Posted on 05/01/2009 9:36:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
==i’ve talked with many evolutionary theorists and evolutionary bio-chemists over the years and i’ve never met one who thought that so called “junk DNA” was likely to turn out to be in the main entirely functionless.
Then they should have spoken up, because virtually the entire Temple of Darwinistic Materialism was touting so-called “junk” DNA as evidence for evolution/common descent (and against Creation/ID):
“For the genome is littered with dead genes. Huge wastes of DNA territory comprise a graveyard of discarded, superseded old genes (plus meaningless sequences of nonsense DNA that never functioned) with occasional islands of current, extant genes that are actually read by the translating machinery and turned into action. Dead, untranslated genes are called pseudogenes.”
Richard Dawkins, “Dawkins on Darwin,” published in TimesOnline, February 11, 2009.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5707143.ece
“From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b-globin genes.”
Kenneth Miller, Life’s Grand Design, Technology Review, February-March 1994, Volume 97(2): pg. 24–32.
“There is no doubt that most of the genetic differences between humans and other apes - and between different human populations - are due to genetic drift. However, most of these mutations are in the nine-tenths of our genome that is junk, so they make no difference.”
Michael Le Page, “Evolution myths: Natural selection is the only means of evolution,” New Scientist, April 2008.
Textbooks:
“Unlike the sequence of an exon, the exact nucleotide sequence of an intron seems to be unimportant. Thus introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk” …”
Molecular Biology of the Cell, 1994, pg. 373 (3rd Ed.)
“… a possibility that must be seriously entertained is that much repetitive DNA serves no useful purpose whatever for its host. Rather, it is selfish or junk DNA, a molecular parasite that, over many generations, has disseminated itself throughout the genome …”
Biochemistry, 1995, pg. 1138
I don’t know why I bother.
O.K. FOR THE LAST TIME, because I have a job and I don’t have time to quibble with genuises:
The lecture at Rice “began my own evolution” away from evolution. I never said that I agreed with the panspermia theory, did I? Also, I never said that “upon hearing these notions of Hoyle’s at the Rice lecture” I rejected the theory of evolution. YOU said that. Kindly read what I wrote rather than insert what you think. Again, I am not responsible for whatever voices you hear going off in your head from Spirits of Creationists Past.
Incidentally, I do remember the occasion, the month and year, location, other people there, etc., but I really don’t want to say anything in a public forum that will let anyone trace my identity. If you don’t understand that, then that’s too bad. Yet once again you managed to imply that such a lecture really didn’t take place. I don’t know why it matters to you since you seem to think Hoyle was a crank, anyway. Your only purpose seems to be to cast doubt upon the veracity of anyone with whom you might possibly disagree.
In case you didn’t get it (obviously you didn’t, so I’ll spell it out for you) it was the response to Hoyle’s questionning the great sacred theory that made an impression on me. It still does. You are just another case in point. I’m truly sorry that you can’t see it. But I’m not going to waste any more time trying to prove what you don’t want to hear. I know my time is valuable and suspect that yours is, too.
Happy trails.
Righto. Happy trails.
Nice dodge, but it failed.
The subject was about creation/origins.
Yes, exactly so, and on the subject of the origins of stars; do you think that scientists determining that stars form by gravity and nuclear fusion in any way removes God as the creator of those stars, or does it simply describe the mechanisms that God uses to form stars?
The Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth, but it doesn’t say HOW.
The Bible says that God called for the waters and the land to bring forth life, it doesn’t describe the molecular necessities of life that this involved.
Describing how living things change no more removes God as their creator than describing how a star is forming right now in a nebulae by gravity and nuclear fusion somehow means that God did not create that star.
Malthus contention was wrong as demonstrated when human population has fallen when social mores changed and technology produced more food.
2 & 3 are irrelevant
4 To be true this over simplification would have to demonstrate that speed is an actual advantage to survival and reproduction. Increased speed may be at the cost of other very valuable traits like the example of the race horse vs. the wild mustang.
It's quite easy to look at a creature and say this or that confers an advantage and then construct an imaginary scenario that fits but it's quite another to show this to be the case.
“If you don’t “believe” in Darwinian evolution in that narrow sense, you don’t believe in logic”
An example of twisted logic. I need not not refute anything because your statements are just broad generalizations like saying the weather changes.
Thanks anyway.
Why are you using quotes from old editions of these textbooks?
Both have new editions out in 2007 or 2008. Mine are from the 1970s, so these quotes aren't in them and I can't see what you left out. What is that second quote talking about?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You keep mentioning Project ENCODE like it is the key to knocking evolution down.
I took a quick look at it. It is a site to gather information already out there (some even from the 70s) on DNA and chromosome structure and expression and to map it to specific DNA sequences or chromosome regions. It is a project to gather the info in one place so with a click, you can see it neatly arranged. and tied together.
I forgot to mention that the first quote is true. the only part of an intron (if you can grasp what it is) that has a specific sequence are its ends.
I never said that they abandoned their faith in darwood’s atheist creation myth, I merely said that have completely destroyed the neo-Darwinian prediction of “junk DNA.” In short, God’s creation has once again forced the Evos to concede what biblical creationists have been predicting all along.
Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of creation and the fall.
But He most certainly describes HOW He made man:
Genesis 2:7.
Epic fail.
Again.
I find your analogy regarding germ theory and the analysis of humors to be sophomoric and irrelevant at best. You can’t claim that evolutionary aspects of theories in palentology, astrophysics, climatology, and other disciplines as evidence for evolution in one setting and then deride them as the products of, yes, here it comes again, cranks in another setting and expect to retain any credibility.
Now, you are free once again to respond by calling me a liar, should you choose.
But I won’t be listening. I have meaningful work to do.
Enjoy your time in front of the mirror.
BRAVO, BRAVO!
You have a hard on about junk DNA.
The ratio of noncoding DNA vs coding DNA is so large that yes, it is mostly junk. This DNA has non sequence-specific structural roles, but can mutate and still have a function.It is the graveyard of genes and contains inactive viruses and repeated sequences galore, and pseudogenes (no longer active genes due to mutations).
Also, why didn’t you answer my two questions in post #67?
Once again, GGGs posts an article that leads off with a false premise ....
Thanks for the ping!
Wow....such great “science” creation “scientists” get to follow.
No matter the data...it fits the preconcieved conclusion. No WONDER you don’t understand science.
You’re talking Fred Hoyle the ASTRONOMER?
Never expect a scientifically ignorant person to answer a scientific-light question
All data point to creationism...dontcha know it?
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.