Replies

In other words, as a Biologist I have to say that we have a LOT of work to do. Heck we don’t even know what over half of the estimated 30,000 proteins of the genome even do. While we get that 3% of the genome figured out we need to also work on the 3% of the genome that doesn’t code for protein but shows evolutionary conservation. We need to know what that stuff is doing!

Exciting times, and lots of work to do. FUN FUN STUFF!!!

Thanks for making me look all that stuff up, its good to know and makes me excited about the future of Biology. And every step we make further exemplifies what a miraculous and wonderful creation we are, and shows the POWER and the GLORY of our creator who brought us forth from specks of dust and set us as stewards over the earth that he created from matter forged in the heart of stars.

==In other words, as a Biologist I have to say that we have a LOT of work to do.

I’ll say! Check out this fascinating article from Science News. I would not be surprised if they someday soon announce that almost everything we thought about genes/genomes was wrong. I suspect that one of the items in the announcement will almost certainly contain a blurb explaining why “junk DNA” isn’t junk at all:

“Researchers slowly realized, however, that genes occupy only about 1.5 percent of the genome. The other 98.5 percent, dubbed “junk DNA,“ was regarded as useless scraps left over from billions of years of random genetic mutations. As geneticists’ knowledge progressed, this basic picture remained largely unquestioned....”
“Closer examination of the full human genome is now causing scientists to return to some questions they thought they had settled. For one, they’re revisiting the very notion of what a gene is.”

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070908/bob9.asp

Creationists look at the same evidence:

Many previous entries have dealt with these subjects (e.g., 06/15/2007, 12/29/2006 bullet 2, 11/09/2006, 07/06/2006). This is a classic case of a paradigm change in science occurring before our eyes. Even what we mean by an intuitively-obvious word like gene is being questioned: is there such a thing? Does it have physical reality, or is it a mental picture humans have imposed on a much more subtle reality? The new buzzword is network, but is that an accurate characterization? Networking is concerned more with the interactions of entities than with the entities themselves; this means that the rules of the game are more important than the nodes of the network. How could that fit within a materialistic world view?

Whatever comes in the days ahead, it appears that there is far more information processing occurring in the cell than even Watson and Crick imagined – and that was startling and elegant enough. Barry states that the raw genetic information transcribed in DNA now appears to be 62 times what genes alone would produce. The fundamental operational unit of life may, therefore, be nonphysical: information, not molecules. These are exciting times for science – troubling times for Darwinists. Don’t expect them to have any remorse over leading mankind into a “modern orthodoxy” that was mistaken.

For full article:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070912a