Junk’ DNA is thought by evolutionists to be useless DNA leftover from past evolutionary permutations.Unfortunately 'thought' speaks of preconceptions and prejudice as always.
But now many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation.
That is why with evolution "it is written and rewritten and rewritten" and every time there is an accompanying prejudice that leads to foolish errors. Doubtless there may be some 'junk' in the DNA but if there is a superintelligent creator than we start with the position that the majority of the DNA, that which is not mutated and damaged,was created with a function.
Evolutionists tend to start with the prejudice that if they don't know the function of something then it must be a useless vestige of something in evolutionary history -because they know that evolution happened.
This rewriting of history is no more plausible than other creationist attempts to do the same thing.
The fact is that it is of course scientists, i.e. evolutionists, who spent a great deal of time and effort elucidating the function of noncoding DNA. After evolutionists had spent a few decades explaining the functions of these regions to (amongst others) creationists who spent their time sitting on their asses doing no science and whining about it, creationists managed to understand the information that evolutionists had spoon-fed them.
At this point, creationists inbvented a new lie. They started to pretend that it was evolutionist dogma that all non-coding DNA was "junk", and that the facts that evolutionists had, in reality, spoon-fed you, contradicted this imaginary dogma.
Your use of the word "now" is particularly revealling. As so often with creationists, you date these discoveries not from when they were made by evolutionists, but from the point at which creationists learned to lie about them.
Not only did I post a reply here, but I then edited it slightly. And now it's vanished, this is most odd. Let's try again.
Rationality and truth are not synonymous with evolutionist and science.
They do seem to have been pretty much walking hand-in-hand for the last 150 years or so, which is why, for example, the functions of non-coding DNA were not discovered by the non-rational, untruthful, unscientific creationists at the ICR or the DI.
The boat is sinking.
But this isn't actually true, is it?
It is, however, the lie that creationists have been reciting to themselves for the past 150 years or so.
The myth that any moment now you guys will triumph has literally been passed down from generation to generation. I might ask at what point creationists will realise that this is stupid, but the question would be purely rhetorical. You won't.
If God created the world, then you are the one that is deluded.
"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts ..."
You can make up as many wonderful scientific stories as you want about natural causes creating design by chance and selection ...
Better yet, we can prove 'em!
... but you are unfortunately deceiving yourself -worse than that, you are deceiving others.
And yet it is my posts that are factually accurate.
It seems that in the creationist Bizarro World you inhabit, I "deceive" people by telling the truth, whereas you enlighten them by reciting witless creationist nonsense, don't you, Mr "all Earth's creatures have 2 eyes"?
Yes, horses have hooves. Have you ever considered that the other creatures, that look vastly different from a horse, just may not be horses.
Yes, that was kind of my point. So we have a series of intermediate forms between something that definitely isn't a horse and something that definitely is.
Could it be possible that you are forcing the evolution theory into the fossil record of these creatures.
No forcing is required. We predicted intermediate forms, intermediate forms we got.
The new theories on this have many branches and many required unfound transitionals. Just maybe, could they be unrelated in the first place?
There are always "unfound transitionals", this is because the fossil record does not contain every animal that ever lived, and because we've only looked at a fraction of it anyway. There are, however, plenty enough to confirm horse evolution.
The evolutionist perpective of linear progression of slow gradual horse evolution has all but been abandoned today for the "branch bush" theory ...
What you were most likely taught in schools about this linear progression has been declared by science to be erroneous. Couldn't the "branching bush" theory be just as erroneous.
What you have been taught by creationists about this subject is certainly inaccurate. It seems to have arisen by misunderstanding a fairly trivial point of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.
Certainly there is a bush, as evolutionists have always maintained. Tree of Life, remember? It's one of those things we've been banging on about for the last century-and-a-half.
And there is, naturally, a line that you can draw on any bush leading from its trunk to the tip of one of its twigs. This would be the line of descent of (in this case) Equus.
Stephen Jay Gould's point was that if we just show this line of descent, we are to some extent concealing how evolutionists think that evolution works, as exemplified by the fossil record of horses and by the one diagram in the Origin of Species:
"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48)
Yes. That's an argument for evolution. It's in the Origin of Species.
There are 13 different definitions/explanations of what a species is. So you can pick and choose whichever you like, depending on what you want to demonstrate.
No you can't. You cannot, for example, pick a definition of "species" that makes a tiger the same species as a hummingbird.
The definition of macro evolution is dependent on the definition of species.
Macroevolution depends crucially on the fact that there are no sharp lines between species, which are merely human methods of classification.
The inability of creationists to come up with one hard-and-fast definition of species rather proves our point.
If you guys wish to claim that one species can't turn into another, please come up with one "unequivocal" definition of species. According to the theory of evolution, there can be no definition such that the relation "is the same species as" is transitive, and hence "species" cannot be an equivalence class.
Now to have evolution in the first place you need mutations, drift, and selection. In every documented case of a "beneficial" mutation the genetic capacity for the benefit is existant in the population. That means that if that beneficial trait is selected then certain other traits are lost in the non beneficial populations. Over time, genetic capacity is diminished and not increased ... We see the gentic capacity of certain traits selected from a population, but we never see the genetic capacity of the entire genome increased.
If this meant anything, it would be wrong.
Sheesh, what do you think a mutation is, even?
You seem to be jumbling up several different creationist mistakes about genetics into one big mess.
Now science is very young here ...
Translation: creationists have been making vague noises like this for decades, but it still makes no sense.
The example I like to use is that is you take a miniature poodle and breed it with a wolf type dog. You can eventually breed it back similar to the wolf type dog. But if you take two miniature poodles, and continue to breed them, you will never get back to a wolf type dog.
I presume that your favorite "example" is something you've made up, since I know of no such experiment. I also know that every mutation is capable of reversion.
Now since most of you believe that horses evolved from eohippus then it should be easy to present evidence of actual beneficial mutations within horses. Any takers???
Yes. Observe the changes in the lineage evident in the fossil record.
Simply put, you have a category error. You are confusing variety in the genome with macro evolution which involves the addition of substantial amounts of information to the genome. Yes wide varieties can happen in microevolution through different alleles and recombination.
And mutation. If you don't know this, then you have some reading to do.
This is the macro evolution you are talking about in bacteria to man evolution. This requires beneficial mutations to be selected by nature and prior genetic traits to be elliminated from the populations.
Which we see over and over again.
This is like saying "if gravity was true, then we'd see things fall when we drop them".
Simply put, you have differing fossils at different levels geologically ...
Yeah, we have a bunch of intermediate forms.
However that is not what macroevolution is about. Macro evolution is about polygenic morphologies suddenly appearing in the fossil record.
You are still lying to us about what we think.
You are not going to deceive us by so doing.
The imagination of morphologies will eventually be overturned by genetic evidence.(my prediction). Just this month in Science magazine, there is an article that examined 32 kilobases (just a fraction) from 169 bird species. What this study showed is that vastly morphologically different species are often more closely related than similar morphological species. ("A Phylogeneic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History")
I prefer it when you give references that we can read.
Since you do not, I am not going to take your word for what any scientific paper says without reading it myself. Because experience shows us that you are not very reliable as to facts.
Damnit, I had hopes for you. But you're just a creationist lie-machine after all.
LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT GENETICS. Anything, it's all good.
You've put us firmly in the primate kind. Well done.
And this, of course, is why creationists will never present us with a biological, morphological, or genetic criterion for "created kind".
They want to lump together as many species as they can into each "created kind", while spliting humans and chimpazees into two different "created kinds".
Obviously there is no criterion that enables them to do that. They have to leave this term undefined, just as they have to evade the question about the imaginary line between microevolution and macroevolution, or the imaginary line between varieties and species.
Of course they can't say what they mean, their world would fall apart if they tried.