More evidence for "Junk DNA"

godslanguage · Post by **godslanguage** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:58 pm

It seems the more study being done, the more they confirm the evolutionary philosophy of junk DNA, here is the latest research done to confirm it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 185538.htm

phoney · Post by **phoney** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:23 pm

godslanguage wrote:It seems the more study being done, the more they confirm the evolutionary philosophy of junk DNA, here is the latest research done to confirm it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 185538.htm

I read the info on the site you provided. I may have misunderstood it.
It seems like they were saying here is some junk ( because they had
no clue what it did) now they have a guess so it is not so much junk anymore. Did I miss it.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:48 pm

Originally, they had found long stretches of DNA that didnot seem to code for anything. They thought this was junk DNA. It would be like you reading my sentence anuieawhnufwieahfueiawhfueifhafewaghioh and then suddenly the sentencejnionhohaghge was interspersed aivornaonv iugre with nonsense.

HAd fun doing that.

A few years ago there were some experiments suggesting that these stretched of DNA indeed had a function, not in coding for proteins, but in regulation. Regulating the switching on and off of some regions of DNA.

It is like a region in an instruction manual telling you to go ahead and skip this section because you don't need these instructions right now, or vice versa.

Any help?

phoney · Post by **phoney** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:04 pm

zoegirl wrote:Originally, they had found long stretches of DNA that didnot seem to code for anything. They thought this was junk DNA. It would be like you reading my sentence anuieawhnufwieahfueiawhfueifhafewaghioh and then suddenly the sentencejnionhohaghge was interspersed aivornaonv iugre with nonsense. HAd fun doing that.

A few years ago there were some experiments suggesting that these stretched of DNA indeed had a function, not in coding for proteins, but in regulation. Regulating the switching on and off of some regions of DNA.

It is like a region in an instruction manual telling you to go ahead and skip this section because you don't need these instructions right now, or vice versa.

Any help?

Zoegirl, some what, I was being a little sarcastic toward Scientist in general. They do some good I know but seem to think they will figure it all out and help mankind immencely. Ecc 3:11

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:12 pm

Ouch, being a science teacher in a Christian school, that hurts

I guess I do some good

It is sad that such a noble thing like understanding God's creation has been polluted by meaningless philosophies. Love the Lord your God with all your mind coupled with Psalm 19 would indicate that the pursuit of comprehending this complex design of God's is not only possible but commanded, we are to be His stewards.

It is also amazing that God's grace is still upon us that He has revealed His mysteries to us in scientific discoveries.

phoney · Post by **phoney** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:49 pm

zoegirl wrote:Ouch, being a science teacher in a Christian school, that hurts

I guess I do some good

It is sad that such a noble thing like understanding God's creation has been polluted by meaningless philosophies. Love the Lord your God with all your mind coupled with Psalm 19 would indicate that the pursuit of comprehending this complex design of God's is not only possible but commanded, we are to be His stewards.

It is also amazing that God's grace is still upon us that He has revealed His mysteries to us in scientific discoveries.

Im so sorry I did not mean to hurt your feelings. I agree that God gave mankind the ability to unravel many mysteries, but not all, that is why I
put in that verse, it seems to say to me we will not be allowed all knowledge. I did not mean to imply all scientist or all teachers are bad.
I have heard some say we will know everything and I disagree.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:27 pm

Yep, although I would not confine it to just science. Philosophers, writers, poets, artists, have all had their jaunts into attacking God.

The fool says in his heart, there is no God. Unfortunatley, science has become the cool, sophisticated, learned way of rejecting god.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:27 pm

put in that verse, it seems to say to me we will not be allowed all knowledge.

i would agree with this to some extent. yes we must pursue knowledge along with other attributes but we must remember that God requires faith from His followers. "without faith we cannot please God..."

recently, i have come to the conclusion that God will provide enough evidence to support & strengthen faith but not so much that faith will be destroyed.

so the two will work hand in hand to lead people to being who God wants them to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am interested in reading more about junk dna. i just finished a couple weeks ago debunking an evolutionist's claim that dna proves his theory. he used the argument to say that evolution was testable while creation wasn't.

with God's help, i was able to show that dna does not provide more than the similarity of each species, while not even coming close to proving the process of evolution or the theory itself.

Evidence for God from Science

More evidence for "Junk DNA"

More evidence for "Junk DNA"

Re: More evidence for "Junk DNA"