[muawiyah]

They do? I seriously doubt we've examined enough of that category of sequences to know if they change at any sort of rate. Some are presumed to do so and have been extensively studied, but it's only recently that we've managed to dig up the whole genome, and I seriously doubt anyone has had the time to evaluate the whole thing and come to that conclusion.

How about this ~ DNA is simply a computer ~ part of it produces proteins or parts of proteins. The rest of it figures out how to fool fundies and evolutionists.

[allmendream]

Doubt away. Then go to pubmed and look at “neutral mutation rate”.

All one needs to do to assess evolutionary conservation of a sequence is to compare the human genome to the chimp genome to the dog genome.

The pseudo-gene that (if it worked) would produce an enzyme to make Vitamin C has more differences accumulated between human and chimp than the hemoglobin gene. You can check for yourself on Pubmed by ‘blasting’ the four sequences. The pseudo-gene changes at the neutral mutation rate.

The third position codon bias is also wells supported.

DNA is simply a molecule. It is not a computer. When transcribed to mRNA then translated into an amino acid sequence that can usually perform a function either signaling, enzymatic or structural.

A computer CAN use DNA instead of O's and 1’s in a microchip. But that doesn't make DNA a computer any more than 0’s and 1’s.

[dan1123]

How about this ~ DNA is simply a computer ~ part of it produces proteins or parts of proteins. The rest of it figures out how to fool fundies and evolutionists.

Or there is a lot more to a computer program than IO.