Study shows "junk" DNA builds visible traits

[gabriel]

Again, when your world view is "God created just like He said He
did" along with "I have faith in God" and "I am not ashamed of
the truth of God," as opposed to "Nothing did it," and we use the
scientific method starting from the truth, we can see that
evidence continues to support the truth of God: Science continues
to contradict various claims made by evolutionists, whose world
view is "nothing did it" and "natural processes are all there
is."

Psalms 90:1-2 A Prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord,
thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
[2] Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever
thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from
everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

http://www.icr.org/article/5352/

Study Shows 'Junk' DNA Builds Visible Traits
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Proteins do most of the required metabolic tasks within each of
the trillions of cells in the human body. However, only about
four percent of human DNA contains coded instructions that
specify proteins. So what is the purpose of the remaining 96 or
so percent?

For a long time, evolutionary biologists have maintained that
this vast majority of DNA, also called "junk" DNA, is really only
there for "evolution" to rummage through as it develops new
creatures out of old ones.

But an ever-increasing accumulation of data contradicts this
longstanding story. Study after study, beginning in the late
1990s and continuing in full force today, has revealed that what
was once considered a waste bin of genetic material instead
performs vital cellular functions.

An especially notable discovery came in 2007 with the publication
of the first direct analysis of a small segment of this majority
"non-coding" DNA.1 The study's authors were shocked to discover
that almost all of the DNA not used to make proteins was
nevertheless being used by cells.

Now, a follow-up analysis has given more clues about what those
uses are. Appearing in the journal Genome Research, the study
strongly supports the idea that "an individual's phenotype [or
set of visible traits] is heavily influenced by SNV's that do not
change protein sequence."2 SNV's are "single nucleotide
variants," or DNA differences between genomes.

This research examined trends derived from studying each minute
difference in DNA's "lettering" sequence between one person each
of Chinese, European, and Yoruba (West African) ancestry. The
researchers found that certain small differences in non-coding
DNA have a profound influence on human phenotypes.

Before obtaining these results, the researchers knew from recent
studies that "many critically important functions are found
outside protein-coding exons."2 They knew that this non-coding
DNA was crucial for regulating cell processes, as well as for an
organism's proper development from egg to adult. But since the
precise functions of this DNA have been "largely elusive," the
researchers sought more detailed answers. And they found that
much of the physical uniqueness that defines each person stems
from that individual's non-coding, so-called "junk" DNA.

In other words, they found a new function for this DNA. This adds
more evidence to support the conclusion that the majority of DNA
is useful. Where does this leave broad-scale evolution's
prediction of and dependence on non-coding DNA as a waste bin of
genetic bits? In the waste bin, of course.3

References

1.The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and
analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the
ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 447 (7146): 799-816.
2.Goode, D. L. et al. 2010. Evolutionary constraint facilitates
interpretation of genetic variation in resequenced human genomes.
Genome Research. 20 (3): 301-310.
3.Perhaps this is why the troubling implications of the study's
results for evolutionary hypothesis are not addressed in the
Genome Research paper.

[Bob LeChevalier]

Post by gabriel
In other words, they found a new function for this DNA. This adds
more evidence to support the conclusion that the majority of DNA
is useful. Where does this leave broad-scale evolution's
prediction of and dependence on non-coding DNA as a waste bin of
genetic bits?

Evolution neither predicts nor depends on the presence or absence of
"non-coding DNA".

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
***@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

[s***@gnostheos.org]

Post by Bob LeChevalier

Post by gabriel
In other words, they found a new function for this DNA. This adds
more evidence to support the conclusion that the majority of DNA
is useful. Where does this leave broad-scale evolution's
prediction of and dependence on non-coding DNA as a waste bin of
genetic bits?

Evolution neither predicts nor depends on the presence or absence of
"non-coding DNA".

Non-Coding simply means that it does not code for protiens.

Post by Bob LeChevalier
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist

Evolutionists made a prediction based on evolution that DNA, if
created via a random process of mutations and natural selection,
would have large regions of "junk". That is DNA that is vestigial.
Hence, the non-coding regions (regions that do not code for
proteins) were prime candidates. However, after more study they
realise that their predictions were wrong. So their theory makes
incorrect predictions, thereby falsifying the theory. No, the
Theory of Evolution is a religion, not a scientific theory, so
they cling to their faith, and refuse to admit maybe their
paradigm is wrong.

Why don't you grow a fingernail out of your forehead? You
have the DNA to encode the keratin in the skin cells on
your fore head. Well its those pesky junk regions. It seems
that DNA is more complicated than what the evolutionists
imagine.

Don't fret, you are just as smart as Darwin. After all
at that time microscopes were not powerful enough
to see the organelles of a cell. They seemed like
little blobs, and blobs can surely happen by chance.
People even said that if something as complicated
as an electric motor was in a cell, then evolution
would be falsfied. Then people got better microscopes
and studied flagellum....
http://creation.com/the-amazing-motorized-germ

Evolutionists play the same game over and over.
Make a straw man out of the world so that
evolution could have created it. When people
realise the world is more complicated than the
straw man, it is decades later, and evolutionists
have a new straw man and no one remembers
the old straw man. DNA is claimed to be
encoding and non-encoding regions, with the
non-encoding regions declared junk or vestiges
of the past. However the strawman will not
hold up over time. Don't worry a new spin
will be created, and no one will have to admit
they were wrong.

Sorry, but evolution, as preached, does require large
regions of junk left over from our evolutionary past.

I really wish we had better science education.

You see DNA is information. To understand information
you need to understand intelligence, and that might
lead to studying intelligent design. OH NO!

Since you claim to be a linguist. Think of DNA as
a language. It has an encoding algorithm, and
decoding algorithm (Grammar perhaps?). Information
is stored via an encoding mechanism, and is
read via decoding algorithm. In order to create an
intelligent message, such as the DNA of a person,
you need information, an encoding algorithm, and
a decoding algorithm. (The people at SETI have
the same problem.) The key here is the source
of the information. Where did it come from?
Random chance does not produce novels or
human DNA. I hope that this is self evident. A
persons DNA is far more complicated than a
novel, which no one would beleive came about
by random strings of characters, but you are
willing to beleive that DNA did.

You could even think in terms of a computer
program. You have a data segment, and
instructions. So at a minimum DNA would need
these two kinds of regions. Think of the
encoding regions as the data segment, and
the non-encoding regions as the instruction
region. You need control (which protiens
to create), regulation (how much to create),
and other instructions otherwise you would
have fingernails growing out of your
forehead. It is all much more complicated
than most people imagine.

Suppose a higher intelligence sends us a
message that they used their intelligence to
design. How, without studying, information,
intelligence, or intelligent design is SETI
going to be able to distinguish a message
from LGM from the repeating pattern of
a pulsar? (Do you see how your religious
dogma has hurt scientific investigation?)
ALL SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS
ARE FRUITFUL, even if it is just to prove
the hypothesis wrong, but for that we need
honest investigators willing to admit the
theory is wrong! In searching for a
coherent encoded message from LGM
via SETI, evolutionists are infact
looking for an intelligently desgined
message from the other side of the
universe when they are infact carrying
the largest intelligently designed message
ever created inside each and every
cell nucleus.

I wonder why people reject one system or
philosophy only to accept another that is
even more preposterous. I accept Christianity,
because I find it to be the least preposterous
of all explanations of life.

[Bob LeChevalier]

Post by s***@gnostheos.org

Post by Bob LeChevalier

Post by gabriel
In other words, they found a new function for this DNA. This adds
more evidence to support the conclusion that the majority of DNA
is useful. Where does this leave broad-scale evolution's
prediction of and dependence on non-coding DNA as a waste bin of
genetic bits?

Evolution neither predicts nor depends on the presence or absence of
"non-coding DNA".

Non-Coding simply means that it does not code for protiens.

I know what it means.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
Evolutionists made a prediction based on evolution that DNA, if
created via a random process of mutations and natural selection,
would have large regions of "junk".

Cite, please.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
That is DNA that is vestigial.

Vestigial of what?

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
Hence, the non-coding regions (regions that do not code for
proteins) were prime candidates. However, after more study they
realise that their predictions were wrong.

Actually not. Even if some, or a large chunk, of non-coding DNA has a
useful biological purpose, that doesn't mean that there isn't
"vestigial" DNA there as well. Indeed the two may be the same thing,
if "vestigial DNA" were converted to a new use, which is the sort of
thing that often has happened through evolution.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
So their theory makes incorrect predictions, thereby falsifying the theory.

Wrong.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
Why don't you grow a fingernail out of your forehead? You
have the DNA to encode the keratin in the skin cells on
your fore head. Well its those pesky junk regions. It seems
that DNA is more complicated than what the evolutionists
imagine.

You have no clue what "evolutionists imagine".

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
Sorry, but evolution, as preached, does require large
regions of junk left over from our evolutionary past.

So, it doesn't. Indeed, an excess amount of true junk would seem to
be evolutionarily disadvantageous.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
I really wish we had better science education.

You could use a little.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
You see DNA is information.

DNA is a chemical.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
To understand information you need to understand intelligence,

Not hardly.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
Since you claim to be a linguist. Think of DNA as
a language. It has an encoding algorithm, and
decoding algorithm (Grammar perhaps?). Information
is stored via an encoding mechanism, and is
read via decoding algorithm. In order to create an
intelligent message, such as the DNA of a person,

Who says that the DNA of a person is an intelligent message?

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
The key here is the source of the information. Where did it come from?
Random chance does not produce novels or
human DNA.

No it doesn't. But random processes may be involved.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
I hope that this is self evident. A
persons DNA is far more complicated than a
novel, which no one would beleive came about
by random strings of characters, but you are
willing to beleive that DNA did.

DNA did not come from random strings of characters. Present DNA came
from a small number of random CHANGES in existing strings of
characters, which had already proven themselves workable by producing
offspring. Each generation's set of random changes is tested, and
those that fail to reproduce are lost, so only sufficiently successful
changes survive.

Everyone's body experiences an average of 1 mutation per year, quite
randomly. Yet despite a couple of dozen random mutations, a large
percentage of humans survive and reproduce successfully. Their
offspring have a random component to their DNA.

Furthermore, the biochemistry of every cell operates under
thermodynamics, which consists of random processes following certain
laws.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
You could even think in terms of a computer
program. You have a data segment, and
instructions. So at a minimum DNA would need
these two kinds of regions. Think of the
encoding regions as the data segment, and
the non-encoding regions as the instruction
region. You need control (which protiens
to create), regulation (how much to create),
and other instructions otherwise you would
have fingernails growing out of your
forehead. It is all much more complicated
than most people imagine.

Actually, in one sense, it is quite simple, being that it is all done
based on a 4 letter genetic code. But of course simple patterns
repeated on an enormous scale can produce apparently complex results,
as anyone who has looked at a Mandelbrot image can observe.

Post by s***@gnostheos.org
I wonder why people reject one system or
philosophy only to accept another that is
even more preposterous. I accept Christianity,
because I find it to be the least preposterous
of all explanations of life.

I accept Christianity, but recognize that Christianity isn't an
explanation of life.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
***@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org