Posted on 10/06/2003 4:34:06 PM PDT by blam
Scientists vie to break junk DNA's secret code
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 06/10/2003)
Huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised "genetic grammar", making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought.
The discovery is of potentially huge significance, since it could lead to an entirely new explanation for certain diseases and symptoms. A race is now on among teams of scientists worldwide to investigate this cryptic code.
While the genetic recipe of a human being is spelt out with three billion letters of DNA code, only about two per cent of these correspond to the genes - the DNA that describes the proteins that build and operate bodies.
In the latest issue of the journal Science, Prof Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School, Dr Ewen Kirkness of the Institute of Genomic Research, Maryland, and colleagues have reported compelling evidence that up to three per cent of our genetic material has a crucial role that is not understood.
They made the unexpected discovery that some DNA regions of humans, dogs and species as distant as elephant and wallaby are nearly identical. These regions of what were once called junk have been dubbed "conserved non-genic sequences", or CNGs, a reference to how they are not conventional genes.
Prof Antonarakis said: "I suspect that mutations in CNGs may contribute to numerous genetic disorders." Defects in CNGs could result in illness while the symptoms of Down's syndrome, caused by an extra copy of a chromosome, might be linked to the presence of additional CNGs.
"Many laboratories are now working on identifying pathogenic mutations," he said.
I am a professional graduate student :)
I work in cell biology and study how tumor cells invade tissues.
Yes, they use the same ones over and over, and they are not taken in their proper context, e.g. the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, etc. Talk about hyberbole - buckets huh? No, you will find the same hackneyed quotes used by skeptics on each of those searches. I already invited you to read Washington's speeches (farewell and inaugural) - if you don't believe that is the true character of Washington, then I invite you to go to your public libray where his private writings (97 volumes!) can be found and do some reading. You will be shocked by the absence of skeptical quotes.
The guys on the money? Hamilton - Christian; Jefferson - yes, this is one of only about 12 non-Christians from 250 founding fathers; Franklin (can't be sure - he thought God won the Revolutionary war and he called for prayer in Philly in 1787 - deists don't do that). I will issue you a challenge - come up with more than 12 of the 250 founding fathers that were not Christians.
See, I don't think you have much knowledge on this topic - I think you just can't bring yourself to admit (goes against your worldview) that our founders were Christians. Well, sorry, but they were - it's a fact. Until you can debate this from a standpoint of knowledge, you should not be debating it at all. Unfortunately for the secular-humanists, our nation was founded as a Christian nation (not State!) with Christian founders, Christian people, and judeo-Christian moral principles undergirding our founding documents. Just deal with it. With all due respect, you win some, you lose some, and you can't win this one.
Why don't you check the original quotes yourself? YOu can find them in the public libraries. Why don't you read the Federalist papers? REad the bios of men like John Witherspoon (meantor of Madison and pres. of Princeton), Gov. Morris (wrote the Constitution), Sam Adams (Father of the Revolution), Alexander Hamilton (Fed. Papers), Washington (read those speeches I gave you), Pinckney, Langdon, Thompson, pick any of them. You will find the following men were not Christians - Ethan Allen, Aaron Burr, T. Paine, Jefferson, Henry Lee, and perhaps Franklin (can't be sure), but you will be hard-pressed to find more than 10-12 who were not - that is only 5% of the total of 250. Good luck.
Okay, but what if those quotes were taken out of context - which most of them are? What if they keep quoting the same non-christians over and over - Allen, Paine, Jefferson, etc.? Why not the other 238 founders? Doesn't that raise a question in your mind?
Historians know that the most accurate and reliable sources when doing research are PRIMARY sources - docs, records, eyewitness acounts, etc. from the SAME time period as the events or people described. Secondary sources are less reliable - these are after the events or people described. With that in mind, why don't you look up some primary sources? And when you read skeptics, why don't you check their sources to see where they got their material, and if the quotes they use are in the full context, etc. Look at it objectively...you will be very surprised at what you find.
I really don't care about percentages, nor about public writings. If you went by people's public face, Bill Clinton would be a devout Christian.
Perhaps explaining the prohibition of an established religion.
EX: I have no interest in disputing your facts, unless you want to argue that religion provides a moral standard that everyone can agree on.
It quotes the well-known Treaty of Tripoli, adopted during Washington's presidency:
In Article 11 it states: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered in any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Called the Father of the Constitution, James Madison also held an unconventional sense of Christianity. While he no doubt had respect for true Christian faith, he was cutting in his criticism of a state allied with church power. In 1785 he wrote the following in his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments":"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. . . . What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
Good description of what evolutionists -liberals have done to America - the FR ... some kind (( church power )) of monopoly --- tryanny !
I didn't say you had to agree with the moral standards, but the only one (the only universal one) is not from man but is from God, and the one used by the founders come from the 10 commandments and the bible, and they were mostly Christians. That is a simple fact. And they also said over and over that morality comes from religion (since U.S. was almost exclusively Christian at that time, they certainly meant judeo-Christianity, not Islam or any other religion. I already know you are a moral relativist (deny moral absolutes), so it is no surprise that you deny that morals come from religion. However, I think I have shown on these threads on many occasions that moral relativism is illogical, and does not work.
I think I established quite well that you can't have a moral standard from man - because other men will disagree with it. Then it comes down to might makes right. That's called moral relativism - it's a moving target. The only objective morality is morality from outside of man - from God. It has to come from God and there has to be a fear of God element to morality - that is what restrains evil.
Sorry, that is not what the 1st amendment means. The founders intended that there be no national DENOMINATION like the Church of England. And there were not that many differences between the Christian sects then. They were non-sectarian - think about that word for a moment. There were minor differences but all churches were orthodox in their Christian beliefs, i.e. they agreed on the essentials of the Christian faith - Jesus is divine, bible is the inspired Word of God, etc. It's much different than today wherein we have a pluralistic society that is not based in Reformation philosophy and truth. The U.S.A. is only here because of the Reformation. Without it, there would be no USA.
Try reading the Supreme Court case Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the USA (which was 1892!), in which none other than the highest court of this land, after an extensive research of massive amounts of historical material, declared that,
"This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...
Argue with the Supreme Court.
As for your namesake Patrick Henry, listen to what he said:
"There is a just God who prisdes over the destinies of nations who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave...Gentlemen may cry peace, peace--but there is no peace! The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chians and slavery? FORBID IT ALMIGHTY GOD! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH."
Unless you are prepared to defend your position, you should just remain quiet, because I will bury you with a blizzard of quotes that prove you wrong. History is my forte.
Your namesake was a sold out bible thumping Christian. Shouldn't you have chose someone's name who better reflects your worldview?
It shows that worldview dictates everything! First one has a belief in God - and all other beliefs flow form that. If secular humanism is true, then evolution must also be true, and Christianity must be marginalized, minimized and erased. It doesn't surprise me that a secular humanist who argues for evolution with little or no evidencew would also argue for a false American history with little or no evidence (evidence is on the Christiain side).
I won't let you get away with it. If you keep posting those banal skeptical quotes from teh skeptic websites, I will counter every one with REAL evidence and a blizzard of quotes form the mouths of the founders themselves. You can't win this battle, so you are well advised to find another one.
Countering this is why a lot of us post to these threads
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.