Page 1 of 3
Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:14 pm
by SeattleGriz
One of my favorite topics, as the Intelligent Design field has been calling out Darwinists for years on their usage of this term to confuse many Americans on the truth.
Now The Encode project proves the ID field correct in their assumption.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... dna-encode" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as "junk" are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday.
It is the most significant shift in scientists' understanding of the way our DNA operates since the sequencing of the human genome in 2000, when it was discovered that our bodies are built and controlled by far fewer genes than expected. Now the next generation of geneticists have updated that picture.
For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books.
Encode is the largest single update to the data from the human genome since its final draft was published in 2003 and the first systematic attempt to work out what the DNA outside protein-coding genes does. The researchers found that it is far from useless: within these regions they have identified more than 10,000 new "genes" that code for components that control how the more familiar protein-coding genes work. Up to 18% of our DNA sequence is involved in regulating the less than 2% of the DNA that codes for proteins. In total, Encode scientists say, about 80% of the DNA sequence can be assigned some sort of biochemical function.
The science field has already heard the Darwinists spinning this as, "exactly what we predicted".
Nice try, but don't make me pull out the quotes from as recently as 2009 claiming all the "junk" was proof there was no God, or if there was, He was too stupid to put functional DNA in our blue prints.
Eat that Dawkins, Coyne, Meyer and Matzke.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:49 pm
by SeattleGriz
By the way, Cleets hit the nail on the head in one of my previous posts. Turns out I didn't know the exact role of those that criticize ID.
Seems we have three players:
1) Normal Scientist - good for science.
2) ID - a person who believes that the Darwinian definition of evolution is not strong enough to account for the great diversity of life we have and that it came from one common ancestor. Thus believes an intelligent agent is involved.
3) Darwinist - Those who believe in atheistic naturalism, which means nothing can be explained by supernatural means, or an intelligent designer. Nevermind the fact the big bang was a supernatural (actually metaphysical I think) event and we all turned out fine, but I digress.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:19 pm
by grizzaholic
Quick question.
If jesus made adam and eve...and they had 2 boys...umm....how did they repopulate?
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:39 pm
by SeattleGriz
grizzaholic wrote:Quick question.
If jesus made adam and eve...and they had 2 boys...umm....how did they repopulate?
Pppffft. Butt sex. Shit dude.
Good question, and I obviously don't know, but if I had to answer I would have to say the Bible was a regional book and not indicative of the World.
So, what do you think about the study? Interesting stuff. If you read some of the other studies out there, it gives you the impression our DNA is very active and adapts to conditions instantaneously. For example, they have found that when people move from a warm climate to a cold climate, the genes quickly start pumping our products to help us adapt.
Our DNA is real time.
By the way, none of this proves shit, and I know it, but I still love this topic.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:42 pm
by grizzaholic
SeattleGriz wrote:grizzaholic wrote:Quick question.
If jesus made adam and eve...and they had 2 boys...umm....how did they repopulate?
Pppffft. Butt sex. Shit dude.
I just didn't know. Now I know. Thanks.
PS: I didn't read the article, just thought I would ask.
also sodomy
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:43 pm
by Grizalltheway
SeattleGriz wrote:grizzaholic wrote:Quick question.
If jesus made adam and eve...and they had 2 boys...umm....how did they repopulate?
Pppffft. Butt sex. Shit dude.
Good question, and I obviously don't know, but if I had to answer I would have to say the Bible was a regional book and not indicative of the World.
So, what do you think about the study? Interesting stuff. If you read some of the other studies out there, it gives you the impression our DNA is very active and adapts to conditions instantaneously. For example, they have found that when people move from a warm climate to a cold climate, the genes quickly start pumping our products to help us adapt.
Our DNA is real time.
By the way, none of this proves shit, and I know it, but I still love this topic.
A regional book? WTF is that supposed to mean?
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:44 pm
by SeattleGriz
grizzaholic wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:
Pppffft. Butt sex. Shit dude.
I just didn't know. Now I know. Thanks.
PS: I didn't read the article, just thought I would ask.
also sodomy
Easy read and very interesting. Like I said, this doesn't prove any ID movement, just shuts up the atheistic naturalists for awhile until they can figure out how this is a win!
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:46 pm
by grizzaholic
SeattleGriz wrote:grizzaholic wrote:
I just didn't know. Now I know. Thanks.
PS: I didn't read the article, just thought I would ask.
also sodomy
Easy read and very interesting. Like I said, this doesn't prove any ID movement, just shuts up the atheistic naturalists for awhile until they can figure out how this is a win!
No offense, but I am not much of a reader. I have very limited skills. Posting pictures on this site seems to be something I do well.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:50 pm
by SeattleGriz
grizzaholic wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:
Easy read and very interesting. Like I said, this doesn't prove any ID movement, just shuts up the atheistic naturalists for awhile until they can figure out how this is a win!
No offense, but I am not much of a reader. I have very limited skills. Posting pictures on this site seems to be something I do well.
Unfortunately, they left off the part about how a conserved DNA leads to bigger boobs.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:50 pm
by grizzaholic
SeattleGriz wrote:grizzaholic wrote:
No offense, but I am not much of a reader. I have very limited skills. Posting pictures on this site seems to be something I do well.
Unfortunately, they left off the part about how a conserved DNA leads to bigger boobs.
Shame on them.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:18 pm
by Chizzang
Grizalltheway wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:
Pppffft. Butt sex. Shit dude.
Good question, and I obviously don't know, but if I had to answer I would have to say the Bible was a regional book and not indicative of the World.
So, what do you think about the study? Interesting stuff. If you read some of the other studies out there, it gives you the impression our DNA is very active and adapts to conditions instantaneously. For example, they have found that when people move from a warm climate to a cold climate, the genes quickly start pumping our products to help us adapt.
Our DNA is real time.
By the way, none of this proves shit, and I know it, but I still love this topic.
A regional book? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I think that means something like lutefisk..?
It's an acquired taste
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:20 pm
by SeattleGriz
Chizzang wrote:Grizalltheway wrote:
A regional book? WTF is that supposed to mean?
I think that means something like lutefisk..?
It's an acquired taste
Missed that question. It means that the Bible's world was the region they lived in, not the whole world. I assume the bible pertained to those that lived in the area. Much like the story of Noah being regional.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:56 pm
by Chizzang
SeattleGriz wrote:Chizzang wrote:
I think that means something like lutefisk..?
It's an acquired taste
Missed that question. It means that the Bible's world was the region they lived in, not the whole world. I assume the bible pertained to those that lived in the area. Much like the story of Noah being regional.
So more like hummus really
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:18 pm
by SeattleGriz
Chizzang wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:
Missed that question. It means that the Bible's world was the region they lived in, not the whole world. I assume the bible pertained to those that lived in the area. Much like the story of Noah being regional.
So more like hummus really
Yes! You got it man.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:45 pm
by SeattleGriz
Let me be clear. THIS IS GAME CHANGING.
Where are all the know it alls?
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:55 am
by houndawg
SeattleGriz wrote:Let me be clear. THIS IS GAME CHANGING.
Where are all the know it alls?
getting papers ready for peer-reviewed journals?
Our DNA is real time? Amazing.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:53 am
by kalm
How can I join the atheistic naturalist movement? Do they have a Spokane chapter? When do they meet? What are the dues like? Do they have a journal I can subscribe too?
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:44 am
by SeattleGriz
houndawg wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:Let me be clear. THIS IS GAME CHANGING.
Where are all the know it alls?
getting papers ready for peer-reviewed journals?
Our DNA is real time? Amazing.
I am not saying this is game changing for the ID movement, this is big for science.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:59 am
by SeattleGriz
kalm wrote:How can I join the atheistic naturalist movement? Do they have a Spokane chapter? When do they meet? What are the dues like? Do they have a journal I can subscribe too?
You can join the movement, but I doubt they have a chapter or journal. Atheists just had to cancel their big convention because they are all tight asses and won't give to support their cause. So much for putting your money where your mouth is.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:59 am
by houndawg
SeattleGriz wrote:houndawg wrote:
getting papers ready for peer-reviewed journals?
Our DNA is real time? Amazing.
I am not saying this is game changing for the ID movement, this is big for science.
ID owns Darwinists.
Guess there will be a flood of scientific papers proclaiming the death of evolution as a theory, right SG?
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:01 pm
by SeattleGriz
houndawg wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:
I am not saying this is game changing for the ID movement, this is big for science.
ID owns Darwinists.
Guess there will be a flood of scientific papers proclaiming the death of evolution as a theory, right SG?
No, and as I have stated many times, ID is not at odds with Evolution, what they are at odds with is how Darwinists say every result fits into the theory.
As far as ID goes, it does give them avenues to pursue. Not sure if you have read any other threads, but ID is trying to make hay with bioinformatics and this discovery fits into what they are working.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:51 pm
by Skjellyfetti
SeattleGriz wrote:
I am not saying this is game changing for the ID movement, this is big for science.
I'm glad that you distinguish between ID and science.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:47 pm
by biobengal
Still trying to understand what this has to do with ID.... so typical of you ID'ers, any time our understanding of life is advanced you try to fit it into your pet "theory". Cute.
BTW, evolutionary biologists prefer the term noncoding DNA and rarely use the phrase junk DNA. Noncoding DNA has numerous known functions; just because something doesn't code protein sequences doesn't make it junk.
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:01 pm
by kalm
biobengal wrote:Still trying to understand what this has to do with ID.... so typical of you ID'ers, any time our understanding of life is advanced you try to fit it into your pet "theory". Cute.
BTW, evolutionary biologists prefer the term noncoding DNA and rarely use the phrase junk DNA. Noncoding DNA has numerous known functions; just because something doesn't code protein sequences doesn't make it junk.
Yeah!
(I really have no clue if this is true but it sounds much smarter than seagriz)
Re: Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:36 pm
by SeattleGriz
biobengal wrote:Still trying to understand what this has to do with ID.... so typical of you ID'ers, any time our understanding of life is advanced you try to fit it into your pet "theory". Cute.
BTW, evolutionary biologists prefer the term noncoding DNA and rarely use the phrase junk DNA. Noncoding DNA has numerous known functions; just because something doesn't code protein sequences doesn't make it junk.
You apparently didn't read anything other than my opening. I went back and reread where I stated multiple times this does nothing to prove ID. Bioinformatics is where the ID'ers are focusing. That is what it has to do with them.
As to evolutionary biologists, I understand many of them have known for years that noncoding DNA has functions. They are not the problem, except for the fact they are attacking the molecular biologists for hyping the ENCODE findings. The problem is with guys like Dawkins, Coyne, PZ Meyer and Nick Matzke who keep propagating the junk DNA term to sell books to the scientifically illiterate masses. There are quotes, from books as recent as 2009. You can't tell me they didn't know better in 2009?
But to specifically address your question, this was taken from an ID site as to why it is important to them.
The first reason is that the claim that the majority of our DNA is "junk" has long been used by ID critics as an objection to design: Why would a designer fill our chromosomes with so much redundancy? That would be surprising given the hypothesis of design but would make perfect sense under a Darwinian framework, where such sequences can be understood to be "the remains of nature's experiments which failed" (Ohno, 1972). So, while these findings do not necessarily support ID or discredit Darwinism, they answer an often-heard criticism of the design hypothesis.
The second reason is that this news demonstrates the greater heuristic value of ID relative to evolutionary naturalism. While the notion that life is the product of an entirely blind and unguided natural process fits well with the observation that a lot of our DNA is without function, the hypothesis of design expects that we will find engineering purposes wherever we look in the cell. While the paradigm of evolutionary naturalism discourages and hinders the search for function, the ID paradigm actively encourages it.
Thirdly, shared "junk DNA" has often been alleged to offer compelling evidence for common descent. But if these non-coding sequences are, in fact, functional, then why can these shared sequences not be explained just as readily by common design?
Finally, the prized 98% sequence-identify figure between humans and chimpanzees relates to the 2% of DNA that codes for the production of proteins. The non-protein-coding regions of DNA are far more species-specific. If these stretches of non-coding DNA really are functional, then what becomes of this sequence-identity figure and its significance with respect to shared ancestry?