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

[believeinHim]

I am confused, And completely led off topic. No one in the book even started saying who started calling what, what. In the book, They are using a term that has already been penned by someone else, To talk about the term in the book . I never even said who started calling what, what. I am completely steered off topic now, And confused, to boot. 

[The Barbarian]

Ohno was a very early researcher, who did a lot of important work.   But geneticists have rejected his idea that non-coding DNA is "junk" and also his idea that gene duplication is the most common way for new genes to evolve.

When I was an undergrad in the late 60s, there were articles in the literature about functions of non-coding DNA.

Maybe we should focus on what scientists call it; "non-coding DNA."    And then we can discuss what scientists have found out about it.  Yes, some of it is junk, but much of it has useful functions.

Can we talk about what scientists have discovered about that?

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Retrobyter]

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Ohno was a very early researcher, who did a lot of important work.   But geneticists have rejected his idea that non-coding DNA is "junk" and also his idea that gene duplication is the most common way for new genes to evolve.

When I was an undergrad in the late 60s, there were articles in the literature about functions of non-coding DNA.

 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

The fact is that it wasn't Creationist genetic researchers who started calling whole sections of non-protein-forming genes "junk." That was a tongue-in-cheek name for the stuff in the DNA that researchers weren't sure of what function they served.

Those who believed in evolution said that it was, more than likely, stuff left over in the code from previous species no longer needed and just duplicate code that served no further need. Thus, they thought of the "junk" DNA as vestigial in nature, of no more purpose than the appendix (as they saw the purpose of the appendix  in the past). Creationists obviously did NOT believe that was the correct description of "junk" DNA. They were among the first who kept searching for the REAL purposes of all that code. Why? Because of all the scientists who study DNA and genes, they are the ones who admit that God does NOT create things needlessly! Thus, they would naturally conclude that there was a purpose for that code that people had just not yet discovered, much as the appendix is now believed to be part of a person's immune and digestive systems.

[The Barbarian]

16 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Those who believed in evolution said that it was, more than likely, stuff left over in the code from previous species no longer needed and just duplicate code that served no further need. Thus, they thought of the "junk" DNA as vestigial in nature, of no more purpose than the appendix (as they saw the purpose of the appendix  in the past).

In the late 1960s, I was reading papers on the functions of non-coding DNA (which is what "evolutionists" call it)/

So your information is over a half-century out of date.   BTW, a lot of duplicate code is perfectly functional; many genes have more than one copy, and multiple copies work.

16 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Creationists obviously did NOT believe that was the correct description of "junk" DNA. They were among the first who kept searching for the REAL purposes of all that code.

No, that's false.   So far, not one YE creationist has made any discovery about the functions of non-coding DNA (remember that's what scientists call what creationists were calling "junk DNA.")   It was always a real scientist who made these discoveries.  Would you like to see some examples?

16 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Because of all the scientists who study DNA and genes, they are the ones who admit that God does NOT create things needlessly!

For example, He created this world so that non-functional DNA like endogenous retroviruses would mutate to become useful genes.   Would you like to learn how that works?

16 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

much as the appendix is now believed to be part of a person's immune and digestive systems.

Those are not actually what the appendix does now.   It is vestigial, but creationists have confused "vestigial" with "useless."   As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs have lost their original function, but often gain new ones.   In the case of the appendix, it no longer serves as a fermentation chamber as it does in many other animals, but it is a place where our natural gut flora can retreat when we have intestinal infections or poisoning.   Like all of the gut, there are Peyer's patches where WBC are formed, but this is not what the vestigial appendix is for in humans.

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Retrobyter]

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

In the late 1960s, I was reading papers on the functions of non-coding DNA (which is what "evolutionists" call it)/

So your information is over a half-century out of date.   BTW, a lot of duplicate code is perfectly functional; many genes have more than one copy, and multiple copies work.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Not so. What may SEEM like duplicate code is meant to trigger functions at different stages of life.

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's false.   So far, not one YE creationist has made any discovery about the functions of non-coding DNA (remember that's what scientists call what creationists were calling "junk DNA.")   It was always a real scientist who made these discoveries.  Would you like to see some examples?

See Dr. Georgia Purdom on Genetics, Evolution, and Creation: Most Asked Questions.

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

For example, He created this world so that non-functional DNA like endogenous retroviruses would mutate to become useful genes.   Would you like to learn how that works?

Those are not actually what the appendix does now.   It is vestigial, but creationists have confused "vestigial" with "useless."   As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs have lost their original function, but often gain new ones.   In the case of the appendix, it no longer serves as a fermentation chamber as it does in many other animals, but it is a place where our natural gut flora can retreat when we have intestinal infections or poisoning.   Like all of the gut, there are Peyer's patches where WBC are formed, but this is not what the vestigial appendix is for in humans.

vestigial | veˈstij(ē)əl | 

adjective 

forming a very small remnant of something that was once much larger or more noticeable: he felt a vestigial flicker of anger from last night. 

• Biology (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution: the vestigial wings of kiwis are entirely hidden.

[believeinHim]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Ohno was a very early researcher, who did a lot of important work.   But geneticists have rejected his idea that non-coding DNA is "junk" and also his idea that gene duplication is the most common way for new genes to evolve.

When I was an undergrad in the late 60s, there were articles in the literature about functions of non-coding DNA.

Maybe we should focus on what scientists call it; "non-coding DNA."    And then we can discuss what scientists have found out about it.  Yes, some of it is junk, but much of it has useful functions.

Can we talk about what scientists have discovered about that?

 

I am not really sure your concern is the name of it, Or if  your concern is who started the name of it. I am not sure of that, at all.

[believeinHim]

I have read some more earlier this morning as I was awake from medications differences, Differing doses of medications as needed, And I can't remember anything to post it here right now, Without re reading. They do not refer to anything with non coding dna, But they do explain how complex it is, And complicated stuff that puts an Achilles Heel, another Achilles Heel in Evolution Theory. 

[believeinHim]

In the recent readings, I have read from the Doctorate in the 2nd Chapter, That yes the Earth is only 6,000 years old, 200 generations, And that there is evidence of the female genome evolving from only either one, or three females, Well, anyway, There is evidence of a quick evolving human race, A quick evolving race,

And one line from three females, Not multiples as the theory goes in "Out of Africa" or whatever that is, That there is only one line of females, And not a whole bunch of them, And that the genomes or whatever, I don't know If I am botching this, I don't have the book in front of me,

But dna evidence to prove that the Earth is 6,000 years old, 200 generations, And a quick evolving genome or a quick, a rapid evolving human beings, etc. I can get the book sometime and explain this better, It is so complicated, Which they did say it is in the book, too, The book said this stuff is very complicated.

Rapid evolving humans, or something like that, And yes, Strong evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth and 200 generation timeline, And immigrating to every other parts of the Earth, Not staying in Africa for thousands of years. This is in the 2nd chapter of the book. 

[believeinHim]

There is also evidence in the 2nd chapter, To which I looked at the charts and feel like I am looking at Greek, But there is also evidence in the 2nd Chapter in the book,

That chimps only share 70% of our DNA, Comparatively, Not the ninety or so that they always say, It's 70% or something, Or 70% it's not, I have to read that again, Basically they are saying chimps are less like us that what they report on tv is what they are saying.

Chimps are less like us than what is reported in mainstream. They show a chart, Which I don't know how I am supposed to copy that, But they show a chart of dna to show that chimps are not as much like us as has been reported. 

[Retrobyter]

2 minutes ago, believeinHim said:

In the recent readings, I have read from the Doctorate in the 2nd Chapter, That yes the Earth is only 6,000 years old, 200 generations, And that there is evidence of the female genome evolving from only either one, or three females, Well, anyway, There is evidence of a quick evolving human race, A quick evolving race,

And one line from three females, Not multiples as the theory goes in "Out of Africa" or whatever that is, That there is only one line of females, And not a whole bunch of them, And that the genomes or whatever, I don't know If I am botching this, I don't have the book in front of me,

But dna evidence to prove that the Earth is 6,000 years old, 200 generations, And a quick evolving genome or a quick, a rapid evolving human beings, etc. I can get the book sometime and explain this better, It is so complicated, Which they did say it is in the book, too, The book said this stuff is very complicated.

Rapid evolving humans, or something like that, And yes, Strong evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth and 200 generation timeline, And immigrating to every other parts of the Earth, Not staying in Africa for thousands of years. This is in the 2nd chapter of the book. 

Shalom, believeinHim.

Just to let you know, I've bought the book, and I'm joining you in the reading. That way, I'll be able to join you on your quest.