I find this so fascinating! So, uuuhhh, why isn't this information in the Bible?
The Common Ancestry Thread
by cantleave 271 Replies latest members adult
-
-
cofty
The argument that Ticker is using is a common one among creationists. Its like lookng at a scrapyard - junkyard - and trying to argue that it is in fact a car factory. In order to prove this they point to the few items that are bought at the yard every day and reused in other cars.
-
cantleave
Ticker, regarding p53 and other retrovirus sequences that later prove to beneficial to the genome. Is that not a wonderful example of evolution in action, at the genetic level? They don't detract from the point that these are segments of DNA inserted into the germ line by an infection. As I deliberately stated before, we can identify a retrovirus infection through very specific characteristics, in the same we we can identify a cow from a sheep!!
Whether or not these genes are eventually utilised by the organism is irrevalent. We still see an insertion event which is inherited and subsequently transfers across species' boundaries, proving the germ lines descend from a common ancestor.
-
cantleave
BTTT
-
bsmart
MARKING
Awsome!
-
EntirelyPossible
This is simply an erroneous assumption, in fact I would almost argue that the creationist would have a happier existence due to their beliefs.
Speaking of ignorant beliefs....
In closing and addressing a point raised on DNA similarities I think a good point is made in the following.
That wasn't a good point.
-
Ticker
Most of the ERV argument is based on prejudiced conjecture. There still has been no solid rebuttal against the fact that a common designer would equal common design. DNA similarties still do not provide evidence for common descent and disproval of a common designer. Shared AREs are not evidence for common ancestry.
Junk DNA is a misleading word and was coined early on because it was non-coding DNA. While it may not code protein it does serve other vital functions as was admitted after my initial post exposing it was not completely useless. They have found this non-coding DNA to regulate genes, suppressing and expressing the genes, and even DNA repair. This supposed selfish DNA contains telomeres which are regions of repeating DNA vital to protect the ends of chromosomes from degredation. Without telomeres the chromosome ends would become frayed. We have repeating DNA called Satellite DNA which serve as anchor points for proteins involved in seperating chromosomes during cell division. These points are supported by countless new scientific research articles easily found on google as well as Dr. Joe Francis, Dr. David DeWitt, and many other scientists in support.
Here is a qoute from wikopedia stating some of the vital purposes of this non-coding DNA
"However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have important biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions." " The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE ) project reported in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the h uman genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking"
More vital purposes that were listed in the same article are:
- Protection of the genome
- Genetic switches - Some noncoding DNA sequences are genetic "switches" that regulate when and where genes are expressed
- Operators - An operator is a segment of DNA to which a repressor binds. A repressor is a DNA-binding protein
- Enhancers - An enhancer is a short region of DNA that can be bound with proteins
- Promoters - A promoter is a region of DNA that facilitates transcription of a particular gene
- Insulators
Lets remember that the medical field at one time viewed tonsils and appendixes as junk, useless, and vestigial. Now we know they contain priceless specialized lymphoid tissues that serve a purpose and that removal of them has been associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack.
The junkyard illustration is not an honest picture. If the parts required for the vehicle to operate could be obtained elsewhere from say the car manufacturer then yes there would be no need for the junkyard. However if the parts required for that vehicle to even operate could be obtained from nowhere else we can hardly liken it to the illustration of a junkyard. Those parts then become purposeful and vital to the operation of the vehicle, without them the vehicle will cease operation much like ourselves without these vital so called "Junk DNA."
As for the argument about the Onion DNA being larger then human DNA or otherwise known as the "Onion Test", It's well sumed up in this article from the following website source
Many evolutionists have said that the ENCODE discovery of proposed function for the vast majority of junk DNA does not pass the so-called “onion test.” Evolutionary biologist, T. Ryan Gregory states,
The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?
In other words, the vast majority of junk (or non-coding) DNA must not be functional if onions, which are less complex than humans, have a lot more junk DNA than humans. This is an argument from ignorance. Do scientists know that this “junk” DNA is not necessary for the onion? Many scientists claim it isn’t necessary because of the variability in DNA amounts among different species of the onion family. If onion species with small amounts of DNA can grow and survive as well as those with large amounts of DNA then some of the DNA must not be important or necessary.
It’s possible the junk DNA is only necessary under certain environmental conditions, as onions don’t have the same choices as mobile organisms. It may be necessary for additional variation or speciation as environmental conditions change and onions adapt.
Therefore, it is not a logical conclusion to say that because an onion has more junk DNA than a human that junk DNA is not functional. There have been no studies, to my knowledge, to support the idea that large amounts of junk DNA in some onion species are not necessary or important. As one scientist noted in 2001, “Those of you who still think junk DNA is junk, I invite you to take it out of your genome, and see what happens.”
-
cofty
Its as if you read everything through a filter that removes all the most important points before they can threaten your superstitions.
-
EntirelyPossible
Most of the ERV argument is based on prejudiced conjecture. There still has been no solid rebuttal against the fact that a common designer would equal common design.
Very true. There is, however, tons of evidence that, if there were a designer, he should be fired for doing such a horrible job.
-
cofty
Most of the ERV argument is based on prejudiced conjecture. There still has been no solid rebuttal against the fact that a common designer would equal common design. DNA similarities still do not provide evidence for common descent and disproval of a common designer.
We are not just talking about DNA similarities in this thread.
Firstly we are agreed that "junk DNA" is a pejorative term. Non-coding DNA is more accurate. We have already told you that a lot of non-coding DNA has a function: that is not in dispute. Anybody who thinks that all of it or even most of it has a useful function is indulging in fantasy.
Far from science being ignorant of the origins or function of much of your genome we know for a certainty that..
21% are LINEs Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)
13% are SINEs Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)
8% are ERVs Endogenous RetroViruses (parasitic)
3% are DNA Transposons (jumping genes, also parasitic)
We know precisely how such elements occur, how they replicate and become part of the genome.
As we have already explained ERVs started as viruses that got copied back inot the code of its host's sex cell and was passed on. Precisely where they end up in the genome is random. When scientists look for these in different species they find a pattern. Not only are they found in the same place in the genomes of different species they similarities confirm exactly the same relationships that were previously predicted by morphology and fossils.
The odds against the exact same pieces of DNA ending up in exactly the same place in the billions of base pairs of DNA is astronomically high.
I will explain more about LINES and SINES shortly. Please take a close look at this diagram and notice the common ERVs in different species.
