From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/20/2025 2:05 PM, RonO wrote:   
   > https://phys.org/news/2025-07-reveals-hidden-regulatory-roles-junk.html   
   >   
   > QUOTE:   
   > Today, TEs make up nearly half of the human genome. While they were once   
   > thought to serve no useful function, recent research has found that some   
   > of them act like "genetic switches," controlling the activity of nearby   
   > genes in specific cell types.   
   > END QUOTE:   
   >   
   > This was likely never true from McClintock's first papers on   
   > transposable elements in the late 1930's.  She found them to regulate   
   > gene expression, and the regulation could be developmentally regulated.   
   > Transposons would become active at certain developmental stages of the   
   > plant.   
   >   
   > They were not considered to be part of junk DNA because they had no   
   > effect on gene regulation.  They were considered to be junk because they   
   > were obviously repetitive parasitic DNA sequences.  It would be the   
   > organims that had to adapt to dealing with how they altered the   
   > regulation of genes that they jumped into or around.  It has been known   
   > for decades that some transposons are responsible for interesting   
   > mutations.  Morgan's famous white eyed fly was due to a copia element   
   > transposon.  This is just overhype of the recent findings.  My guess is   
   > that the ID perps will use the stupid misinformation to claim that junk   
   > DNA isn't junk, when they never wanted their designer to be responsible   
   > for parasitic DNA sequences.  Why would a designer produce a parasitic   
   > DNA parasite that is responsible for many de novo infant genetic defects   
   > when they move around the genome?  Transposons do not account for over   
   > half the human genome because they are good and useful.  It is because   
   > we can't get rid of them, and they are effective parasites.   
   >   
   > Ron Okimoto   
   >   
   https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/another-case-where-junk-myth-impeded-science/   
      
   More misinformation about junk DNA from the ID perps.   
      
   QUOTE:   
   For decades, evolutionary biologists considered non-coding regions of   
   DNA as evolutionary junk, a paradigm that long dissuaded researchers   
   from studying these little-understood portions of the genome. But a   
   series of discoveries starting in 2008 has forced a major change in   
   thinking about so-called “junk” DNA. Many examples of function have   
   since been identified for the non-coding regions of DNA, and more are   
   being uncovered each year. On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Casey   
   Luskin reports on a pair of American biologists who were recently   
   awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery of function in what was   
   previously considered junk DNA.   
      
   MicroRNAs are another case where the presumption of a genome bloated   
   with useless debris has proven to be an impediment to science. Back in   
   1993, when microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene regulation   
   was first identified, the development was met with skepticism and   
   silence by a scientific community largely wedded to the assumption that   
   non-coding regions of DNA must be junk. Now, the 2024 Nobel Prize raises   
   the question with special poignancy: Did junk DNA thinking slow a Nobel   
   Prize-worthy discovery from being recognized? The answer appears to be yes.   
   END QUOTE:   
      
   RNA genes were never considered to be junk DNA.  The paper that is   
   always cited as designating junk DNA excluded regulatory sequences, and   
   then known RNA genes such as ribosomal RNA, small nuclear RNAs, and   
   tRNAs from being junk.  We always understood that regulatory sequences   
   existed in the noncoding sequence, and people were always actively   
   looking for regulatory sequences in noncoding DNA.  We already   
   understood that there were RNA genes that did things in the cells before   
   junk DNA was called junk DNA.  The first two IDiotic paragraphs are   
   fiction (lies).  Micro RNAs were never ignored.  As soon as they were   
   identified and characterized the results were readily accepted because   
   small RNA interference was already a working technology.  RNA   
   interference was a widely used research tool in the 1990's.   
      
   Not only this fact, but the fact that small RNAs that regulated mRNA   
   post transcriptionally had already been discovered in plants, and were   
   the actual drivers of RNA interference research that was already up and   
   running when these guys made their micro RNA discovery.  Their research   
   wasn't ignored it was just a me too accomplishment that had already   
   spawned a useful technology before they made their discovery.  Micro RNA   
   genes became useful when researchers discovered ways to change the   
   sequence of the micro RNA genes so that they would regulate different   
   specific genes.  Micro RNAs work just like RNA interference small RNAs   
   had always worked, but you could make constructs that would produce the   
   micro RNA sequence that you wanted in the cell.   
      
   The reason why no one made a big deal about the discovery, was because   
   it wasn't anything that was really new and exceptional.  I didn't think   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)