Posted on 05/19/2009 8:13:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
May 18, 2009 — Those investing credibility in the concept of “junk DNA” suffered more losses this week. Repeated hits to the paradigm that portions of non-coding DNA are useless leftovers of evolution make a recovery unlikely...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Thanks! Without science where would we be?
==I’ve never actually heard anyone suggest that “non-coding DNA” means “useless” (at least not from a scientist).
The Evos loudly proclaimed that ~98% of our genome was comprised of functionless/"junk" DNA leftover from our supposed evolutionary past.
Now, even the (honest) Evos are being forced by the evidence to admit what a colossal mistake the Temple of Darwin made with respect to so-called "junk" DNA:
'From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA.'
--snip--
'A leading figure in world genetics, Prof. John Mattick, recently claimed that, "the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology". In the last year Genetic Technologies has signed a series of licensing deals allowing companies to use their Junk DNA patents. This is bringing in millions of dollars for the company and the profits look like they will continue to roll in. The junkyard it seems, is a goldfield.'
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
Worshipping at the Temple of Darwin:
Wait a minute! Is that “Dr.” Michaels at the front of the line?!? What does that package say? I can’t quite make it out. Ko...Kool...oh I see can see what it says now...it says Kool-Aid!!!
Evidence produced by the scientists you hate and claim to be dishonest. Scientists are also making progress in the field of epigenitics.
“’A leading figure in world genetics, Prof. John Mattick, recently claimed that, “the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology”.
—That’s a bit of a misquote. It was changed a bit and the context was stripped out. The original was from Scientific American Nov 2003:
“The failure to recognize the full implications of this-particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules-may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
The “this” is the dna that codes for RNA but does not in turn code for protein. It’s been found that some of the RNA behaves as what is called a “riboswitch”. So the failure was to recognize that some types of RNA, and not just protein, is important in what goes on in a cell.
Actually, one of the reasons that riboswitches were discovered is because of geneticists looking for good molecular clocks - portions of DNA that change over time willy nilly and not being preserved by natural selection. When they see some non-coding DNA that is preserved, than they take a closer look to figure out why - some if the DNA codes for RNA, but not proteins, so they took a closer look at what the RNA is doing and discovered riboswitches.
Thanks for the ping!
Indeed, Darwin's materialist creation myth is falling apart. His "tree of life" has been cut down, the neo-Darwinian "junk" DNA prediction has gone down in flames, the Lamarckian idea of acquired characteristics is making a comeback, scientists are beginning to flirt with directed/adaptive mutations, the Evo phylogenetic trees (using complete genome sequences) are contradicting known "evolutionary" histories, catastrophism is beginning to overtake uniformitarianism, they are finding dinos with the soft tissue still intact, etc, etc, etc.
I can't think of a worse time to be aboard the HMS Beagle than right now.
That's a lie. Not unexpected at all for you to be a liar, i've seen it many times before. You still owe me that apology, too.
You are not entitled to attack me for answering a question you post just because you disagree with me.
Don’t assume everyone takes the same approach as you, GodGunsGuts.
Scientists did not believe that non-coding = useless. From the very beginning, with Ohno’s 1972 paper which coined the term “junk dna”:
“these silent DNA base sequences may now be serving the useful but negative function of spacing those which have succeeded.”
(The spacing controls the timing, regulation, and expression of genes).
No geneticist thought that DNA would be so simple as to have two categories of “the useful which produces protein” and the “useless”. That’s a simplistic idea that the media and laypeople have (and which Creationists take advantage of).
I’m getting the feeling however that I could quote every geneticist from the past 40 years and it wouldn’t matter - you just don’t care, unfortunately.
The idea that there may be DNA which is BOTH non-coding AND truly useless has been a contentious idea in genetics. As I showed previously there are very many scientists that believe that functionless DNA would be eliminated by natural selection and thus at least most of it must have a role - while conversely I have read articles by Creationists that say that the “junk” dna is evidence of the fallen state of the world and thus shows that Creationism is true.
It’d be interesting to see where the “93%” figure came from - from what I’ve found, it’s currently less than 5%.
From the rest of your post I’m getting the sinking feeling that you don’t care what’s true - that you don’t actually read any science literature or any primary sources at all - and are just interested in proselytizing. It’s as if you just discovered the internet and are swimming in Creationist urban legends - and worst of all, don’t care if the material is true.
Are you actually interested in this field at all? It’s a topic I enjoy discussing, debating, and learning about - but it appears that your goals are very different.
Poor, poor little Travis. He can’t handle being contradicted, so he cries and pouts like a little baby.
PS I checked your posting history. Up till now your main fascination seems to revolve around discussions about viagra and posting pictures of half-naked women. I think I’m starting to get an inkling of why you are so angry all the time.
LMAO, another lie on your part. Do you have any capacity for honesty? You are the one who pitched a fit when I contradicted you, liar.
Seriously, don’t you feel bad for being such a hypocrite, liar, and bad Christian? Have you no shame? You are an embarasssment to FR what with your lies, etc.
That’s rich, Travis the hypocrite and liar calling the honest person a hypocrite and a liar. LOL
It’s all clear, right up in the first 20 posts. You lie.
Now apologize to me.
I apologize for not identifying you as a liar and a hypocrite earlier.
How un-Christian of you.
LOL...there you go again! The un-Christian calling the Christian un-Christian. You crack me up...LOL
And I could quote you endless Temple of Darwin “scientists” who claimed that our DNA is mostly functionless “junk”...but you just wouldn’t care, unfortunately.
As for the 93% figure, you might want to begin by reading the recent discoveries over at Project ENCODE.
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.