Posted on 03/16/2009 8:18:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
More Functional Non-Coding DNA Found
March 12, 2009 — Another finding undermines the concept of “junk DNA.” A team of scientists in Massachusetts found over a thousand functional RNA transcripts from intergenic sequences. These RNA transcripts, coming not from genes but from regions earlier thought to be non-functional, take part in diverse functions from stem cell pluripotency to HOX gene developmental processes to cell proliferation...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
We have been all over this, Allmendream. As I have already explained to you, mankind, which is made in God’s image, routinely designs in terms of nested hierarchies. So why should we be surprised that the God who made us in His own image also creates using nested hierarchies?
Junk DNA, an oxymoron. DNA all has function, and every so often use for some of it is found.
The only argument I can see for junk DNA concerns the question “Do liberals use as much DNA as people?” My research concludes “no”.
Waaaaaaaaaaaay over the head.
The vitamin c mutation is also found in guinea pigs. What type of ape is guinea pig?
The same patterns we see forming in divergent populations of known common ancestry are the same pattern we see in different species of likely common ancestry.
“As I have already explained to you” includes numerous laughable and preposterous claims, as well as cites to papers that do not say what you claim they say; and your laughable claim that it is a “logical impossibility” for humans and chimps to be more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
So much for the insight of a Creationist. It leads you to believe that the truth (humans and chimps are more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla) is a “logical impossibility”.
Laughable.
Now why is it that all primates have the same disabling frame-shift mutation of the GULO gene?
Why do primates have a nonworking GULO gene in the first place?
Were we “designed”/”created” with a nonfuntioning gene with identical disabling mutations in all primates? For what reason? Is the “creator” you envision trying to fool us by creating evidence that would comport with evolution just to test our faith?
==This “language of design” phrase you toss around is just another attempt to prove something from nothing.
The point is, God has designed His creation such that it resists materialist explanations. So much so, that the Evos, try as they might, can’t even describe the Universe or Biology without resorting to the language of DESIGN.
==Creationists” don’t HAVE “predictions”......”God did it” is not a prediction. It’s a claim, nothing more.
Where have you been? Creation scientists make all sorts of predictions about the patterns we should expect to find in nature. For instance, creation scientists predict that the non-coding regions are functional, and that the neo-Darwinian notion that “junk DNA” is functionless leftovers from our evolutionary past is false. Creation scientists predict an “Orchard of Life”, and on this basis predicted Darwin’s so-called “Tree of Life” is false, and would come crashing down. Creation cosmologists predict that our Universe is young and has a center of mass, and have made a number of specific prediction based on the same, which have been vindicated by recent observations (whereas the Evo cosmology predictions were about as far off as you could get). I could go on and on...
==But it would have to have been done in a manner such that it would fool people into believing in common descent of species.
It’s quite the other way around. The Evos have fooled themselves into believing that nested hierarchies are the product of RM + NS, even though man, who is made in God’s image, routinely DESIGNS using nested hierarchies.
==The same patterns we see forming in divergent populations of known common ancestry are the same pattern we see in different species of likely common ancestry.
Again, what of it? If God created using modular designs, then we would expect that morphologically similar organisms would have similar modular design components that are what the Evos call “conserved.” However, creation also explains why non-conserved regions are functional, whereas neo-Darwinian evolution does not. Like I said, creation is the far superior explanation, hands down.
"Something else did it" is not a prediction. It's a claim, nothing more.
I am saying that the only conceivable reason for God to do so would be to try to fool people into thinking species were related by common descent.
A different disabling mutation on any of the primates might have disabused us of the idea that it was the same disabling mutation in a common primate ancestor. Any disabling mutation would work just as well to making primates unable to synthesize their own vitamin C. Why that particular mutation in all primates?
Why the pattern of presence of absence as well as similarity and divergence of Endogenous retroviral sequences such that they would exactly comport to their being incorporated in a common ancestor and diverging at the neutral mutation rate from that point on?
Why would God make chimp and human DNA the most similar among all primates? Just to make you look like a fool when you claim that the reality that God created is a “logical impossibility”?
I “predict” that you will post yet another unscientific post tomorrow. Creation “scientists” indeed.....
==I am not saying God could not have created all animals with a pattern of similarity and divergence such that they would look exactly like they were related by common descent.
That’s an evolutionary assumption. If you assume that God created all animals, then their genetic similarity, right down to DNA being a basic component of all life, points to a common designer. In other words, the evolutionists are not being fooled by God, they are fooling themselves because of their prior committment to materialist evolution.
==A different disabling mutation on any of the primates might have disabused us of the idea that it was the same disabling mutation in a common primate ancestor. Any disabling mutation would work just as well to making primates unable to synthesize their own vitamin C. Why that particular mutation in all primates?
You might want to take some time and read the following from the Journal of Creation:
Why the shared mutations in the Hominidae exon X GULO pseudogene are not evidence for common descent
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_118-127.pdf
==Why the pattern of presence of absence as well as similarity and divergence of Endogenous retroviral sequences such that they would exactly comport to their being incorporated in a common ancestor and diverging at the neutral mutation rate from that point on?
What relevance does the neutral mutation rate even have anymore if 93%+ of the genome that was formerly considered evolutionary “junk” by the Evos is now proving to be functional (to include ERVs)?
If I base that claim on empirical evidence....I'd have a better "scientific" position than if I based it on a well-followed book.
Put it this way. I do not say your book is wrong. I say my science is my science. You can push your book all you want, just keep it out of my science class where it simply does not belong.
==I “predict” that you will post yet another unscientific post tomorrow. Creation “scientists” indeed.....
Actually, I will post yet another post tomorrow that will challenge the unscientific religious tenets of the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.
There is no reason for all primates to have the same disabling mutation of the GULO gene other than the same mutation in a common ancestor. Why would all primates be designed with a non functioning GULO gene in the first place? And if the non-functionality of the GULO gene in primates occurred after the fall of mankind, why then did the same disabling mutation occur in all primates independently?
Showing that some EVOLUTIONARILY conserved ERV sequences have function is not the same as showing that all ERV sequences have function.
Once again Creationists have whiffed the ball on the link between function and evolutionary conservation between species.
In order to break that link they need to do actual research, actual science; but creation “scientists” don't actually do any of their own science; as such they are completely dependent upon REAL scientists for any and all relevant data.
You been getting paid for posting like #10 says? If so somebody owes me some money.
Let's tell it like it is: - A sheet of used charmin has more information than a "Darwinian mechanism" could create.
Wrong!
What broke evolution beyond repair was the discovery of the DNA molecules. DNA is there to prevent evolution, and carry out God's plan for each and every creature on Earth.
Too Bad Satan, your evolution failed coming out the gate!
DNA prevents evolution. What a hopelessly inept comment. You really show your “sciency” background with that. I bet those leading geneticists you carry around in your pocket are deeply embarrassed for you.
An unalloyed nugget of creationist reasoning.
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.