What Makes Us Human? The Answer May Be Found in Overlooked “Junk” DNA

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah and that's why i dont believe in evolution, it has never been verified in a lab. Your belief that it does is not based in actual observable science. Show all the papers you want, but none of them show a population of organisms evolving into something new over time

And yet our planet is full of diverse of lifeforms, not one of them a product of creation.

You keep on spouting out that last sentence of yours. No experiment that I know of has tried to produce a new species - EVER. That would be unethical at the very least. If you know of one, please link it.

Its happeed by accident.

www.wfla.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr
Its happeed by accident.
www.wfla.com...

Thanks, but unfortunately no access for Europeans. I'll Google it, cheers.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You keep on spouting out that last sentence of yours. No experiment that I know of has tried to produce a new species - EVER. That would be unethical at the very least. If you know of one, please link it.

Evolution has never been observed, so it's faith, not science.

It has, and it has been documented several times. But that would depend on your definition of 'evolution', a term which you don't understand.

Also, 'observation' does not only mean looking at something in a glass box for hours on end. It can also mean tracing genetic lineage, for example.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Its happeed by accident.

www.wfla.com...

The fish in the experiment is a hybrid. Same thing as a mule.

Hybrids are infertile.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

It has, and it has been documented several times. But that would depend on your definition of 'evolution', a term which you don't understand.

Insults with no data. Classic terraliga content.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You keep on spouting out that last sentence of yours. No experiment that I know of has tried to produce a new species - EVER. That would be unethical at the very least. If you know of one, please link it.

Evolution has never been observed, so it's faith, not science.

Wrong it has in the lab and we see it in nature as well as animals continue to adapt to a changing world.For example Pesticide Resistant Insects are becoming a huge problem. Whenever you use a pesticide, it kills the majority of an insect population. However, certain insects will experience a gene mutation to develop immunity to it and those insects will reproduce. This happens very quickly, within a few generations, since the generation length for insects is short.



ucsdnews.ucsd.edu...

www.newscientist.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You keep on spouting out that last sentence of yours. No experiment that I know of has tried to produce a new species - EVER. That would be unethical at the very least. If you know of one, please link it.

Evolution has never been observed, so it's faith, not science.

Wrong it has in the lab and we see it in nature as well as animals continue to adapt to a changing world.For example Pesticide Resistant Insects are becoming a huge problem. Whenever you use a pesticide, it kills the majority of an insect population. However, certain insects will experience a gene mutation to develop immunity to it and those insects will reproduce. This happens very quickly, within a few generations, since the generation length for insects is short.



ucsdnews.ucsd.edu...

www.newscientist.com...

The virus is still a virus, E. Coli is still E. Coli. That's not proof that organisms can change into something else gradually over time.

a reply to: cooperton

You see, what I said was not an insult, you are ignorant of evolution.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

You see, what I said was not an insult, you are ignorant of evolution.

No I just don't believe it, based on empirical evidence.

a reply to: cooperton

No one cares what you believe. The hard evidence is what counts. Biological evolution has evidence. You don't.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

No one cares what you believe.

And yet you bring up my beliefs in every forum discussion, unsolicited.

The hard evidence is what counts.

It all points towards intelligence. All laws are intelligent. You're the one who wants to impose your baseless belief of unintelligence on them

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

No one cares what you believe.

And yet you bring up my beliefs in every forum discussion, unsolicited.

That's because its about science, not belief.

You're not reading that correctly.

the 'junk' DNA does not code us to be homo-sapiens-sapiens, 'modern man'

the 'junk' strands and seemingly meaningless GACT sequences are foreign to our thinking...because the 'junk' DNA was placed in some individuals as a 'MARK' of ownership by the Lucifer Spirit Allies.... so the blood-lines could be traced by the demons and for proof of that persons' ancestry-of-loyalty to that Dark Power faction of fallen Angels


humanity has been 'Marked, Branded' for 10.000 years... the heavenly host gotta lot of catching up to do

a reply to: cooperton

It all points towards intelligence. All laws are intelligent. You're the one who wants to impose your baseless belief of unintelligence on them

Please cite an article where the conclusion suggests an intelligence is responsible for the results. Your opinion is just that - an opinion. It has no basis in fact much less hard evidence.

And that's why the biology of evolution stands up well to investigation - hard evidence. You and your cult have none. You can't cite a single article or research paper that even remotely suggests that a magic wand was used to achieve the results.

Keep going. You look more the fool than ever.

originally posted by: Romeopsi

You said:

This is interesting. So you're saying the code Is separate from what the code designs like a person designing a building has plans that tell the builders how the building should look. Is that what you're saying? Also, how did nature design a code like this. Curiosity peaked.

Exactly!

The people who support a natural interpretation of evolution are living on fantasy island. It can't happen. Nature or randomness doesn't create a code that stores information in the sequence of a storage medium. That's just an absurd notion.

You also have information encoded in the sequences of a storage medium that builds molecular machines that are modular and have parts that are the right size, shape and come together at the right angle to carry out specific tasks.

You also have information encoded in the sequence of a storage medium that regulates the expression of coded regions.

You also have a correlation of analog and digital information.

If anyone believes that anything natural or random can correlate and encode all of this information, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

It's a code that never degrades or changes. It's been the same for billions of years. It's a code that tells amino acids how to be arranged on a polypetide chain and how to fold. Why would nature need a code? Why would nature code letters to amino acids? It's asinine. It's like saying a snowflake is encoded with information on how to build a snowman and information on how to build machinery to decode the information on how to build a snowman.

The reason why you hame similar code in different organisms, is because it's about the expression of the code. I have designed many websites and this is obvious with DNA.

I can have two websites that share the identical code and look the same. IIf I start to change the way the website is expressed, I can have most of the same code but the websites will look totally different.

You can see on Fiverr where web designers can build you a website in 24-48 hours. This is because they can have like 10 templates or biologically speaking, body plans and out of these 10 templates create 1,000's of different looking websites by changing the way the code is expressed.

This is what happened with the Cambrian explosion which is supported by Genesis 20 and 21 in the 1st chapter.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

If you download body plans or phyla into the code, it will generate most of the species we see today. There's about 30-40 body plans(templates). Most species in the animal kingdom are connected to one of these body plans just like all of the websites would be connected to the 10 templates.

Just from one body plan(template) downloaded into the code of DNA will produce many different species like the bilateria.

The Bilateria /baɪləˈtɪəriə/ or bilaterians are animals with bilateral symmetry as an embryo, i.e. having a left and a right side that are mirror images of each other. This also means they have a head and a tail (anterior-posterior axis) as well as a belly and a back (ventral-dorsal axis).[2] Nearly all are bilaterally symmetrical as adults as well; the most notable exception is the echinoderms, which achieve secondary pentaradial symmetry as adults, but are bilaterally symmetrical during embryonic development.

Most animals are bilaterians, excluding sponges, ctenophores, placozoans and cnidarians. For the most part, bilateral embryos are triploblastic, having three germ layers: endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm. Except for a few phyla (i.e. flatworms and gnathostomulids), bilaterians have complete digestive tracts with a separate mouth and anus. Some bilaterians lack body cavities (acoelomates, i.e. Platyhelminthes, Gastrotricha and Gnathostomulida), while others display primary body cavities (deriving from the blastocoel, as pseudocoeloms) or secondary cavities (that appear de novo, for example the coelom).

Some of the earliest bilaterians were wormlike, and a bilaterian body can be conceptualized as a cylinder with a gut running between two openings, the mouth and the anus. Around the gut it has an internal body cavity, a coelom or pseudocoelom.[a] Animals with this bilaterally symmetric body plan have a head (anterior) end and a tail (posterior) end as well as a back (dorsal) and a belly (ventral); therefore they also have a left side and a right side.[4][2]

The first evidence of bilateria in the fossil record comes from trace fossils in Ediacaran sediments, and the first bona fide bilaterian fossil is Kimberella, dating to 555 million years ago.[11]

en.wikipedia.org...

An intelligence that Created the code, could just download a few body plans and millions of species would evolve. This is why you don't see all of these INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES Darwin was expecting to see.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Darwin thought we would see an enormous amount INTERMEDIATE VARIETIES!

This means for each organism there should be a bunch of fossils from an enormous amount of organisms that were born with a variety of traits that lost out to the traits that survived.

This is what you should see if evolution doesn't have a direction. These organism are adapting not to survive in the environment but because environmental pressures triggered random mutations.

THIS IS A FANTASY!!

What we see is and organism needs x traits to survive in an environment and the evolve x traits. Here's a science lesson that's taught to kids about adaptation.

Imagine a planet so far from the sun that it's always nighttime. Without the warmth of the sun, this planet is also very cold. What kind of changes to the human body would help humans live on this planet?

Eyes that have night vision or a thick coat of fur would certainly be helpful on a dark, cold planet. These changes would help humans adapt, or fit into, this new sunless environment, so we call them adaptations. Adaptations are body parts or behaviors that help a living thing survive in an environment.

study.com...

At this point, a natural interpretation of evolution should have been thrown out of the window, but people use the theory of evolution to support their atheism and materialism. Here's more:

CONT'D

DNA sequences for human and chimpanzees are nearly identical, despite vast phenotypical differences between the two species. Researchers have determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for these major differences.

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species.

The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic "gaps" in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are "turned on" and "turned off." The research shows that these genomic "gaps" between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species. The findings are reported in the most recent issue of the online, open-access journal Mobile DNA.

"These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences," said McDonald. "Transposable elements were once considered 'junk DNA' with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees."

"Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves," said McDonald.

www.sciencedaily.com...

So saying a chimpanzee and a human share nearly identical DNA sequences is meaningless. They just share some of the same code because they have the same intelligent Designer that Designed the code.

All you have to do is change the way these same genes are expressed. THIS IS PURE INTELLIGENT DESIGN! There's nothing evolving naturally or randomly. It evolves according to the way it's expressed. Like I said, anyone that has designed websites should clearly see this.

Let me repeat this and change how it's expressed.

All you have to do is change the way

these same genes are expressed

. THIS IS PURE INTELLIGENT DESIGN! There's nothing evolving naturally or randomly. It evolves according to the way it's expressed. Like I said, anyone that has designed websites should see this.

Again, it makes no sense that nature would code for amino acids and the sequence they should form on the primary polypeptide chain. Why don't amino acids just form these complex sequences that we see without the need of a code instructing it with all the machinery and process of transcription and translation to go from gene to polypeptide chain.

That's not it.

The sequence of the primary polypeptide chain contains all of the information that tells the chain how to fold into higher order structures. Watch this video:



Protein structure can be described in terms of four levels of organization – primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure. The primary structure is simply the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide chain, and it is important to remember that this sequence contains all the information necessary for the higher orders of structure.

This correlation of information that also encodes higher levels of organization evolved naturally and randomly??

A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy!

a reply to: neoholographic

I've read your two post, but I don't see one iota of evidence to support what you are suggesting. Please post evidence and not ignorance.

originally posted by: Annee




That's because its about science, not belief.

.

Exactly. So phantom bringing up my beliefs is erroneous to the debate. She runs out of legitimate defense points so she resorts to irrelevant arguments. Usually she does it when she realizes she's wrong

a reply to: neoholographic


This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code the same way a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.

Lets look at the definition

1. the process of assigning a code to something for classification or identification.
"the forms are checked and returned to the census officer for coding" ·

So we are not classifying DNA we are naming it, DNA is a string of molecules with four main components: guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine. Those names, the words 'guanine', 'adenine', 'thymine', and 'cytosine' are primary symbols invented by humans to identify the physical molecules which are found in DNA. So when we say coding DNA we are assigning names to chemical processes it is not a code as in being programed by anything or anyone.

Now to be honest id like to think there is a God. However, I don't try to prove his existence by denying science. belief is just that it's your personal opinion it cannot be proved that's why they call it faith.If you choose to believe that God created everything that's your choice however do not try to claim its science or there is scientific proof. Sadly many believe they can prove god exists by disproving science. It doesn't work that way you can never prove God exists.

a reply to: cooperton


You're the only one who doesn't post the science. Where's your research? Where are your peer-reviewed articles that support your position? You have none.

The history of evolutionary biology is self evident. You are the one who is continually and willfully wrong. Over 500 journals in evolutionary biology and 200,000 articles prove my point. That makes ME right and YOU wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Annee




That's because its about science, not belief.

.

Exactly. So phantom bringing up my beliefs is erroneous to the debate. She runs out of legitimate defense points so she resorts to irrelevant arguments. Usually she does it when she realizes she's wrong

No, it's not erroneous to continue to point out - - you are trying to argue belief against science.

Sorry, but legitimate facts are not in your corner.