doesnt sound as if this paper is saying anything other than what I wrote in my presentation. Here are a few more quotes from it:

Pg 875 Thus while
histone H1 depletion does not appear to have major effects
on the sexual reproduction cycle , it seriously affects the long
range survival of the individual organism.

Addressing the question of whether methylation is what causes the shortened lifespan (MIP has to do with methylation turning off genes):

Pg 876 the possibility of methylation accumulating with time and
spreading to genes that could be critical for long term survival
appears to be unlikely. Changes in chromatin conformation arising from the lack
of histone H1 appear to be the more likely explanation.

Pg 877 As mentioned above, however, the growth
dependence on histone H1 by the relatively simpler, multicelled
Ascolobus most likely represents the first evidence of
the indispensability of linker histones for survival of higher
eukaryote organisms.

The bottom line is that if you look in the notes portion of my presentation (that I did not include), the paper cited by by you claiming to refute my point is the one I cited to support the point I made. I have no doubt that there are errors in these presentations because, as I pointed out previously, science is an error-prone undertaking. The idea that organisms could do without Histone H1 is pretty incredible, although the authors of this Bioessays paper do mention one puzzling example, Aspergillus nidulans, which may actually be able to go on without Histone H1. That seems to be an exceptional situation. But, as I point out in the presentation, if that is the case, one has to wonder why Aspergillus evolved Hi the first place. The bottom line is that this protein, like so many others, is a looser for Darwinism whichever way you want to go on it.


So in direct answer to your original question, no, this your particular objection does not seem to hold water unless there is some more recent paper that sheds new light on this question.

This does raise the question of either the competence or the motivation of you raising the objection. I come across an awful lot of people who are just seeking to waste my time. Im interested in reasonable and sincere arguments, but some people are simply addicted to their beliefs in such a way that reasoning with them is pointless. As Hosea put it so many years ago when talking about the tribe of Ephraim and their addition to idolatry: Ephraim is joined to idols; leave him alone! Hosea 4:17. Unfortunately, with many people today you could just as well say, Atheists are joined to Darwinism; leave them alone. In other words I advice other creationist dont waste your time and resources on people who are not sincerely seeking to know the truth, put your effort into those who are actually interested in learning what is true and right.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Junk
• dna
• evolution
• creation
• turth
• love
• bible
• jesus
• science
• cell

[spark300c]

love your vids keep it up ;D

[kut77less]

//love your vids keep it up ;D//

thanks for all the comments you do on my vids

[RyuDarragh]

I mean the paper in your description. It sounds like an oblique "irreducible Complexity" argument and those are looking at the situation from the wrong end of the microscope at the wrong end of the argument.

[kut77less]

"an oblique "irreducible Complexity" "

I never intentioned it to be like that. I was replying to some person who said my information was outdated. In the description I corrected him that he was wrong

[RyuDarragh]

The argument from the paper is old hat and youre use of it disingenuous at best. All it proves is a still great gap in the understanding of DNA that is only now being understood. Even Crick said there would always be surprises locked away in the genome.. especially when we thought we had all the answers. Look up the amount of DNA in each organism in terms of bp. Some single cell organisms have more DNA then we do. As long as it does not kill the organism, it can presist.

[kut77less]

What paper are you talking about is the one I used in my video. It seems what you are saying is supporting my conclusion

[LotusGreenX]

"so far non-coding DNA has function."

Well the've eliminated a lot non-coding DNA in mice and it did not effect htem. ERV's also can have function within it, but the virus itself has no function. It's not enough to cherry pick your evidence to refute the scientific community.

[ajlifesgood]

this is really helping me in school thank you

[RyuDarragh]

Ah, that makes more sense :) You can reduce the number of junk posts (including mine) by saying that in the top of the description. Unless readers have info about the relavence of your video or the information, there's no need to comment here.

[kut77less]

That was my point the this video series. Evolutionist always say that something is poor design that that we don't need something. This is not true and it is proven wrong as more research is appalled to the subject. so far non-coding DNA has function.