Note: this topic is from 5/12/2013. Thanks BenLurkin.
Posted on 05/12/2013 6:18:58 PM PDT by BenLurkin
This story is about plants; the other story is about animals. We are different. Remember, God brought in the plants from SOMEWHERE ELSE ~ that’s how you plant a garden eh!
“DNA could not be formed by chance.”
It is not formed by chance alone, it is formed by thermodynamics. Life consumes energy and orders itself by increasing the entropy of its environment. It is ridiculously simple to understand, if you are not burdened by nonsensical dogma. A little probability theory, and a little game theory, and you pretty much know the rules. You should give it a try.
Some say that God achieves His natural goals by using His natural laws. I can live with that.
What difference, at this time, does it make?!?
Well, ya never know. Thanks, but I’ll keep all my junk, if you don’t mind.
Sounds like you believe in evolution.
Note: this topic is from 5/12/2013. Thanks BenLurkin.
” i’d like to see what would happen if they took all the stuff they consider “junk” out and then grew them “
I wonder if there would be fewer food allergies?
interesting thought, good question
Finally, I just said, "Okay, you win! I give! I admit that your long tailbone is proof that you, personally, evolved from a monkey!"
Even our other evolutionist friends thought that was hilarious.
Shalom!
I don’t know... it’s like they say that we only use 5 is just 15% f the brain. Well I think we use 100% but the other 85% is operating system.
imagine how much programming would be involved to have a sensor with as many connections as the nerves in your body, that would instantly take over and focus attention on any one specific one (like if you got poked in the arm)
Heck, it’s 2015. There probably a new scientific “conclusion”(or two) on the subject by now.
"Junk DNA Not Junk After All"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php
Also, a Christian site "icr.org" refutes this finding saying it is based upon circular reasoning with a base of needing to start with an evolutionary perspective, which they are afraid a lack of junk DNA refutes.
"The Resurrection of 'Junk DNA'?"
http://www.icr.org/article/resurrection-junk-dna/
Also interestingly, according to this article, Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analysis coordinator is himself an evolutionist.
"Junk DNA Myth Continues Its Demise"
http://www.icr.org/article/junk-dna-myth-continues-its-demise/
(Excerpt with underline added.)......
The second phase of ENCODE has been no less spectacular in its discoveries. In the lead research paper, published in the journal Nature, the authors wrote, “These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.”1
And what about the remaining 20 percent of the genome—is it functional too? According to Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analysis coordinator, it is probably not meaningless junk either. Birney said, “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent” and “we don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”4
Despite being an evolutionist himself, Birney expects that many critics will argue about the 80 percent figure and the definition of what is “functional.” Birney added, “[That figure] best [conveys] the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity” and “no matter how you cut it, we’ve got to get used to the fact that there’s a lot more going on with the genome than we knew.”4
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.
