It’s the experiments that need to be repeatable. If the data is different between experiments that can tell us as much as when the data repeats itself. Even in the case of random processes we can still learn a lot from the distribution of those random outcomes.
The one thing we all have in common is being human. Part of being human is being curious, emotional, and subjective. Sometimes scientists get buried in data, worry, work, and the like. Other times scientists are just as wonderstruck as any other human being.
I think you would be interested in the work of the late John Polkinghorne, FRS. He was an eminent scientist/theologian who did significant work on quarks. He argued that the universe is more “cloud-like” than “clock-like.” He wrote many books, including Theology in the Context of Science
We read that book in theology class and then Polkinghorne came for a lecture in 2010! The recording has disappeared from the church web site, but I’d be glad to try to find it for you. Let me know!
Thank you beagle lady. I probably won’t seek out the book but I found this video very helpful, a talk he gave for BioLogos in 2011. I agree with him of course that science and religion are not and should not be enemies. There is both a good introduction to his biography in the first few minutes and to his idea throughout.
Ditto corn. This is the result of the entire genome appearing in quadruple, which has the effect of amplifying the effects of the genes in producing huge and robust “six foot high” corn from what was once a grass. Perhaps also the banana has a doubled or redoubled genome.
Human DNA is 3 billion nucleotide pairs and bananas are 472 million pairs.
So what did Ball ACTUALLY say? He was comparing the number of protein coding genes NOT the quantity of information. His point was that humans use protein coding much more efficiently by having those genes and proteins flexibly doing many more functions. And a big part of this was a large number of regulatory DNA sequences in human DNA which didn’t directly code for proteins. The point was only that the previously picture we had of the process was way too simplistic.
This misunderstanding includes the old estimate that 99% of our DNA was just junk. Probably some of it really is junk, but it is now much more difficult to estimate the percent because the straightforward protein coding measure of this is wrong. It also means a lot of other parts of the old rhetoric needs to be revised like the 98% similarity to chimpanzees which is based on comparing coding DNA. Just because we are using 98% of the same proteins, doesn’t mean we are using them in the same way. I don’t expect the percentage to change by a huge amount… there are many similarities after all. Also… out of the 6000 human genes actually known 689 were not found in chimpanzees that is over a 10% difference right there and some are estimating more like an 84% genetic similarity with chimpanzees.
Sorry if this is a duplication . . . but I just opened up the June 2024 Scientific American and found an article by Philip Ball. It’s a good (if brief) introduction to noncoding RNA for non-biologists such as myself.
That is along the lines of my lay thinking about it. I assume that our coding is more flexible. A cookie cutter banana or corn is fine but humans encounter challenges more often. It may be that development for our species extends beyond the womb more than it does for other species. I haven’t gotten very far into Ball’s book yet.
Viewing one of the videos added to my (amateur but sizable) knowledge of DNA and heredity. Hominids or at least Homo sapiens employ large numbers of “non-compact” proteins which edit given genes. The encoding in the genome begins with a START codon and ends with one of three STOPs but as edited will produce a goodly number of distinct proteins, The terms intron and extron relate to the snippets of the gene which do / do not make it into the expressed protein. So those lengthy “non-coding” sections of our DNA - which are strongly preserved - are functional.
Yes, the raw encoding is rich enough; the resultant array of identifiable proteins that they produce is a larger number.,
Found it and it is helpful. I really appreciate that he endeavors to explain at a level that doesn’t require much expertise. A sample:
If only 1 to 2 percent of this RNA was encoding proteins, what was the rest for? Some of it, scientists knew, carried out crucial tasks such as turning genes on or off; a lot of the other functions had yet to be pinned down. Still, no one had imagined that three quarters of our DNA turns into RNA, let alone that so much of it could do anything useful.
Some biologists greeted this announcement with skepticism bordering on outrage. The ENCODE team was accused of hyping its findings; some critics argued that most of this RNA was made accidentally because the RNA-making enzyme that travels along the genome is rather indiscriminate about which bits of DNA it reads.
Now it looks like ENCODE was basically right. Dozens of other research groups, scoping out activity along the human genome, also have found that much of our DNA is churning out “noncoding” RNA. It doesn’t encode proteins, as mRNA does, but engages with other molecules to conduct some biochemical task. By 2020 the ENCODE project said it had identified around 37,600 noncoding genes— is, DNA stretches with instructions for RNA molecules that do not code for proteins. That is almost twice as many as there are protein-coding genes. Other tallies vary widely, from around 18,000 to close to 96,000. There are still doubters, but there are also enthusiastic biologists such as Jeanne Lawrence and Lisa Hall of the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. In a 2024 commentary for the journal Science, the duo described these findings as part of an “RNA revolution.”
I’m fascinated by the complexity of the DNA and RNA interactions that are slowly being untangled (pun intended). It makes much more sense to me than the older models of understanding DNA. I also noted when reading the Scientific American article that it seems there’s a circular cause-and-effect thing going on. DNA is making RNA which in turn controls DNA. I’m being super simplistic, of course, and I may not have read it correctly, but it does seem it’s getting harder to figure out where the biological Causes really start.
This is the way some theologians and religious leaders attack nuanced, complex theories about how we can be in relationship with God. I especially see the links the between the diverse tasks of RNA and the diverse tasks of human words. They may be small, but put them together in the right combinations, and they can be mighty.
As an interesting side note, in the same issue of Scientific American (June 2024), there’s a short article by science writer Rachel Nuwer about consciousness researchers who are looking at near-death experiences as a possible way to better understand the mind and brain.
What I found most interesting was the fact that Scientific American published it. Perhaps there’s a movement away from the overly mechanistic and dualistic explanations of life that have governed our thinking for the last while, and a more optimistic shift toward a syncretistic blending of science and faith, logic and mystery, mind and heart.
I noticed that article too and plan to look it over. It is potentially a rich area for research though I suspect that commonalities of experience may be hidden behind idiosyncracies in iconography and narrative. Surely a major challenge and perhaps one which will remain out of reach to pin down?
We become so attached to our models because they give us at least the illusion of certainty until something clearly better comes along.
Enjoyed and learned from the article. It makes sense, as nothing in biology is really as simple and straightforward. Almost like it was pieced together out of spare parts Sort of like building a spaceship out of the box of random Legos in the grandkids room.
Put me in the list of those responding with skepticism bordering in outrage, then and now. ENCODE was and is grossly wrong and most of the genome still doesn’t have a function. I can write more when I’m not on vacation and not using a phone.
@MarkD, just to make a complex topic even more complex . . . in the March/April 2024 issue of American Scientist, there’s a really interesting article about DNA by scientist-artist Caryn Babaian:
She explains why the general understanding of the DNA molecule as a stable, isolated, double helix is basically wrong. She also says there are at least 7 different forms of DNA (news to me). The way she describes the interactions between the double helix and the layers of water molecules that coat the helix are fascinating, though I have to admit I find this article a bit harder to read than Philip Ball’s piece in Scientific American.
Sometimes, we have to hear information from an unexpected angle in order for it to sink in, and I found Babaian’s artistic perspective a helpful entry point for me.
In a strange way, it felt as if I’d been reading about the Tree of Life in Genesis 2/3.
Sort of like building a spaceship out of the box of random Legos in the grandkids room.