What Makes Us Human? The Answer May Be Found in Overlooked “Junk” DNA

originally posted by: Romeopsi

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

READ THE PAPERS.

First, I showed you why the paper you posted supports what I'm saying.

Secondly, saying READ THE PAPERS is asinine.

Why should I read the papers to make your argument? You don't understand what you're reading. You're just blindly posting links. I saw this old pseudoskeptic tactic once years ago and the person was laughed out of the thread.

When I post articles or papers, I paste the relevant portions that support my argument and then I post in MY OWN WORDS my argument. I don't just say go fish.

You can't paste revelant portions from the links you posted to refute what I'm saying because you have no argument. Who just posts links and says go fish? You said:

I deliberately chose them because they are free to read in their entirety and they either contain all your answers or they reference material that does.

You have to see how nonsensical that statement is. You're saying these links have all the answers to my questions BUT YOU DON"T EXPLAIN HOW!

Are we supposed to read through the papers and guess why you think they answer the questions LOL! You can't make this stuff up. First you blindly yell "creationist websites" and then you blindly post links without any context.

When you debate, you're supposed to say:

You said this.......but this paper refutes what you said when it says..... You then paste the revelant portions from the article that refute what I'm saying. THIS IS JUST BASIC COMMON SENSE!

Imagine being in a debate. One person finishes debating and sits down. The other person stands up, walks to the podium and says:

"Everything you said is refuted in my book. Just read my book."

He then sits down. The audience would think they're insane. How can they read the book and guess why he thinks it refutes what the other person was saying?

I truly couldn't believe what I was reading when I read your post.

We're debating in a thread. Am I supposed to read the links then come back to the thread and try to guess why you posted the links? Again, THAT'S ASININE!

I was wondering how people would respond to your argument about semantics. It's a very good argument.

Thanks and it's simple really. Those who support a natural interpretation of evolution say it occured naturally, randomly and blindly without any purpose or direction. Yet, when they try to explain evolution they use words that have specific meanings. They use words that we associate with intelligence like:

code
blueprint
instructions
transcription
translation
machinery
error correcting
redundancy
stop
start
factory
read
information
encoded
decoded
messenger
editing
modular

They also give names to certain processes that conveys an intelligent process like with transposons and transposase. These names make it sound like you have a connected process like you would see with a process designed by intelligence. But those who support a natural interpretation of evolution say it's without purpose or intelligence and transposons and transposase have nothing to do with each other. There just two systems that blindly evolved and by dumb luck, they happen to work together perfectly. Why not say transposons and gradual structures? They want to convey design while denying design.

It's just like using transcription and translation. Two terms that have specific meanings connected to intelligence. A Court Reporter transcribes the court proceedings. A translator at the U.N. translates languages.

Why would anything natural or random need to transcribe or translate anything? Like I said earlier, the genetic code is separate from the amino acids it tells how to assemble and this is why we can encode it with books and DVD's.

How does a system evolve that says these 3 letters code for this amino acid and this first strand will be encoded with arrangements of these letters and it will be transcribed then sent off to be translated and another system will attach the amino acids and put them in the order that the code specifies?

Again, this is intelligent design and that's why they need the language of intelligence to describe the process.

a reply to: neoholographic

You've perfectly demonstrated the difference between a genuinely enquiring mind and that of an idiot. Thank you.

You asked questions and I helped provide you with information to find those answers. All you had to do was read the papers. Instead, you're relying on the opinion from an extremely biased source to form your opinions. That's weak and lazy.

I don't participate in one-way conversations. Make an effort (something you must have heard a lot in your life).

a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

You asked questions and I helped provide you with information to find those answers. All you had to do was read the papers.

I read the papers and posted how the 1st link you posted supports what I'm saying.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You provided the answers by blindly posting links?

You can't articulate how the papers answer my questions, so you say read the papers. You do know that ATS is a place where people debate not posts links and say go fish? That's just asinine.

Why can't you articulate what part of the papers specifically respond to my questions?

It's like my example of the debate:

Imagine being in a debate. One person finishes debating and sits down. The other person stands up, walks to the podium and says:

"Everything you said is refuted in my book. Just read my book."

He then sits down. The audience would think they're insane. How can they read the book and guess why he thinks it refutes what the other person was saying?

Again, your links support what I'm saying and they answer nothing. This is why you can't articulate a coherent response.

The papers you posted have nothing to do with what I'm saying. This truly shows how desperate you are. You can't refute anything that I'm saying so you blindly post links.

I already showed you how your first link supports what I'm saying. Your second link is about genetic engineering LOL! Have you even read the links you posted?

Principles of Genetic Engineering

Abstract

Genetic engineering is the use of molecular biology technology to modify DNA sequence(s) in genomes, using a variety of approaches. For example, homologous recombination can be used to target specific sequences in mouse embryonic stem (ES) cell genomes or other cultured cells, but it is cumbersome, poorly efficient, and relies on drug positive/negative selection in cell culture for success. Other routinely applied methods include random integration of DNA after direct transfection (microinjection), transposon-mediated DNA insertion, or DNA insertion mediated by viral vectors for the production of transgenic mice and rats. Random integration of DNA occurs more frequently than homologous recombination, but has numerous drawbacks, despite its efficiency. The most elegant and effective method is technology based on guided endonucleases, because these can target specific DNA sequences. Since the advent of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats or CRISPR/Cas9 technology, endonuclease-mediated gene targeting has become the most widely applied method to engineer genomes, supplanting the use of zinc finger nucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, and meganucleases. Future improvements in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing may be achieved by increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair. Here, we describe principles of genetic engineering and detail: (1) how common elements of current technologies include the need for a chromosome break to occur, (2) the use of specific and sensitive genotyping assays to detect altered genomes, and (3) delivery modalities that impact characterization of gene modifications. In summary, while some principles of genetic engineering remain steadfast, others change as technologies are ever-evolving and continue to revolutionize research in many fields.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Is this a joke?

This paper is about ways to improve CRISPR.It looks like you googled transposons and blindy posted the 1st three links you came across. This has nothing to do with what I'm saying and it doesn't answer any questions. It says:

Future improvements in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing may be achieved by increasing the efficiency of homology-directed repair. Here, we describe principles of genetic engineering and detail: (1) how common elements of current technologies include the need for a chromosome break to occur, (2) the use of specific and sensitive genotyping assays to detect altered genomes, and (3) delivery modalities that impact characterization of gene modifications. In summary, while some principles of genetic engineering remain steadfast, others change as technologies are ever-evolving and continue to revolutionize research in many fields.

THIS IS ABOUT IMPROVING GENETIC ENGINEERING!

Here's your other paper:

Characterization of Tn6238 with a new allele of aac(6')-Ib-cr

Abstract

Here, we report that the genetic structure of Tn1331 remained conserved in Argentina from 1989 to 2013 (72 of 73 isolates), with the exception being the plasmid-borne Tn1331-like transposon Tn6238 containing a new aac(6')-Ib-cr allele recovered from a colistin-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical isolate. A bioinformatic analysis of aac(6')-Ib-like gene cassettes suggests that this new aac(6')-Ib-cr allele emerged through mutation or homologous recombination in the Tn1331 genetic platform. Tn6238 is a novel platform for the dissemination of aminoglycoside and fluoroquinolone resistance determinants.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You can't be serious!

This paper is about an experiment on the genetic structure of Tn1331 and how it remained conserved over the years except in a plasmid-borne Tn6238 which contained a new allele.

We performed a retrospective study over 24 years in which we included 331 clinical isolates resistant to at least three families of antibiotics. The isolates belonged to 8 species from 5 hospitals inArgentina recovered since 1989. According to PCR mapping (Ta-ble 1), Tn1331 was found in 65% of Klebsiella pneumoniae (39/60),14% of Serratia marcescens (4/28), 17% of Enterobacter cloacae(2/12), 17% of Citrobacter freundii (1/6), 60% of Proteus mirabilis 24/40), and 10% of Escherichia coli (3/30) isolates, and it was notdetected in Acinetobacter baumannii (0/80) or in Pseudomonasaeruginosa (0/75) isolates. This finding shows that Tn1331 is fre-quently found and stably maintained in clinical isolates from Bue-nos Aires analyzed over the 24 years.

www.researchgate.net...'-Ib-cr

I highly doubt you understand what they're talking about. This was about a 24 year experiment about isolates resistant to antibiotics.

AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I HAVE SAID!

At this point, I have quoted more from the links you posted than you have. I'm starting to think you're just a troll who blindly post links with no context. The links have nothing to do with what's being debated.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Every time I try to open my mind and contemplate the possibility of intelligent design, I come up against the invariable dead end where I have to wonder why any cosmic agency of above average intellect would communicate so poorly. Naturally, textbook narcissism would insist that humans are just too stupid to grasp common sense logic. It baffles me that the best evidence we have is genetic language secretly encoded with space magic that doesn't actually tell us anything useful.

It baffles my mind that "god" - whatever that means - is the only option.

Random or "god".

That's seriously limiting.

a reply to: neoholographic

You sure never let the facts bother you.

originally posted by: Annee

It baffles my mind that "god" - whatever that means - is the only option.

Random or "god".

That's seriously limiting.

It is essentially the question of intelligence or unintelligence being the cause of things. God is a shortcut word to describe the indescribable

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee

It baffles my mind that "god" - whatever that means - is the only option.

Random or "god".

That's seriously limiting.

It is essentially the question of intelligence or unintelligence being the cause of things. God is a shortcut word to describe the indescribable

I think you and I agree that "god" is just a word / title.

However, many pushing intelligent design have more of a commitment to a religious "god".

As said before, I tend to lean along the lines of the Terra Papers.

I think we are Monkeys 5.0 .The Monkeys were 1st developed to fill a natural environmental nitch but look at them all they do is run a muck and fornicate.

So they upgraded for more intelligence Still not sure they got it right.

a reply to: Annee

There is a combination of factors, one of which being that knowledge takes effort and people don't like to believe their efforts are wasted. Beyond that, ther eis a massive lack of imagination.

Im still trying to grasp with the notion of consciousness being simply an emergent property. How utterly meaningless.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

There is a combination of factors, one of which being that knowledge takes effort and people don't like to believe their efforts are wasted. Beyond that, ther eis a massive lack of imagination.

Im still trying to grasp with the notion of consciousness being simply an emergent property. How utterly meaningless.

"Science is known knowledge"

There just is more going on then we know.

I consider myself an atheist -- however, I believe in an energy consciousness. I think physical is a manifestation.

Some on this board may remember that the topic of SELF ASSEMBLY has been beaten to death with dozens of articles posted on the subject.

The OP's position is that structural organization and chemical processes are magic. Some guy in the sky waved a magic wand and voila - out comes the rabbit out of the hat.

Just as a refresher, here's an article describing the details of self assembly in a particular system:

Evolutionary origins and directed evolution of RNA
Author links open overlay panelAndrew D.EllingtonXiChenMichaelRobertsonAngelSyrett
www.sciencedirect.com...

Abstract

In vitro selection experiments show first and foremost that it is possible that functional nucleic acids can arise from random sequence libraries. Indeed, even simple sequence and structural motifs can prove to be robust binding species and catalysts, indicating that it may have been possible to transition from even the earliest self-replicators to a nascent, RNA-catalyzed metabolism. Because of the diversity of aptamers and ribozymes that can be selected, it is possible to construct a ‘fossil record’ of the evolution of the RNA world, with in vitro selected catalysts filling in as doppelgangers for molecules long gone. In this way a plausible pathway from simple oligonucleotide replicators to genomic polymerases can be imagined, as can a pathway from basal ribozyme activities to the ribosome. Most importantly, though, in vitro selection experiments can give a true and quantitative idea of the likelihood that these scenarios could have played out in the RNA world. Simple binding species and catalysts could have evolved into other structures and functions. As replicating sequences grew longer, new, more complex functions or faster catalytic activities could have been accessed. Some activities may have been isolated in sequence space, but others could have been approached along large, interconnected neutral networks. As the number, type, and length of ribozymes increased, RNA genomes would have evolved and eventually there would have been no area in a fitness landscape that would have been inaccessible. Self-replication would have inexorably led to life.

There are literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers describing various aspects of self assembly. There's no magic - no conscious or unconscious input required.

a reply to: Phantom423

Oh No! Not the self assembly argument again!

You have been destroyed on this argument on a couple of my threads by me, cooperton and others. This is why you said:

Some on this board may remember that the topic of SELF ASSEMBLY has been beaten to death

It has and it has been destroyed in debate after debate. I'm not spending 3 pages debating this issue with you again just so you can vanish when you get stumped.

Maybe cooperton will engage you but I wont.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

There is a combination of factors, one of which being that knowledge takes effort and people don't like to believe their efforts are wasted. Beyond that, ther eis a massive lack of imagination.

Im still trying to grasp with the notion of consciousness being simply an emergent property. How utterly meaningless.

"Science is known knowledge"

There just is more going on then we know.

I consider myself an atheist -- however, I believe in an energy consciousness. I think physical is a manifestation.

Let me ask you a question. If you're an atheist, what's the difference between an energy consciousness and God?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

There is a combination of factors, one of which being that knowledge takes effort and people don't like to believe their efforts are wasted. Beyond that, ther eis a massive lack of imagination.

Im still trying to grasp with the notion of consciousness being simply an emergent property. How utterly meaningless.

"Science is known knowledge"

There just is more going on then we know.

I consider myself an atheist -- however, I believe in an energy consciousness. I think physical is a manifestation.

Let me ask you a question. If you're an atheist, what's the difference between an energy consciousness and God?

"I am my own god"

originally posted by: Annee

"I am my own god"

Do you remember creating your self?

originally posted by: Phantom423


The OP's position is that structural organization and chemical processes are magic. Some guy in the sky waved a magic wand and voila - out comes the rabbit out of the hat.

No, he's proposing that intelligent input was involved in the creation of biological organisms

Just as a refresher, here's an article describing the details of self assembly in a particular system:


Abstract:

....with in vitro selected catalysts filling in as doppelgangers for molecules long gone...

Involving catalysts in a reaction is the opposite of self-assembly. I will read the paper tomorrow but that hint alone suggests they are not properly replicating a primordial soup environment. Effective biological Catalysts aren't just floating around in theoretical primordial goo

There are literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers describing various aspects of self assembly.

polymerization of nucleic acid and protein monomers is non-spontaneous in water. We've already been through this. Water will degrade protein and DNA polymers. Water is not a favorable environment for these types of monomers to polymerize. This alone shows the impossibility of random chance abiogenesis.

a reply to: cooperton

Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs same with chimpazees. Although humans and chimps have many identical genes, they often use them in different ways. A gene's activity, or expression, can be turned up or down like the volume on a radio. So the same gene can be turned up high in humans, but very low in chimps. While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. So base pairs differ by Just 1.2 percent which equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't. And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently--they can be "turned on" in different amounts, in different places or at different times.

Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives. But there are actually two species of apes that are this closely related to humans: bonobos (Pan paniscus) and the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). This has prompted researchers to speculate whether the ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos looked and acted more like a bonobo, a chimpanzee, or something else—and how all three species have evolved differently since the ancestor of humans split with the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps between 4 million and 7 million years ago in Africa.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee

"I am my own god"

Do you remember creating your self?

Do you remember being created?

originally posted by: dragonridr
– study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. So base pairs differ by Just 1.2 percent which equals about 35 million differences.


Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives.

Nah those are exaggerated numbers. Chimpanzees have 100 million more DNA nucleotides in their genome than humans, so how could they have only 35 million total differences? They selectively choose wording that makes there appear to be more similarities in order to fit their theory.

originally posted by: Annee

Do you remember being created?

Nope. I do get deja vu about my existence in general though.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Im still trying to grasp with the notion of consciousness being simply an emergent property. How utterly meaningless.

Yeah exactly. and beyond just the meaninglessness of such an assertion, it also just doesn't make sense that something more basic and rudimentary could create something greater than itself. Matter creating consciousness would be like shadows creating the light.

Our love for tendies and milk make us human.

a reply to: neoholographic


Of course you won't. The Great Bloviator doesn't require facts. There are over 500 journals and 200000 peer-reviewed research articles that say you're wrong. Maybe you should start reading.

P.S. How about that red shift? Never answered that one either! No problem - you're the one who looks like a fool.