No you are not, you are just speaking of the protein coding region before the stop codon. In fact genes were discovered through the proteins. By analyzing the proteins, scientists matched them up with the portion of DNA which matched the composition of the protein. Before the genome project was completed scientists believed that there were some 100,000 genes in the human genome because there were 100,000 proteins produced in the human body. When it was found that there were only 35,000 or so genes, and that 95% of the genome did not code for proteins an answer to the mystery was looked for. They found that one gene was making more than one protein through reuse of the DNA sequence by starting and ending the sequence at different points. A quite ingeneous system and certainly implying design, not evolution. In fact it implies design to such a great extenct that it is exactly the way in which old assembly language programs were constructed - subroutines would be written with different entry and exit points in order to reuse the code.
Also introns break-up the protein coding region and may themselves regulate transcription. The stop codon is not where it ends though either, you have regions further transcribed downstream which will contain information which regulates how stable the mRNA is and how efficiently it will be translated.
Quite correct and does not contradict anything I previously said. In fact, the stop codons are themselves used as coding DNA. It had been thought that DNA only coded for 20 amino acids. Recently it has been found that 3 new amino acids occur and are coded by the stop codons. Clearly there is a mechanism in the genome telling the coding DNA where to start and where to stop transcribing in adition to the other mechanisms that had been previously determined. This is more evidence of the interrelatedness of the entire genome to each other and also more evidence that the genome is not just a set of individual pieces randomly put together, but a very well organized system.
None of this is new to anyone and it is generally not what we are talking about when we are talking about Junk DNA. There are vast stretches of DNA in the genome which are nowhere near a gene or ceratinly not close enough to have any effect on gene expression via the mechanisms we know of. Perhaps there are indirect effects....?
Yes there are vast stretches of non-coding DNA in the genome (which prior to the discovery of their purpose were called 'junk DNA' by evolutionists), but these are everywhere - that is why it was so hard for the genome project to decipher where the genes were. In fact, it was done by two different organizations and the locations of genes match exactly far less than half the time. The problem of gene expression brings us to another great problem for evolutionists: a gene does not work unless it is told to work. All cells have the exact same set of genes, the exact same DNA - all 3 billion base pairs are in every cell (with the exception of the sex cells, blood cells and another I forgot). The different cells in the body perform different functions, behave differently and have a different physical structure because they are ordered by the controlling program in the organism to express different genes.
I realize I didnt do a good enough job clarifying my earlier point in regards to this. It has been known for some time that much of the human genome was "junk" (although the genome project gave us a much better estimate of how much of this there was in relation to the coding "non-junk"). There are quite a few studies if I remember correctly showing how enhancer elements can be found "intronnically" as well as in the conventional upstream portion of the start of transcription. For the most part these vast stretches of DNA which are non coding STILL dont advertise any obvious function. Currently researchers are investigating of those repeats are important for anything.
It had been thought that DNA only coded for 20 amino acids. Recently it has been found that 3 new amino acids occur and are coded by the stop codons.......This is more evidence of the interrelatedness of the entire genome to each other and also more evidence that the genome is not just a set of individual pieces randomly put together, but a very well organized system.
I am aware of the study you are referring to and I believe this is a very special case in very specific microorganisms. Recombinant DNA technology wouldn't work if this was ubiquitous. Your point about the complexity of the genome is appreciated though.
Yes there are vast stretches of non-coding DNA in the genome (which prior to the discovery of their purpose were called 'junk DNA' by evolutionists)
I am not sure how elucidating the function for junk DNA is the holy grail for intelligent design. It would merely imply nature is a bit more efficient than we had previously thought.
Oh my god. Are you really claiming that multiple entry points, and overlapping code that must be executed backwards to function is an example of good design???
If you ever came to work at our shop, I would never, EVER let you write so much as a macro! :-)