Scientists Vie To Break Junk DNA's Secret Code

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | Roger Highfield

[Sentis]

So you are telling me that it is ok for me to call you stupid, dishonest, that the bible is a stupid theory, that christianity has killed alot of people, and that you are arrogant. Is that what your doing giving me permission to do that because if you are I will certainly take you up on it.

[Ogmios]

You're still here.

Which is amazing, because if I had a poster who consistently posted the nonsense that you do, and attacked my posters consistently, as you do, and called my posters names consistently, as you do. I would have banned them the first month.I would watch you very closely, then given you 1 warning, then I would have banned you from ever posting on my boards again.

Your attack on Junior, which was removed on another thread, would have been a banning offense on my boards.

Sadly, I do not moderate here, so, I will just have to put up with you and your blue spew, as VadeRetro has so accurately described it.

[f.Christian]

Is your board the skinheads ... head crushers ?

[Sentis]

Nope I resort to the tactics of my enemies. You opened the flood gate on yourself.

What scientific issues? You refuse to discuss science you want to discuss technobabble goobledegook. By the way your still ignoring the question How old is the Earth/ Universe?

[f.Christian]

Why would evos like ah2 and dely2 homeschool --- aryan nation ?

[Sentis]

Oh let me tell you about Gore3000 he likes to try and wait until everyone has gone to bed so his posts are unoppossed all night and hopefully while people are at work. He is such a work of art, it is just sad it's a forgery.

[GOPJ]

Does "gene expression" deteriorate with age?

Cancer is in almost all cases a problem of improper gene expression.

[GOPJ]

Does "gene expression" deteriorate with age? Or is this a chicken and egg problem?

Cancer is in almost all cases a problem of improper gene expression.

[f.Christian]

Who are you trolling for ?

[Ogmios]

Did you really just say that?

You ignore the evidence that we post to you, calling them insults, and then claim that we can't defend the theory of evolution? When you seem to have a completely different definition of science then any of us or science does.

Hey, that's it, You change the definition and then don't tell anyone your definition, then you can fight us all day, because we are debating real science, and you are debating Gore3000 science. I get it now, thank you for that confirmation.

Now, please, give me the Gore3000 definition of science, so that we may communicate on the same level (I doubt I will understand it, but I am willing to give it a try).

So, what is Gore3000's definition of science?

Maybe, I really don't want to hear this..

[js1138]

Let's have a moment of self-revelation. How about those who care about the topic under discussion and science in general identify their viewpoint on the following "scientific fact":

The earth's age is most nearly

• 6000 years old
• 4 billion years old
• 6000 years old, but was created with an apparent age of 4 billion years

[PurVirgo]

Well, my views are quite simple actually.

The Earth is more than 25K years old. Geology, fossils, fossil fuels, etc. support that.

The complexity of DNA (ALL DNA) suggests intelligent design. Simple components (A-T-C-G) combined in billions of different configurations and strings (genes) support that. Not to mention, atomic structure and configuration suggest a high level of order not best left as "random".

I think the proper term is Old-Earth Creationist, but I don't think that's actually a way of thinking that's accepted (but it is my way of thinking).

[f.Christian]

Most people go to a movie and go on with their life ... you are stuck in cheap science flick --- off midway back lot baggy pants alley science vaudeville !

[js1138]

There are many flavors of creationist, including some who believe evolution describes the history of creation.

[gore3000]

You didnt read what I wrote.

I read it, and I refuted it. It is a waste of resources. Furthermore, if it were not for the numerous DNA not in genes, there would be no need for so many chromosomes which necessitates a very complex system to sustain it and continue replication.

The analogy to tonsils is a poor one.

No it is not. It is exactly the same nonsense which evolutionists keep claiming over and over - that this or that is a 'fossil' of prior species. It has been proven wrong before and it was proven wrong AGAIN.

It is clear that most of the junk DNA were once active retrotransposable elements.

No it is not. It cannot be clear what something is if one does not know what it is. This is just the phony science of evolutionists - you have absolutely no evidence of what that DNA is for so you cannot say any such thing. The ALU's were exactly the kind of thing the evos said was due to such unexplainable causes:

Over the past 60 million years, or so, approximately one million copies of Alu DNA repeats have accumulated in the genome of primates, in what appears to be an ongoing process. We determined the phylogenetic distribution of specific Alu (and other) DNA repeats in the genome of several primates: human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, baboon, rhesus, and macaque. At the population level studied, the majority of the repeats was found to be fixed in the primate species. Our data suggest that new Alu elements arise in unique, irreversible events, in a mechanism that seems to preclude precise excision and loss. The same insertions did not arise independently in two species. Once inserted and genetically fixed, the DNA elements are retained in all descendant lineages. The irreversible expansion of Alu s introduces a vector of time into the evolutionary process, and provides realistic (rather than statistical) answers to questions on phylogenies. In contrast to point mutations, the present distribution of individual Alu s is congruent with just one phylogeny. We submit that only irreversible and taxonomically relevant events are at the molecular basis of evolution. Most point mutations do not belong to this category. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.
From: Pub Med

Well the above has been proven to be an essential part of an organism in the process of cell replication by real science (you know, the folk that use microscopes, do real experiments, get their hands dirty, etc.). So, no, it was not of viral origin since it was always needed.

[AndrewC]

Put me on the little creationist hit list.

You take yourself too seriously.

[js1138]

You've seen the list. The folks who made it were deadly serious.

[PurVirgo]

Like a gene library?

But the question is - Behaviorally speaking, the only way to observe the outcome would be in a live, whole organism, no? Perhaps that was the object of their research.

I didn't know they could do that, cultivate an abnormal somatic cell, independent of the organism... That's fascinating.

[gore3000]

I was presenting it to demonstrate the first instance of name calling on this thread.

There was no name calling, no attack on any poster, it was a statement of fact which none of you can refute. Yes, it was dishonest of evolutionists to claim that all DNA not in genes was junk. Real scientists had known long before the genome project made it obvious that the DNA not in genes had to be of the utmost importance since genes needed to be controlled and regulated for an organism to be able to function. This is even obvious to non-scientists that genes cannot be 'on' all the time and that there therefore had to be a mechanism to turn them on and off and tell them how much. So yes, it is perfectly legitimate to call those who call themselves scientists and made such claims to be liars. And frankly, IMHO liars deserve no respect, especially professional liars.

[Ogmios]

It's not accepted by science, that is for certain, but it is a faith that has some basis in the evidence given.

I respect that, and have no problem with it at all. As long as you do not resort to attacks on those that you disagree with, can discuss it in a rational way, and can discuss it scientifically, real science that is, then we will have no trouble debating it, and having a good time while we're at it.