It would be an understatement to qualify what you are saying here as an overstatement 
Life has been here on the planet, continuously evolving, for at least 3.5 billion years. Why hasn’t all life died out from Genetic Entropy?
Your explanation is…?
There are objective ways one can measure the importance of a scientific publication.
Do you know what those are? If so, please justify your claim that this is an “important” paper, and not just another inconsequential creationist brain fart.
1 Like
No. Does it mention that creation happened 6000 years ago and the human genome is deteriorating so rapidly that we will soon become extinct?
Lectures aren’t publications, sorry.
As always, @Giltil’s posts are informative in ways he does not intend. Creationist propagandists seek to convince folks like him that their work is “important” and influential. just by virtue of it managing to make it into print. Poor @Giltil just doen’t know any better.
1 Like
The correlation between fitness and virulence does not exist. First off, that supposes a virulent virus would replicate for the expanse of 6000 years in some reservoir without undergoing mutation and without killing off all its hosts. The wheel of history turns, empires rise and fall, there is war and peace, babies are born, grandparents die; all the while the lurking virus replicates maintaining its pristine and hi fidelity genetic payload. Then in 1918 it strikes. Somehow, even though virulence is supposed to be a proxy for genetic robustness, the first phase of the epidemic, with the virus at its peak of fitness, is less deadly than the season to come. Only then, after mutations have set in and begun piling up, the virus becomes more lethal. Once it has washed over the planet, within a few short years it just loses its groove. Never mind the herd immunity the human population has acquired, and the selection advantage to the virus in not killing its hosts, this is interpreted by Sanford as an exhibit of the inexorable march of deleterious mutation.
This whole scenario is just goofy. There is no correlation at all, only a logical shambles. That is why all the incoherent patch ups - oh, the virus sprang from a dormant state inserted genome (that one just screams making wild stuff up) - oh, the virus first had to loss a few genes which were holding it back - oh, the current version of H1N1 is a new species. Ad hoc patches on an indefensible wine skin. The Sanford paper, leading with “a new look” is dismissive of the large cadre of scientists at the WHO, CDC, and throughout research universities, who have dedicated their professional lives to understanding epidemics and influenza in particular. Did you read the papers I linked to in my above post? - because they would be a good start.
And if I may ask, if Sanford is proposing that the 1918 strain is the best of all possible influenza H1N1 viruses, is he implying that is the direct, immediate, and purposeful design and work of the God above which nothing can be imagined?
2 Likes
@Giltil? Yoo hoo!
An unexpected finding of the GWAS era was the prevalence of disease-associated SNPs located outside of protein coding transcripts (>90%),
Why is that?
Whatever the reason, this solidified the intuition that most of the genome is functional. Can’t blame people following clues like this rather than blindly following the implicity idea that
If the genome is mostly function, then evolution is wrong
1 Like
How? If the mutations in non-coding regions are limited to a few percent of the genome, then it doesn’t support the idea that most of the genome is functional. Science already recognizes that there is functional non-coding DNA, and that is included in the 5-10% functional portion of the human genome.
Added in edit:
From the paper you cited:
What percentage of the human genome demonstrates evidence of deep conservation?
2 Likes
Sal, since Giltil won’t answer this question how about you provide an answer?
How many times has Sal made the elementary mistake of conflating non-coding DNA with supposed non-functional DNA? How many times has he been corrected on that? How many times has he failed to learn from the experience? I don’t know the numbers, but I expect they’re all the same number.
2 Likes
As I mentioned regrading the 4D nucleome, molecular machines often dock onto non-coding regions to regulate genes either on the same chromosome or even other chromosomes (as in the case with the FIRRE lnc RNA example). It just boggles the mind that TRANSchromosomal regulation can happen this way.
We’ve already found some of the molecular docking points that exist on introns. Why shouldn’t we expect to find more in light of the 4D nucleome results? We’ve only scratched the surface. There are many cell types and developmental phases.
Here’s another illustration of transchromosomal enhancers:
From:
And enhancers can sit on INTRONS!!!
Direct transcriptional regulation of Gata4 during early endoderm specification is controlled by FoxA2 binding to an intronic enhancer
Yeah, but look how many pretty colored pictures he provided. Artistic value trumps scientific facts any day! 
Does it boggle the mind life has been on the planet evolving for over 3.5 billion years yet hasn’t gone extinct from Genetic Entropy? 
What’s your point? Introns are non-coding DNA, and enhancers are generally found in non-coding DNA. Why does it sound like this is so shocking to you?
1 Like
Not my mind. Biochemistry is cool, but far from mind-boggling (at least in the sense @stcordova is using the term here).
“@stcordova cannot comprehend” is pretty poor evidence for anything other than @stcordova’s familiarity with specifics or even general concepts.
1 Like
We’ve known this for, oh, more than 30 years. (0.5% of the age of the earth, by some accounts 
).
3 Likes
Because mutations in non-coding DNA creates accidental binding spots for transcription initiators, which (among other effects it can have) result in transcription of RNAs, some of which turn out to function in ways that interfere with other beneficial cellular functions.
Nonfunctional DNA(aka junk DNA) does not mean biochemically inactive or somehow physically inert DNA.
But it can’t be “whatever the reason” when many of those reasons do not at all support the mere hunch that some people have that most of the genome is functional.
For the reason that those mutations, for example, are capable of rendering otherwise nonfunctional DNA, transcriptionally active in a way that has a deleterious effect.
That sentense doesn’t make any coherent sense. Deleterious effects of mutations in non-coding (and putatively nonfunctional) DNA is not and never was a clue to be ignored.
If the DNA inferred to be nonfunctional on the basis of conservation, is normally nonfunctional, and genome-wide association-studies have implicated certain mutations in this DNA to cause disease, that IS a clue to be followed to find out HOW those mutations contribute to disease. Nobody ever said mutations discovered to be implicated in disease should be ignored. Ever.
That’s a falsehood. When you insinuate it, you are propagating a very misleading historical falsehood. You are practicing pseudohistory and pseudoscience.
Given that I and many others have explained this to you many times before, it has become very difficult to entertain a charitable view of your actions in this regard.
1 Like
So yeah for school I have to make like this poster, and we have to have solid arguments against evolution, I find this difficult, because I accept the theory of evolutions, can any of you help?[quote=“evograd, post:137, topic:9593”]
What’s your point? Introns are non-coding DNA, and enhancers are generally found in non-coding DNA. Why does it sound like this is so shocking to you?
[/quote]
Shocking to Me???
The problem is your colleagues here are so sure there is no use for all this non-coding DNA based on evolutionary theory. We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of possibilities in light of the experimental results I highlighted.
Introns are non-coding DNA, and enhancers are generally found in non-coding DNA.
Thank you for confirming some of the possible functions of introns. Some naysayers present here had a different tune in 2012…do I need to dig up quotes from that era?
Indeed. Even if you’re giving away your bogus “course” for free, @stcordova, you’re still overcharging.
You should instead by paying people to take the time to prop up your swollen ego.