Posted on 04/29/2009 5:16:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In the Darwinist repertoire, a standard response to evidence of design in the genome is to point to the existence of “junk DNA.” What is it doing there, if purposeful design really is detectable in the history of life’s development? Of course this assumes that the “junk” really is junk. That assumption has been cast increasingly into doubt. New research just out in the journal Nature Genetics finds evidence that genetic elements previously thought of as rubbish are anything but...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Ping!
Kind of like the appendix?
>>In the Darwinist repertoire, a standard response to evidence of design in the genome is to point to the existence of “junk DNA.”
Once again, not much point in reading further. When you misstate the case you can have fun forever knocking down your straw man.
Have a blessed evening GGG!
Precisely!
A miswording, it appears. It ought to say a standard argument for Darwinian evolution as responsible for the genome is...
Lots of assumptions are being made by evos. This is no surprise.
And the fact that all their assumptions are being falsified by the evidence should also come as no surprise :o)
for later
The author writes, “Nearly half of the mammalian genome (less than 45 percent) is comprised of DNA sequences thought for decades to be but evolutionary flotsam and jetsam or junk: retrotransposons”
It's impossible to tell what the author was talking about because these articles are never specific but
only short retrotransposons were considered junk because there are so many copies of them within the genome and are so repetitive. The author states nearly half, then less than 45 percent and even this is an inflated number. It is actually closer to 10-15% in mammals.
No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Every accounting that has ever addressed the question has indicated that less than 40 % of DNA is coding, and the rest has been called ‘junk’ for more than a decade.
Thanks for the ping!
I wondered if it might be the data segments
Zacley!
first sorry if i have ever been disrespectful.
It seems there are two ideologies that are clashing here. (correct me if I’m wrong at any point) Scientists only work with what they know and are confounded that creationists refuse to accept any other ideas than their “blind” faith and only find facts that support it. While creationists can't comprehend how a man can only think within the physical laws, models, hypothesis, etc that man has created and not think outside of the box. Sometimes are offended by a man thinking he can understand and fully comprehend the mysteries of the universe which was created by God.
I think that science and faith need to be kept distinct and separate. Faith itself does not progress scientifically. A lot of the time it impedes progress because people refuse to accept fact. Evolution is not a fact and is up for debate. But I have seen posters on here not only claim a geocentric universe which can't be proven or disproven as of now, but a geocentric solar system! (Earth center) which is EASILY disproven. Why should we waste resources or intelligence believing that the sun rotates around the earth?
All that being said I believe that a hypothesis for a situation can arise from belief in the christian bible if a scientist only uses it to guide his studies, not try to prove the bible. I've come to respect the beauty and genius in our universe and I believe scientifically, logically, and religiously of an intelligent creator. There is the argument of a habital universe being so rare that us existing is in itself hard evidence of God. Which is of course a flawed argument. But if one takes it a step further and asks “Why is this universe so friendly to intelligent life?” I think we can make a non flawed argument for evidence of design. There are certain physical concepts that have no barring on hability of our surroundings. An electron and a proton having exactly the same magnitude charge, a spherical body able to be treated as a point charge, few fundamental forces of which are distinct and measurable as well as modeled by simple functions, linear progression of force to mass and velocity, reference frames (which are A HUGE DEAL) and allow newtonian physics to work even though we are on a rotating moving body of which the velocity we don't know, a particle moving through non parallel or perpendicular in a force field can be solved with simple integration.
I know this is a lot. but my point is I have my faith working for me in allowing me to believe that any and all situations in the universe (although complex beyond comprehension) can be accurately and simply modeled, normally using less space than this sentence. This is a huge gift from God and everyone should not turn a blind eye.
Evolutionists also make the "lack of Perfection" argument without any apparent awareness that that which is designed nonetheless degrades over time.
In fact a rapidly degrading genome fits rather well with "fundamentalist" Christian creationists' theology.
Wow! Really? I confess I haven't read most of these threads, but I HAVE read a lot of them, and I've never seen that. Got some links?
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.