Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#31

Post by bena »

menacingly wrote: post #24
PaulAJ wrote: post #2

The parasite theory is that transposons are rather like early computer viruses that replicated by embedding themselves in other executables: they exist only to make copies of themselves in their host genome. This theory is not incompatible with these results. Evolution is not a rational design process. Once a transposon starts replicating it is quite possible for the host genome to evolve to incorporate the transposo…

I'm not usually much of an intelligent design advocate, but approaching it from the angle that we know enough right now to make definitive calls as to the merits of different genetic approaches is hubris _at best_. Not to mention the sneaky embedded assumption that an engineering approach is even the best way to go.

Then it's just as meaningless.

I mean, the claim is that we're so complex we must have been designed. But there are what seems like very serious design flaws in lots of organisms. Giraffes have a nerve that travel up and down their necks only to wind up a few inches from where it should be.

Our eyes have the nerves attached on the wrong side, giving us blind spots and a host of other problems.

And on and on. You can't hold life up as evidence of an intelligent designer and then when presented with evidence that we're a poor design, counter with "maybe it's smart and we don't know it".

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#33

Post by krapp »

Razengan wrote: post #22
orf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a god you could hardly call him incompetent after creating life. That doesn't exclude hacks or workarounds

Why a god? Why not many? Humans have been modifying organisms for thousands of years, through selective breeding and cultivation. Does that not count as a form of intelligent design? Is it detectable? If not, who is to say it hasn’t been done with us?

> Why a god? Why not many?

The real answer is that "intelligent design" is a movement by evangelical and conservative Christianity to reframe Biblical literalism as a legitimate scientific framework.

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#34

Post by rubatuga »

ufo wrote: post #29
chiefalchemist wrote: post #12

> "Geneticists tend to pay attention when LINE1 inserts itself in a bad place, causing cancer or genetic disorders like hemophilia." But it's not always doing bad, correct? The point being, these random insertions are not only part of the process, they are key. Without deviation these is no evolving.

Transposons are waaay more likely to break things than to evolve them in a positive direction

Well that’s with any mutation :)

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#35

Post by rsynnott »

bena wrote: post #31
menacingly wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not usually much of an intelligent design advocate, but approaching it from the angle that we know enough right now to make definitive calls as to the merits of different genetic approaches is hubris _at best_. Not to mention the sneaky embedded assumption that an engineering approach is even the best way to go.

Then it's just as meaningless. I mean, the claim is that we're so complex we must have been designed. But there are what seems like very serious design flaws in lots of organisms. Giraffes have a nerve that travel up and down their necks only to wind up a few inches from where it should be. Our eyes have the nerves attached on the wrong side, giving us blind spots and a host of other problems. And on and on. You can'…

Of course, maybe the designer is just incompetent ;)

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#36

Post by tsunamifury »

krapp wrote: post #33
Razengan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why a god? Why not many? Humans have been modifying organisms for thousands of years, through selective breeding and cultivation. Does that not count as a form of intelligent design? Is it detectable? If not, who is to say it hasn’t been done with us?

> Why a god? Why not many? The real answer is that "intelligent design" is a movement by evangelical and conservative Christianity to reframe Biblical literalism as a legitimate scientific framework.

True, but it is also a science fiction concept that is presented in everything from Prometheus to Futurama.

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#37

Post by samuell »

GlennS wrote: post #11
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't most intelligent designs actually done by sane engineers filled with quirks like this? Spaghetti code at places, leaky abstractions, hard-coded things, replicating old bugs to make the program compatible with bad OSes or other old software, etc. etc. This could just as easily be an artifact of the complexity of reality, not an argument for- or against "intelligent design". There might be reasons do doubt intel…

Intelligent Design, being a religious theory, usually carries the implication that the designer was infallible and made no mistakes, unless they were deliberate mistakes.

Biblical creation theory postulate that a good initial design has had an increasing lot of destructive processes going on after the first man breaking the trust relationship with the Creator. "Genetic Entropy" thus being one of these consequences (there's even a book with that title, by Cornell prof., gene gun inventor and creationist, John Sanford).

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#38

Post by ufo »

rubatuga wrote: post #34
ufo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transposons are waaay more likely to break things than to evolve them in a positive direction

Well that’s with any mutation :)

While I understand the joke this isn't actually true :) A substitution mutation might not have any effect or might just result in switching an aminoacid for a similar one (due to how the genetic code works). On the other hand, a large insertion will likely mess up the gene much more than that.

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#39

Post by joshuahedlund »

bena wrote: post #31
menacingly wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not usually much of an intelligent design advocate, but approaching it from the angle that we know enough right now to make definitive calls as to the merits of different genetic approaches is hubris _at best_. Not to mention the sneaky embedded assumption that an engineering approach is even the best way to go.

Then it's just as meaningless. I mean, the claim is that we're so complex we must have been designed. But there are what seems like very serious design flaws in lots of organisms. Giraffes have a nerve that travel up and down their necks only to wind up a few inches from where it should be. Our eyes have the nerves attached on the wrong side, giving us blind spots and a host of other problems. And on and on. You can'…

The counter-argument to many "design flaws" is, as a sibling comment mentioned, they may be "artifacts of the complexity of reality," especially constraints due to the fact that living things are built up from single cells and need to be functional during the growth process, as opposed to being pieced together like a robot from existing materials.

IANABiologist, but I think I've heard that the giraffe nerve has to grow that way due to the way it starts growing, or that there is a rare mutation that doesn't actually grow that way, but it doesn't get selected for, presumably due to some other side effect.

There are also counter-arguments related to constraints regarding human eyes... Octopus eyes are supposed to be superior, not backwards with no blind spot, but I think human eyes can see way farther outside of water.

(I welcome informed corrections to any ignorance I may be spouting).

Essentially, there's a lot of nuance between "maybe it's smart and we don't know it" and "these are definitely very serious design flaws" - whether you think things were intelligently designed, evolved, or intelligently designed via evolution, it seems reasonable to think there may be at least some reasons that a lot of things were selected to be the way they are, and not what may at first glance seem obviously better, at least if you haven't considered all the relevant constraints.

Re: Mysterious ‘Jumping Gene’ That Appears 500k Times in Human DNA

#40

Post by xamuel »

menacingly wrote: post #24
PaulAJ wrote: post #2

The parasite theory is that transposons are rather like early computer viruses that replicated by embedding themselves in other executables: they exist only to make copies of themselves in their host genome. This theory is not incompatible with these results. Evolution is not a rational design process. Once a transposon starts replicating it is quite possible for the host genome to evolve to incorporate the transposo…

I'm not usually much of an intelligent design advocate, but approaching it from the angle that we know enough right now to make definitive calls as to the merits of different genetic approaches is hubris _at best_. Not to mention the sneaky embedded assumption that an engineering approach is even the best way to go.

Darwin himself was keenly aware of the danger of arrogance.

One of my favorite quotes from the Origin of Species:

"So profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being; and as we do not see the cause, we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life!"

Post reply on HN