"The case for junk DNA"

[Jorge]

Interesting, it does seem you are incapable of saying or writing the 3 words: "I don't know". Much the same as "I was wrong", and "I am sorry".

Interesting indeed - that comment shows the 'stuff' that you're made of. Watch ... In this very thread, Post # 100, you find my words, "... I don't know enough at this time."

Your hatred of God's Word as it was written and intended to communicate blinds you to the truth and, as a result, gives you a distorted, false view of the world including people. You are to be pitied, O-Mudd.

The rest of your post was ... uhmmm ... ignored on the grounds of uselessness.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Erm. Jorgy pal, that one is crammed full of metaphysic/worldview/religion, just like the other one.

Erm. Again Jorgy pal, that one is basaed on observable, testable phenomena, just like the first one.

The red one started with the Fall. The brown one doesn't exist.

Near as I can tell.

K54

[klaus54]

Interesting indeed - that comment shows the 'stuff' that you're made of. Watch ... In this very thread, Post # 100, you find my words, "... I don't know enough at this time."

Your hatred of God's Wordas it was written and intended to communicate blinds you to the truth and, as a result, gives you a distorted, false view of the world including people. You are to be pitied, O-Mudd.

The rest of your post was ... uhmmm ... ignored on the grounds of uselessness.

Jorge

Drop the "at this time", and you'll have a true statement.

By God's Word -- do you mean the Logos or do you mean your deification of a book containing a story meant to be interpreted "literally" yet you can't even get through Ge 1:2-3 with an unambiguous, clear, plain, straightforward reading?

K54

[klaus54]

...

Yup, my money is squarely on the table regarding my position (Biblical Creation) and prediction on "junk DNA" - is yours?

...

Jorge

Confused.

I thought you admitted you accept the existence of "junk" DNA but believed it was a result of a degrading genome from the effects of the Fall.

And if your position is the highfalutin term "Biblical Creation", why can't you get through Ge 1:2-3 with an unambiguous reading?

K54

[Ucchedavāda]

Roland, with all due respect and as nicely as I can say it, you don't know what you're talking about.

So I wake up this morning and find .... here's an excerpt: "Once again, the exquisite bioengineering in the genome as anticipated by the Biblical view of creation has prevailed over the evolutionary predictions of useless junk littering our chromosomes."

Yup, my money is squarely on the table regarding my position (Biblical Creation) and prediction on "junk DNA" - is yours?

Article here: http://www.icr.org/article/8170/

Allow me to kindly advise you people to give up on your folly.
You're just going to keep falling further and further behind.

Jorge

The article you link to talks about the role of some long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in regulating gene-expression in certain tissues. However, using GENCODE release v19 as a reference, the exons of all known lncRNA only constitute around 22mb. This amounts to roughly 0.71% of the human genome. More types of functional sequences like these undoubtedly remain to be discovered, but there is a very long way to most of the genome being functional.

I am also somewhat curious as to how the position you are taking could possibly be falsified. How, in your view, could you establish that a region of a genome was non-functional?

[Jorge]

The article you link to talks about the role of some long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in regulating gene-expression in certain tissues. However, using GENCODE release v19 as a reference, the exons of all known lncRNA only constitute around 22mb. This amounts to roughly 0.71% of the human genome. More types of functional sequences like these undoubtedly remain to be discovered, but there is a very long way to most of the genome being functional.

I am also somewhat curious as to how the position you are taking could possibly be falsified. How, in your view, could you establish that a region of a genome was non-functional?

My general answer to your points above is simply that, as you probably are aware, very, very little is known about how the genome 'works'. The nucleotide sequences of many organisms (including humans) have been mapped out for many years, and we also know what certain (a relatively insignificant amount) DNA segments determine or control.

Those relatively miniscule things aside, GENERALLY SPEAKING no one has a clue as to how the entire genome works ... no one knows how different sections interact or even if they do interact ... no one knows all of the codes that are in operation or how these codes work with each other or if they do at all ... no one knows what other parts of an organism play a role in determining and controlling the organism as a whole or how these other parts interact with DNA in the overall function ... on and on and on and on and on ... I trust you get my point (?).

As for how my position could be falsified: two comments. First, given the near-absolute level of ignorance on this matter (which I've barely outlined above), the same question may be asked of the reigning paradigm (Evolutionism). But all is not lost: Second, I simply say let's continue making observations and trying to understand what we are seeing. My position - stated several times now - is that the more we observe and learn, the more we will find that what was once regarded as "junk" will be discovered to be functional and essential - NOT "junk".

Furthermore, if I were a practicing research biologist, my research would be based on my worldview, i.e., I would start with the premise that essentially all of the DNA was NOT junk and from that premise carry on my research towards discovering what that function is. I would bet my career (entire life's work) that I would discover more things in the affirmative than the Evolutionary biologist would find in the negative (said biologist begins with the premise that most of the DNA is "junk"). So this is actually a positive research direction making for good science. Note, however, that it is based on an ideological belief (every bit as much as the Evolutionists are based on their beliefs).

By the way, there is also a possibility that there is redundancy built into the system, i.e., that some of the DNA may be 'deleted' with no apparent effect (making it appear that the deleted portion was "junk") but that is only because another part of the DNA 'takes over' that function. If you think that this is implausible or 'begging' on my part, remind yourself of the proven fact that when certain parts of the brain become damaged there is a 're-routing' of sorts so that the function of the lost part is now performed by another part. The wonders of God's creation are unending.

Jorge

[klaus54]

...

Furthermore, if I were a practicing research biologist, my research would be based on my worldview, i.e., I would start with the premise that essentially all of the DNA was NOT junk and from that premise carry on my research towards discovering what that function is. I would bet my career (entire life's work) that I would discover more things in the affirmative than the Evolutionary biologist would find in the negative (said biologist begins with the premise that most of the DNA is "junk"). So this is actually a positive research direction making for good science. Note, however, that it is based on an ideological belief (every bit as much as the Evolutionists are based on their beliefs).

By the way, there is also a possibility that there is redundancy built into the system, i.e., that some of the DNA may be 'deleted' with no apparent effect (making it appear that the deleted portion was "junk") but that is only because another part of the DNA 'takes over' that function. If you think that this is implausible or 'begging' on my part, remind yourself of the proven fact that when certain parts of the brain become damaged there is a 're-routing' of sorts so that the function of the lost part is now performed by another part. The wonders of God's creation are unending.

Jorge

Wasn't that the "ideology" of genetic researchers at the beginning? The "junk" was unexpected. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

Same deal with Deep Time. The expectation of the 18th century geologists was to find evidence of the Noahic Fludde. Evidence of multiple episodes with a time frame much larger than 6,000 years was a "surprise".

Evidence drives science, not ideology. The converse is how creationism works. But you know that already.

K54

[Jorge]

Wasn't that the "ideology" of genetic researchers at the beginning? The "junk" was unexpected. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

Same deal with Deep Time. The expectation of the 18th century geologists was to find evidence of the Noahic Fludde. Evidence of multiple episodes with a time frame much larger than 6,000 years was a "surprise".

Evidence drives science, not ideology. The converse is how creationism works. But you know that already.

K54

Nope - you are merely employing the REV (Revised Evolutionary Version) regarding the history of "junk DNA" and deep time.

On the first there were hundreds if not thousands of articles, papers, etc. loudly touting "junk DNA" as "proof" of Evolutionary history. What your blinded fanaticism for Evolutionism prohibits you from realizing (much less accepting) is that "junk" is mostly a matter of interpretation / ignorance. Not knowing how something works - the role it plays; its primary, secondary, tertiary or other level functions - does not make it "junk". It is given that interpretation, and the 'scientific' community accepts it as such, because it serves the reigning ideological paradigm - Evolutionism. Our combined ignorance is today great enough that Evolutionists can get away with calling it "junk". But that is changing - slowly but surely. For instance, Evolutionists will ask, "So what is its function?" When no one can answer they say, "Aha! You see, it's junk!" Refer now to my statement above. A few years go by, critical function for this DNA is discovered, and the Evolutionists quickly and quietly revise history in order to hide the goof caused by their Evolutionary premise. But whatever the evidence, Evolutionists will NEVER abandon their religious beliefs in Evolutionism.

Exactly the same thing happened with the so-called "vestigial organs". Once many of these were also loudly touted as "proof of Evolution" - "discarded remnants of an Evolutionary history". Remember that? [Of course you won't remember - it wouldn't serve your cause to remember] Well, as years went by the list of vestigial organs got shorter and shorter and shorter until it's all but vanished today. Did this FACT cause Evolutionists to concede - or even to consider the possibility - that theirs is a FAILED paradigm? Are you kidding?

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you disregarded the more substantive points of my previous post - an entirely predictable outcome.

On the second (deep time), I can think of no better source than Mortenson's and Ury's book, Coming to Grips with Genesis. It presents a very clear history of the actual introduction of 'deep time' with hundreds of references. 'Nuff said.

Now go away.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Nope - you are merely employing the REV (Revised Evolutionary Version) regarding the history of "junk DNA" and deep time.

On the first there were hundreds if not thousands of articles, papers, etc. loudly touting "junk DNA" as "proof" of Evolutionary history. What your blinded fanaticism for Evolutionism prohibits you from realizing (much less accepting) is that "junk" is mostly a matter of interpretation / ignorance. Not knowing how something works - the role it plays; its primary, secondary, tertiary or other level functions - does not make it "junk". It is given that interpretation, and the 'scientific' community accepts it as such, because it serves the reigning ideological paradigm - Evolutionism. Our combined ignorance is today great enough that Evolutionists can get away with calling it "junk". But that is changing - slowly but surely. For instance, Evolutionists will ask, "So what is its function?" When no one can answer they say, "Aha! You see, it's junk!" Refer now to my statement above. A few years go by, critical function for this DNA is discovered, and the Evolutionists quickly and quietly revise history in order to hide the goof caused by their Evolutionary premise. But whatever the evidence, Evolutionists will NEVER abandon their religious beliefs in Evolutionism.

Exactly the same thing happened with the so-called "vestigial organs". Once many of these were also loudly touted as "proof of Evolution" - "discarded remnants of an Evolutionary history". Remember that? [Of course you won't remember - it wouldn't serve your cause to remember] Well, as years went by the list of vestigial organs got shorter and shorter and shorter until it's all but vanished today. Did this FACT cause Evolutionists to concede - or even to consider the possibility - that theirs is a FAILED paradigm? Are you kidding?

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you disregarded the more substantive points of my previous post - an entirely predictable outcome.

On the second (deep time), I can think of no better source than Mortenson's and Ury's book, Coming to Grips with Genesis. It presents a very clear history of the actual introduction of 'deep time' with hundreds of references. 'Nuff said.

Now go away.

Jorge

So sorry -- Not 'nuff for me.

I didn't ask you about Deep Time. I stated that it was unexpected by early geologists. It was a discovery, and I was using it as an analogy for the discovery of "junk" DNA. Once discovered it became a topic for research, and further research is refining the results.

And I was asking you a specific question regarding your position. It had nothing to do with disregarding the substantive points of your posts.

The question had nothing to do with vestigial structures. If you want to discuss those from the standpoint of "Biblical Creation", then please do start a thread. In fact maybe I will.

BTW, "revising history" as you call it, is EXACTLY what science does!

Please do try to keep up.

K54

[Jorge]

So sorry -- Not 'nuff for me.

I didn't ask you about Deep Time. I stated that it was unexpected by early geologists. It was a discovery, and I was using it as an analogy for the discovery of "junk" DNA. Once discovered it became a topic for research, and further research is refining the results.

And I was asking you a specific question regarding your position. It had nothing to do with disregarding the substantive points of your posts.

The question had nothing to do with vestigial structures. If you want to discuss those from the standpoint of "Biblical Creation", then please do start a thread. In fact maybe I will.

BTW, "revising history" as you call it, is EXACTLY what science does!

Please do try to keep up.

K54

Huh???

You must have joined Roland at the ol' vodka cabinet.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Interesting indeed - that comment shows the 'stuff' that you're made of. Watch ... In this very thread, Post # 100, you find my words, "... I don't know enough at this time."

Your hatred of God's Word as it was written and intended to communicate blinds you to the truth and, as a result, gives you a distorted, false view of the world including people. You are to be pitied, O-Mudd.

The rest of your post was ... uhmmm ... ignored on the grounds of uselessness.

Jorge

Poor Jorge. He can't face the arguments, so he just slams the person.

Your "I don't know" reference is a cop out to avoid facing the obvious, not an admission of an actual limitation in yourself. I don't consider them even remotely similar.

The highlighted comment is insane.

A) You are talking about a difference of opinion about how to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis, not the entirety of the Bible.
B) You are equating your opinion the the unequivical truth in the matter
C) You are equating a difference of opinion over interpretation with actual hatred of the text itself.

Aside from the obvious attempt to demean (I am a Christian after all, no Christian 'Hates' God's word), you need to take a step back and find a way out of what is becoming an increasingly intractable position in which you are the only 'true' Christian based on your particular view of Genesis. You are following a very bad path Jorge.

Jim


Jim

[klaus54]

Huh???

You must have joined Roland at the ol' vodka cabinet.

Jorge

You're not getting off that easy. Try again, reading for comprehension this time. It's not that hard if you try.

So sorry -- Not 'nuff for me.

I didn't ask you about Deep Time. I stated that it was unexpected by early geologists. It was a discovery, and I was using it as an analogy for the discovery of "junk" DNA. Once discovered it became a topic for research, and further research is refining the results.

And I was asking you a specific question regarding your position. It had nothing to do with disregarding the substantive points of your posts.

The question had nothing to do with vestigial structures. If you want to discuss those from the standpoint of "Biblical Creation", then please do start a thread. In fact maybe I will.

BTW, "revising history" as you call it, is EXACTLY what science does!

Please do try to keep up.

K54

[Jorge]

Poor Jorge. He can't face the arguments, so he just slams the person.

Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK !!!

Your "I don't know" reference is a cop out to avoid facing the obvious, not an admission of an actual limitation in yourself. I don't consider them even remotely similar.

The highlighted comment is insane.

A) You are talking about a difference of opinion about how to interpret the opening chapters of Genesis, not the entirety of the Bible.
B) You are equating your opinion the the unequivical truth in the matter
C) You are equating a difference of opinion over interpretation with actual hatred of the text itself.

Aside from the obvious attempt to demean (I am a Christian after all, no Christian 'Hates' God's word), you need to take a step back and find a way out of what is becoming an increasingly intractable position in which you are the only 'true' Christian based on your particular view of Genesis. You are following a very bad path Jorge.

Jim

Say whatever you wish, O-Mudd, the proof will always be in the pudding. As a Biblical Creationist, I do my very best to take God's Word at face value, namely, 'literal' reading, 'literal' interpretation, no extra-biblical insertions and always using God's Word combined with a sound, time-proven exegesis/hermeneutic as the primary source to interpret God's Word. I know well and try very hard to always have in mind the importance of keeping God's Word 'pure' - with as little of man's (corrupt and evil) influence out of it as possible.

You, on the other hand, take huge literary liberties with God's Word - specifically, you add, delete, distort, re-interpret, allow extra-biblical sources to trump the Bible itself, attribute literal communication as "figurative, poetic, allegory" and, last but not least, refer to God's Word as "the writings of a primitive culture". In essence you allow for man's edicts - his "wisdom, vain philosophies, opinions and science-falsely-so-called" - to supersede God's Word whenever this promotes your chosen beliefs.

Based on the above, anyone with at least two connected neurons should be able to determine if my claim that people such as yourself "hate God's Word" has any merit. It does have merit, of course, but I wouldn't expect you to admit as such - not in a million years. Until you come to grips with that fact you will remain lost in your errors.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK !!!



Say whatever you wish, O-Mudd, the proof will always be in the pudding. As a Biblical Creationist, I do my very best to take God's Word at face value, namely, 'literal' reading, 'literal' interpretation, no extra-biblical insertions and always using God's Word combined with a sound, time-proven exegesis/hermeneutic as the primary source to interpret God's Word. I know well and try very hard to always have in mind the importance of keeping God's Word 'pure' - with as little of man's (corrupt and evil) influence out of it as possible.

You, on the other hand, take huge literary liberties with God's Word - specifically, you add, delete, distort, re-interpret, allow extra-biblical sources to trump the Bible itself, attribute literal communication as "figurative, poetic, allegory" and, last but not least, refer to God's Word as "the writings of a primitive culture". In essence you allow for man's edicts - his "wisdom, vain philosophies, opinions and science-falsely-so-called" - to supersede God's Word whenever this promotes your chosen beliefs.

Based on the above, anyone with at least two connected neurons should be able to determine if my claim that people such as yourself "hate God's Word" has any merit. It does have merit, of course, but I wouldn't expect you to admit as such - not in a million years. Until you come to grips with that fact you will remain lost in your errors.

Jorge

The "pot-kettle-back" snark at Jim is very close to a lie. Do be careful.

You have an extremely strident belief in your Bible interpretation. You should be very careful about being so brittle. It's not good for your personal faith and the way you share your faith with others. It's also a very strange position since you are unable to give a non-ambiguous literal reading of the first Genesis creation story. But, you're always welcome to return to my thread and give it the old college try.

Why the cognitive dissonance?

BTW, you owe Jim an apology. I'm confident that the reasonable readers of this thread would agree. Should I start a poll?

Now put on your thinking cap, get down to business, and answer questions with content not slurs.

Thank you.

K54

P.S. Hey, i just noticed you put "literal" in quotes. Interesting. Why?

[oxmixmudd]

Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK ... Kettle-Pot-BLACK !!!



Say whatever you wish, O-Mudd, the proof will always be in the pudding. As a Biblical Creationist, I do my very best to take God's Word at face value, namely, 'literal' reading, 'literal' interpretation, no extra-biblical insertions and always using God's Word combined with a sound, time-proven exegesis/hermeneutic as the primary source to interpret God's Word. I know well and try very hard to always have in mind the importance of keeping God's Word 'pure' - with as little of man's (corrupt and evil) influence out of it as possible.

You, on the other hand, take huge literary liberties with God's Word - specifically, you add, delete, distort, re-interpret, allow extra-biblical sources to trump the Bible itself, attribute literal communication as "figurative, poetic, allegory" and, last but not least, refer to God's Word as "the writings of a primitive culture". In essence you allow for man's edicts - his "wisdom, vain philosophies, opinions and science-falsely-so-called" - to supersede God's Word whenever this promotes your chosen beliefs.

Based on the above, anyone with at least two connected neurons should be able to determine if my claim that people such as yourself "hate God's Word" has any merit. It does have merit, of course, but I wouldn't expect you to admit as such - not in a million years. Until you come to grips with that fact you will remain lost in your errors.

Jorge

And so we have second post in a row where you have ignored the scientific issues AND have spent the entire time telling my how terrible I am as a Christian and lauded your own wonderfully perfect and better position before Him.

As I understand the Christian faith, we are not bound under law or tradition. Especially in the Protestant tradition. So assuming one of us has it wrong on this particular issue, it really doesn't matter in that our position before God is determined by what Christ has done, not our capacity to 'figure it all out'. There are issues of the heart that could actually cast one of us as 'better' or 'worse' than the other in a sense, but these would be issues of humility before God and the genuineness of our desire to please Him and seek Him. These are in point of fact far more important than our actual position on this issue (time frame/method of creation), but are simply elements that are for the most part opaque to us (even sometimes as it applies to our own self), and especially as it applies to this issue.

And indeed, you do try to paint one of us as having the 'correct' heart and the other the 'bad/evil' heart. I prefer not to do that Jorge. Before God, we are equal, Christ is our savior. I can't decide that since you don't see things my way, it must be you that has the 'evil' heart and is not 'listening' to God. I've learned the hard way it just doesn't work that way.

So can we leave the attempt at figuring out which of us is 'doing things God's way' out of the discussion. There is no information available to either of us that defines any sort of sinful behavior that would be worthy of dominating the discussion.

And seeing as how this is the "Natural Science" Forum, would it be possible to discuss science or science related theological issues as oppose to which of us is the 'bad' fellow and which is the 'good' fellow?

So, back to the issue at hand. Do you have any clue how to explain the observed correlation between theory and observation other than "it is happy coincidence"? Can you make a case for YEC that involves science beyond the fact that in any scientific theory, there is always some small possibility the data which lead to the conclusion is in some way misleading.

And to that point, why do you think it is reasonable to assume that the majority of the hard sciences whose principles are applied to the historical state of the planet and universe would all point to an age far greater than 10,000 years and an evolutionary history of life if in fact that were NOT the physical reality of the same? How many stacks of data of that form (i.e. "yes is looks like this implies the universe is really old, but there is always this really tiny possibility it might be wrong") can you (or more importantly, any rational, thinking person) tolerate before you or they will make a reasonable visit to the idea your take on how to interpret scripture might be wrong?


Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?


Jim