It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
GN: Some time back, you mentioned that if the "junk DNA" turns out to have viable functions, it would support the case for intelligent design. What does the recent data say on this subject?
JW: According to modern neo-Darwinism, genes that are passed from generation to generation carry a program that directs embryo development, mutations occasionally alter this genetic program to produce new variations, and natural selection then sorts those mutations—the "raw materials of evolution"—to produce new species, organs, and body plans.
In the 1950s, molecular biologists discovered that proteins, the microscopic building blocks of bodily structures, are formed according to information encoded in different segments of DNA. They then equated "gene" with "protein-coding sequence" and "mutations" with molecular accidents in such sequences.
By the 1970s, however, it was clear that most of the DNA in human beings and many other animals does not code for proteins. In 1980, Francis Crick [codiscoverer of the structure of DNA] and Leslie Orgel argued in Nature that this noncoding DNA is merely "junk" that has accumulated in the course of evolution. For the next 25 years, many biologists continued to regard noncoding DNA as junk.
In his 2009 book Why Evolution Is True, neo-Darwinist Jerry Coyne compared predictions based on intelligent design with those based on Darwinian evolution. "If organisms were built from scratch by a designer," he argued, they would not have imperfections. "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it's precisely what we expect from evolution" [p. 81].
According to Coyne, "when a trait is no longer used, or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don't instantly disappear from the genome: evolution stops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed" [pp. 66-67].
In contrast, Coyne said that creation by design predicts that no such genes would exist. "And the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled," he wrote. "Our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" [p. 67].
But Coyne was dead wrong. A growing mountain of data from genome-sequencing projects shows that most DNA performs essential functions. The Darwinists' claim that a large percentage of DNA is evolutionary junk is totally false. This reflects badly not only on them, but also on neo-Darwinism itself. By Coyne's logic, the genome-sequencing data refute neo-Darwinism and support intelligent design.
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by SpacePunk
I was sentenced to this life as a last ditch effort to
I relate to this so much, I have often wondered why one of lifes greatest truths is an oxymoron. "LIFE IS A DEATH SENTENCE"
[edit on 13-11-2009 by randyvs]
Originally posted by K-Raz
reply to post by dodadoom
Well, Thor is the god of thunder . I might think you and me are on a bit of the same page, even if i despise religion. That aside, i still think the god in the bible sucks
Originally posted by dodadoom
reply to post by Tormentations
I know what you mean!
I have wondered about this also.
IF you are killing others instead of helping them,
chances are you just might be a religious redneck!
No I'm kidding.
Anyone who kills another person for ANY reason,
clearly is not following God's teachings.
Period. The End.
Originally posted by dodadoom
reply to post by sirnex
Obviously you are very curious abut this.
Why not study up for yourself?
The information you seek is out there.
Or maybe its really inside of your heart...
Is killing right or not?
Do you have the right to judge God's actions?
Man chose his fate in life.
His choice. He decided to go it alone without God.
Hence his own ongoing death and destruction.
I'm pretty sure you are leading up to the point that
you think God is really a bad dude.
He's a fair God. He has to let man learn the hard way.
Otherwise he would have made us robots.
He won't intervene sometimes in a tragedy for instance,
when man needs to learn his way leads to death.
There can be no other way that really works.
Otherwise we would be slaves.
Which clearly you are not. Correct?
Edit for clarification
[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]