Posted on 09/16/2007 3:45:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“The gene is dead... long live the gene,” announced subtitles to an article in Science News this week.1 Geneticists have come to a striking conclusion over the last few years: genes are not the most important things in DNA, if they even exist as a concept.
The “central dogma” of genetics, since Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA, is that genetic information flows one-way – from the gene to the protein. In the textbooks, a gene was supposed to be a finite stretch of DNA that, when read by the translation process, produced a messenger RNA, which recruited transfer RNAs to assemble the amino acids for one protein.
As Patrick Barry described in his article “Genome 2.0,”1 the situation in real cells is much messier. “Mountains of new data are challenging old views,” his subtitle announced, including the “modern orthodoxy” that only genes are important:
"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://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070912a
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Interestingly enough, there is strong evidence that there never was such a person as Moses and that the events described in the Exodus never happened. For example, there is no evidence that there ever were Hebrews in Egypt as slaves or otherwise. There is also the interesting question of who wrote the description of Moses’ funeral if Moses was the author of the Penteutech?
“The current scientific clique is predetermined to make everything fit into a long age framework”
This is a common refrain amongst biblical literalists, but it’s simply not borne out by evidence. Things are not ‘made to fit’ into a long-age framework, a long-age framework fits the evidence.
“That’s why Dave posts all those articles where the leading so-called scientific minds are constantly chucking out one theory and imagining a replacement theory.”
Dave chronically misrepresents the meaning of the articles that he posts. Also, this ‘chucking’ out of theories is the great strength of science. At no point have we ever claimed to know everything, but we do know that there is at least one way which things certainly didn’t happen.
There is? You’ll have to prove that.
That was a bad year if you ask me (no matter what number we give it).
I'm surprised it took the frevolutionist freak patrol this long to hock up some personal insult. (I suppose you vent most of them over at Sputum Central.)
It's not an insult, but a point of fact. You do not understand scientific articles. You do not show any comprehension at all. If you did, you would see that 1) this article isn't about evolution and 2) that through science, we learn new things every day.
What we really have is, DNA whose functions we've defined, and DNA whose functions we haven't identified. Based on their beliefs and assumptions, evolutionists were ready to slam the door on exploring the "non-coding" sections anymore.
Again, you fail to understand science. No one slammed the door on anything, let alone some type of conspiracy to shutter scientific inquiry. This is a legitimate line of scientific inquiry where some remarkable discoveries are being made. You are simply intolerant of learning anything new. You have a static vision of science that cannot accept that our understanding is constantly changing.
And if you want to get down with beliefs and assumptions, I don't see any meaningful creation research anywhere, from any such organization. Cite some, please. What contributions to human understanding ahve they made? The short answer is none, but a more accurate answer would simply be that creationists, when believed, make people dumber. Lying for the Lord will do that.
In other words, who are you going to believe, the Bible or your lying eyes?
It's not science if it must match a preconception. Your point is entirely anti-science if you require a biblical review when determining an outcome of an experiment. Nature is not obligated to follow the Bible so why should our experimental results?
There's a term for this and it's called reality denial.
There is not "Strong evidence" that Moses never existed. There is some lack of evidence that he did, but given how little we know about ancient Egypt, a lack of evidence can hardly be represented as "strong evidence" against.
And contrary to your claim that "no evidence" exists, there is evidence. Look up the "ipuwer papyrus" , "Merneptah stele", "habiru" and "Hyksos". There's evidence of slave populations that suddenly dissappeared. There's Egyptian population records showing a dramatic drop in population. Remains of homes have been found in Egypt that match early Israeli culture. Remains of a large city that was built with slave labor has been found. And there is linquistic evidence as well.
That's creation "science" in a nutshell.
I know, its always the same old song and dance from people like Dawkins and Dennett.
It's just that we know in the end, that the scientific explanation must match what God said happened.
You are choosing dogma, scripture, and divine revelation over the scientific method and scientific findings?
Your claim that you "aren't against science at all" is totally inaccurate. You want to alter the scientific method, and the results of scientific investigations, at your whim, accepting some results and rejecting others according to your religious beliefs. And then you have the gall to claim you are not against science?
I guess you must be referring to creation "science" rather than real science, eh?
You are claiming that you, and Answers in Genesis, are doing science?
Sorry, son. I am not impressed. You can't take a completely anti-science approach, refuse to learn anything serious about science or the scientific method, nitpick science from beginning to end while making laughable mistakes, embrace young earth creationism with all of its disproved ideas, and then claim to be making scientific discoveries.
No, I accept an old earth because of the overwhelming evidence that supports that idea. You believe in a young earth entirely on the basis of religion.
I gave you a big fat list of dating revisions and other arguments against the infallibility of your dating methods (which you never much got around to refuting) and I just gave you another one now.
What you supplied is creation "science" -- not worth a second look because it is driven entirely by religious belief. Just check out the Statements of Belief of the various creationist websites. They plainly state that they would not accept any evidence that was contrary to scripture. That's not science, that's pure apologetics. And you fall for it hook, line and sinker.
You yourself admitted that if you got a young (geologic) date, you'd toss it out.
What a lie. At last count I have received well over 500 radiocarbon dates younger than the proverbial 4004 BC date. Young dates are a dime a dozen (although they are actually now $345.00 each). How many have you done? Zero? Save up and buy a clue!
Now you're trying to peg someone else for allegedly not accepting the first result because of previously-formed assumptions. I've got five words for you, and three of them are pot, kettle and black.
And I have two for you: biblical literalism.
It's not science and pretending, posturing, and pontificating does not make it so.
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.