Evolution's Achilles Heel ~ ~ Book, 9 Ph.D Scientists and Doctors ~ ~ Discussion

[believeinHim]

OhhhhKkkkkaaayyy, So, It's several months later, About two months later and I am still in Chapter 2. Now it is on to something called, "JunK DNA" and how Junk DNA is a great Evolution's Achilles Heel that puts an Achilles Heel in to Evolution.

I can't explain more than that as that is all that I remember so far. 

[The Barbarian]

On 5/18/2023 at 7:40 PM, believeinHim said:

OhhhhKkkkkaaayyy, So, It's several months later, About two months later and I am still in Chapter 2. Now it is on to something called, "JunK DNA" and how Junk DNA is a great Evolution's Achilles Heel that puts an Achilles Heel in to Evolution.

I can't explain more than that as that is all that I remember so far. 

What creationists call "junk DNA", is often not junk at all.   Scientists call it "non-coding DNA" because it doesn't actually code for proteins, as other DNA does.   Where creationists get it wrong, is that much of our non-coding DNA actually has other functions.   There is some DNA that is truly junk, such as the broken gene in humans that used to code for vitamin C.   We can no longer make our own vitamin C, and have to get it from our diet.   Since primates eat diets rich in vitamin C, it wasn't a problem for them to lose that function.

Interestingly, it has recently been discovered that non-coding DNA is a significant source of new genes.   Occasionally, a mutation to a non-coding sequence will change it to a functional gene.

Transactions of the Royal Society - Biological Sciences Sept 2015

New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation

Abstract

The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible. In less than a decade, and especially in the last five years, this view has been overturned by extensive evidence from diverse eukaryotic lineages. There is now evidence that this mechanism has contributed a significant number of genes to genomes of organisms as diverse as Saccharomyces, Drosophila, Plasmodium, Arabidopisis and human. From simple beginnings, these genes have in some instances acquired complex structure, regulated expression and important functional roles.

 

[believeinHim]

On 5/20/2023 at 8:50 AM, The Barbarian said:

"junk DNA", is often not junk at all.  

Exactly. They aren't calling it Junk DNA, It's already a term that's been named to describe what they are talking about. Exactly. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by believeinHim

[believeinHim]

On 5/20/2023 at 8:50 AM, The Barbarian said:

"junk DNA", is often not junk at all.  

Exactly. They're not calling it Junk DNA, It's already a term. Exactly.

On 5/20/2023 at 8:50 AM, The Barbarian said:

Transactions of the Royal Society - Biological Sciences Sept 2015

New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation

Abstract

The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible.

 

Exactly. This is precisely what they are saying.

Something to this extent in their own research in the book.

Exactly. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by believeinHim

[The Barbarian]

On 5/20/2023 at 4:34 PM, believeinHim said:

Exactly. They aren't calling it Junk DNA, The evolutionists are. Exactly. 

"Evolutionists" who are scientists, call it "non-coding DNA."   Creationists call it "junk DNA", but as you see, a lot of non-coding DNA is not junk.   Some of it is, but a lot of it is not.   See the post above, to learn why creationists are wrong to call it junk DNA.

It's one more flaw in creationism.  You see, non-coding DNA is often broken genes that no longer function due to mutation.   So primates for example have evolved to become dependent on vitamin C in their diet.   Since primates eat food rich in vitamin C, they have no need for a gene to make it.  The ancestors of primates did have the gene, but a mutation broke it.  We still have that broken gene.

On the other hand, non-coding DNA can mutate and sometimes a useful gene is formed.   I showed you some data on how we know it happens.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by The Barbarian

[believeinHim]

On 5/22/2023 at 6:47 AM, The Barbarian said:

"Evolutionists" who are scientists, call it "non-coding DNA."   Creationists call it "junk DNA", but as you see, a lot of non-coding DNA is not junk.   Some of it is, but a lot of it is not. 

 

 

In the book, The Creationists are not calling it Junk DNA, They are using it to describe what they are talking about they are not saying anyone called it that. It's not addressed. That is in the book. I will read it sometime, and copy the page it is on, But I am slow. 

The Creationist Scientists are referring to refer to as Junk DNA, And the Creationists are saying what you are saying about it. That is what the Creationists are saying. That is in the book, You are continuing what the Creationists are saying about it.

The book says, "What evolutionists call Junk DNA, Is actually not Junk DNA at all," That is what the Creationists are saying, in the book. You have completely confused me, And steered me way off topic. Loll. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by believeinHim

[believeinHim]

On 5/20/2023 at 8:50 AM, The Barbarian said:

What evolutionists call "junk DNA", is often not junk at all.  

This is what they are saying in the book, This is what the Creation Scientists are saying in the book, That Junk DNA is often not junk at all. This is what the Creationists are saying. 

On 5/20/2023 at 8:50 AM, The Barbarian said:

New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation

Abstract

The origin of novel protein-coding genes de novo was once considered so improbable as to be impossible.

 

This is what the Creationists are saying in the book that I am reading right now. 

[believeinHim]

22 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

"Evolutionists" who are scientists,

Creationists Scientists are also Scientists. These are Creationist Scientists with Ph.D,s in Creation Science. 

[The Barbarian]

On 5/22/2023 at 9:09 AM, believeinHim said:

In the book, The Creationists are not calling it Junk DNA

Well, that's an improvement.    So we've got them recognizing that the scientific term is "non-coding DNA" and that it sometimes has functions.    You're telling me that at least the creationists in the book have acknowledged that non-coding DNA is not necessarily junk.    Have then also realized that some of it can form new genes by mutation?

Some non-coding DNA is "junk" in the sense of having no function, but a good deal of it has evolved other functions.

On 5/22/2023 at 9:17 AM, believeinHim said:

Creationists Scientists are also Scientists. These are Creationist Scientists with Ph.D,s in Creation Science. 

"Creation Science" is a religion, not a science.   It's like "Theistic evolution",which is a religious belief.    The actual evolutionary theory is science, and hence has no religious ideas at all.   Science can neither support nor deny the supernatural.

There actually are real scientists with degrees in science who are YE creationists.   I happen to have been taught by one of them.   And I know others and know of even more.   Not many of them, but they do exist.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by The Barbarian

[believeinHim]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, that's an improvement.    So we've got them recognizing that the scientific term is "non-coding DNA" and that it sometimes has functions.    You're telling me that at least the creationists in the book have acknowledged that non-coding DNA is not necessarily junk.    Have then also realized that some of it can form new genes by mutation?

No. In the book, They never called it ever at all what you are describing. They aren't even saying that Evolutionists is what calls it this. The Creationists are not saying they started calling it that, They did not start calling it that. You are putting words in my screen. The Creationists Never Started Calling it that in the first place. They are referring to something that already has been named.

Actually, I didn't say who started calling it that. I just said it's in the book. This is who coined the term, "Junk DNA". It wasn't a Creationist, Or an Evolutionist, They are using a term that has already been coined. You are confusing me, By putting words in my screen that I have not yet written.

In 1972 the late geneticist Susumu Ohno coined the term "junk DNA" 

Susumu Ohno

Susumu Ohno was a Japanese-American geneticist and evolutionary biologist, and seminal researcher in the field of molecular evolution.

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Some non-coding DNA is "junk" in the sense of having no function, but a good deal of it has evolved other functions.

"Creation Science" is a religion, not a science.   It's like "Theistic evolution",which is a religious belief.    The actual evolutionary theory is science, and hence has no religious ideas at all.   Science can neither support nor deny the supernatural.

There actually are real scientists with degrees in science who are YE creationists.   I happen to have been taught by one of them.   And I know others and know of even more.   Not many of them, but they do exist.

 

 

I am going to have to get the book out, And I haven't felt up to reading the past couple of months. You are confusing me and steering the topic off topic.

My explanation to you is being manipulating what I am telling you. The Creationists Scientists never started referring to what you are referring to, On specific geneticist and evolutionary biologist did. These are real Scientists, With real degrees. I don't know them personally, But you can look them up on Creation .com, And some of them I have heard of, I think. If one of them is who I think it is from his last name, I have heard of him before. You are confusing me, And putting words in my screen that I didn't even type up. 

The coined term was by a geneticist and evolutionary biologist. I never said who started calling it that, You kind of went with that when that's not what I said. I am referring to the book, And they are referring to what has already been coined in the past. I never said they started calling it that, You are confusing me and steering me off topic. The Scientists in this book are just using a term that's already been penned to describe and talk about it. ....................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Susumu Ohno

Susumu Ohno was a Japanese-American geneticist and evolutionary biologist, and seminal researcher in the field of molecular evolution.

Edited May 23, 2023 by believeinHim