Replies

If that were true, you would think the hundreds of thousands of biologists

... do not care a hoot about Darwinism. Else they would not be constantly showing it to be false - as I and others have shown on these threads. A good example is that almost as soon as evolutinists postulated that the DNA not in genes was junk biologists shot it down and PROVED that it was not. Only a small band of fake 'scientists' sucking on the government teat pay any attention to it. In addition, science is about truth, not about authority. The very attempt of evolutionists to turn it into an ideology shows that evolution is not science.

You have absolutely no freakin' idea of what you are talking about (which is par for the course). Junk DNA has nothing to do with the validity of evolution; you simply grab onto something that sounds good and run with it. Your knowledge of the physical sciences and of mathematics falls somewhere at or below the high school level. Your theology is warped beyond recognition. "Evolutionists" comprise just about the entire body of the world's biological community; no biologist has ever published anything that brings the theory of evolution into doubt. Stuff is published all the time that modifies bits and pieces of the theory, but that's all it is -- modification. There has been no refutation of evolution. Nothing published has ever "proven evolution wrong." You are living in a fantasy world because you cannot face reality.

For lurkers: I have been researching because it is now apparent to me that conditional operations at the genetic level requires symbolization (e.g. “if this [acquired data] is equal to that [symbol] then …”) Here are some things I’ve found, that might be of interest to anyone following this research:

Language-like features in junk DNA: Transposable element footprints in the genome?

The presence of extra-thymic selection processes for self/non-self discrimination is amply documented in the literature, though the mechanisms underlying these processes are still unclear. We postulated that peripheral self/non-self discrimination can be modelled by the response of a T cell to a rapid change in the number density of its MHC/peptide ligand. In this model changes in the concentration of MHC/peptide complexes that occur at a particular rate are regarded as being potentially 'dangerous' to the organism, and hence trigger T cell activation…

We are currently in the process of implementing a computer simulation of our model and will be testing its performance in distinguishing arbitrary non-self sequences from a pool of artificially generated self sequences. Our model, which effectively comprises a local definition of self / non-self could have profound implications for autoimmune diseases…

and … One of the most striking characteristics of many biochemical pathways is their complexity. This complexity is manifested principally through the number of routes connecting the various species in the pathway. In particular, it is often observed that there are various routes that an organism can use to manufacture a particular metabolite or species. This facility to switch biosynthetic routes confers considerable robustness to an organism since it is not reliant on a single route to some key compound. Robustness can be further increased by the presence of feedback loops within a biosynthetic pathway…

In addition to CCT there is compelling evidence in the literature that many enzymes involved in lipid biosynthesis are modulated by the membrane composition. This led us to postulate that feedback through membrane stored elastic energy could provide a common control mechanism that underlies the homeostatic control of membrane lipid composition/properties….

Our results show that introducing feedback does indeed increase robustness dramatically. We are currently comparing the type of feedback (i.e. positive or negative) which our models predict for the various steps, with literature data on the modulation of the individual enzymes by lipid composition. Once the model is validated against experimental data, we will conduct a series of 'what if' experiments aimed at understanding changes in membrane lipid composition following specific types of perturbation, e.g. the administration of anti-neoplastic ether lipids.

And here is a fascinating article, whose first conclusion is that junk DNA is not junk as it contains finite amount of algorithmic information. IMHO, that conclusion should be taken especially strong in light of the Chiatin definition of randomness:

Complexity International - Brief Comments on Junk DNA. Is it really junk? (pdf)