Posted on 01/13/2009 6:40:50 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The traditional understanding of DNA has recently been transformed beyond recognition. DNA does not, as we thought, carry a linear, one-dimensional, one-way, sequential code—like the lines of letters and words on this page. And the 97% in humans that does not carry protein-coding genes is not, as many people thought, fossilized ‘junk’ left over from our evolutionary ancestors. DNA information is overlapping-multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forwards; and the ‘junk’ is far more functional than the protein code, so there is no fossilized history of evolution. No human engineer has ever even imagined, let alone designed an information storage device anything like it. Moreover, the vast majority of its content is metainformation—information about how to use information. Meta-information cannot arise by chance because it only makes sense in context of the information it relates to. Finally, 95% of its functional information shows no sign of having been naturally selected; on the contrary, it is rapidly degenerating! That means Darwin was wrong—natural selection of natural variation does not explain the variety of life on Earth. The best explanation is what the Bible tells us: we were created—as evidenced by the marvels of DNA—but then we fell and now endure the curse of ‘bondage to decay’ by mutations...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Great quote from an astute man.
The fact that two guys got out using randomly assigned keys, is not "meta-information," however. The "meta-information" in your example would be that (probably) every one of the 100 men who received keys, had some idea of how to use the keys, even if their particular key did not fit their particular lock.
These con-men rely on good people being math illiterate, gullible, etc... It's sickening that they would take advantage so.
Indeed....
That’s your little jewel...it’s your side demanding all things God be removed from NEA run gubmint schools, not mine.
“Finally, 95% of its functional information shows no sign of having been naturally selected; on the contrary, it is rapidly degenerating! That means Darwin was wrong—natural selection of natural variation does not explain the variety of life on Earth. The best explanation is what the Bible tells us: we were created—as evidenced by the marvels of DNA”
I love these threads. When you say “Darwin” you really mean “Science”. Nothing in science precludes the addition of new information. Nothing in the bible precludes science and investigation.
So, if any of this is reasonably documented and peer-reviewed, it will become part of science.
The fundamentalist vs non-fundamentalist religious struggle which this all represents has nothing at all to do with science - just as the theory of evolution has nothing at all to do with religion.
I admire the fundamentalist tenacity, but to say the bible dictates whether scientific theories can be developed, modified, taught and even discussed - and further to make broad declarations of the futility of the scientific method is ever amusing.
Let scientific theories be scientific theories, and let theology be theology, and everyone is happy.
==Care to give an example where DNA’s function is not associated with protein production?
They are learning new functions all the time. And, as we discussed a couple years ago, they are finding codes upon codes upon codes—just like we do in computers, but far more sophisticated.
==What “function” have short terminal repeats, ERV’s, and pseudogenes been found to have; besides the few that are associated with transciption of DNA into RNA and then translation into protein?
We have been all over this. Every time you declare there are no functions for ERVs, pseudogenes, etc...I go out and find recently discovered functions for the same, and then you turn around and say “but what functions have they found beyond the functions you just mentioned.” The point is that they found that at least 93% of the genome is transcribed, and that percentage is bound to go up as we learn more. Not only that, they are finding the so-called “junk” DNA is far more active that the translated regions! So you can bet they will be finding a tremendous amount of functions from the so-called “junk” regions of the DNA. And needless to say, now that “junk” DNA is proving functional and far more active than the translated regions, it will not longer be able to be used to trace the so-called “fossil” history of the genome.
I think it’s time to face facts, Allmendream. The neo-Darwinian synthesis is falling like a house of cards, whereas Creation/ID is standing taller than ever.
Codes for what GGG?
What function has been found for DNA other than protein production?
NAME a single function of DNA not associated with protein production if you can.
Can you?
‘I already went over this with you’ isn’t naming a function GGG.
NAME A FUNCTION FOR DNA OTHER THAN PROTEIN PRODUCTION.
NAME IT.
Can you?
No. You cannot.
EPIC FAIL.
==NAME A FUNCTION FOR DNA OTHER THAN PROTEIN PRODUCTION.
Did you read the paer, Allmendream? Project ENCODE has found that DNA makes multiple overlapping transcripts in every part of the DNA. Why would the genome expend so much energy producing MASSIVE amounts of untranslated, overlapping transcripts if they have no function? Are you saying these UTRs (formerly known as “junk”) have no function? Then why are they more active than the translated regions? Do you suppose they may have something to do with the codes upon codes upon codes I predicted a couple years back?
LOL!
The authors show that the 5′ untranslated region (UTR) of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mRNA influences expression of other genes, and thereby cell function, independently of the VEGF reading frame. Many UTRs have long been known to function as cis-acting elements on the expression of their own mRNAs [2,3]—but trans-acting regulatory functions are an exciting possibility, which, if commonplace, would be every bit as influential as siRNAs or miRNAs.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050110&ct=1
Inasmuch as any function at all has been found for any DNA transcript or any DNA, the function is always PROTEIN PRODUCTION.
Your EPIC FAIL continues unabated.
The moronic nature of your sources is exposed, as well as your inability to recognize it.
CAN YOU NAME A FUNCTION GGG?
NO YOU CANNOT.
EPIC FAIL.
==What do these transcripts actually DO GGG?
See my last, for starters.
Wow. Taking ignorance to new levels GGG.
Expression of other genes? What are they expressed into GGG? Proteins.
Regulatory functions? What are they regulating GGG? Protein production.
Your EPIC FAIL continues. And you don’t even know the subject enough to recognize that transcription control and regulation is all about protein production.
Wow. This late in the game and you still don’t know what DNA transcripts do GGG? DNA transcripts are involved in producing protein, they have no other known function, neither can you name one.
EPIC FAIL.
So you admit that you don’t know that DNA transcripts are involved in protein production.
Claiming you named a function apart from protein production is no substitute for actually naming a function for DNA apart from protein production.
EPIC FAIL.
So what you’re saying is that if a UTR does not produce a protein, but rather regulates the function of a gene, it is non-functional? What you are engaged in is the logical fallacy of exclusion by definition. Do you also think every component of a computer is non-functional except for the code that is translated into what you see on your screen?
From the same paper:
“While the idea that mRNAs might have functions that are independent of their translation may be surprising, there are published precedents for related trans-acting functions of UTRs.”
Get it? They are finding that UTRs have functions that are INDEPENDENT of translation. Care to revise your categorical statement that DNA is ONLY used for protein producation?
Your source said that “the ‘junk’ is far more functional than the protein code”.
First off, nobody ever suggested that regulatory sequences were “junk”.
Second, there has been no “function” ever found for DNA other than protein production, including sequences once suspected of being “junk” but found to be highly evolutionarily conserved between species, and suspected of being involved in regulating protein production.
So how could “junk” DNA be “far more functional” than the DNA that codes for protein; when all it has been suggested that it does is regulate the function of the DNA that codes for protein?
Is this getting through GGG?
Can you name a function for DNA other than protein production?
NO YOU CANNOT.
EPIC FAIL.
See my last.
There is gene transcription and regulation of gene transcription.
affinity for the Ribosome and localization to the proper Ribosomes.
mRNA stability.
Etc, etc.
You may notice (or in your ignorance perhaps you do not) that ALL of these functions have to do with protein production.
You still have not named a single DNA function not associated with protein production.
EPIC FAIL.
Your last still doesn’t include any named function for DNA other than protein production.
Did you miss that point GGG?
I have only repeated it to you in nearly every post.
WHAT FUNCTION CAN YOU NAME FOR DNA OTHER THAN PROTEIN PRODUCTION?
You cannot.
Epic Fail.
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.