Simple evidence for ID

Thanks. I've read about the processes in a general way before, not that I can say I grasp it clearly. No pictures? There are all these nice diagrams you can find showing how "normal" DNA operates, replicates itself, etc., but nothing for junk DNA that I've found. Certainly seems to be a dysfunctional thing, a destroyed thing, which is more or less benign like a "vestigial organ" though like a vestigial organ it can also cause problems under some circumstances.From the description there's no way to tell how it got that way in the first place however. The tendency is to take as "normal" whatever is observed, but it could conceivably be the result of genetic destruction of some kind over time, no? The "pseudogenes" appear to be that. The following quote says these are very likely the product of the copying of mutations that produce nonfunctioning DNA, obviously a deleterious process. Maybe there is a sequence of degenerative processes from one kind of "Junk DNA" to another over time?The link describes the situation a bit differently than you do. It also claims junk DNA proves evolution. It goes on past the portion I've quoted to discuss how some junk DNA copies the same errors in the same genetic sequences across species and how this demonstrates common descent.I might guess, based of course on my Biblical presupposition, that the replication of the same errors in the same design factors across species doesn't prove common descent but rather perhaps a catastrophic event that annihilated huge numbers of all living things. I admit it's a wild guess and I haven't the foggiest idea how it would get into the DNA but junk DNA looks like it represents death and disease and dysfunction, and the Flood was a biggie. Also of course from a creationist point of view it suggests processes of the progressive deterioration since the Fall in any case. The idea is that Adam and Eve and every living creature at its origin had enormously more genetic potential than we now do, and this is reflected in the huge amounts of garbage DNA.But the replication of similar errors is interesting and does suggest a shared catastrophe somehow. Yes I know you think I'm cracked. That's OK, I'm used to it.Atheism and Agnosticism I guess I'm enjoying the Leniency that I've been told I'm given here, since I haven't been booted off this thread or off the whole forum yet, but have been allowed to ramble on about these things unmolested. Thank you I do appreciate it, Powers that Be. I'm sorry Buz had to take the fall though. What I'm saying is similar to what other creationists have said on this forum who take a lot of flak for it, and they say it with a lot more knowledge of the processes than I have.

Well, IMO, you have the right to state your case, and also IMO, you are to be commended of late for a very sincere effort to remain topical and cool-headed.Of course, personally, to state that I find your case less than compelling is to engage in considerable understatement.Nevertheless,
I support your right to present it.

Junk DNA replicates the same way the rest of it does; it's copied along with everything else during mitosis.

I guess I wasn't clear, sorry, I meant to emphasize the "how it operates" part of that sentence, meaning it apparently looks different and acts different from functioning DNA in many ways and I haven't seen a diagram that illustrates these differences. There are diagrams showing the way proteins are produced in functioning DNA, a matter of many possible chemical combinations at a given locus or set of loci, but something in that process is missing in the junk DNA, and I have a problem visualizing it.

Hi Faith,
Somebody will probably correct me, but my understanding is it doesn't do anything.If if helps, think of having a file on you computer called sdfj.pxe, which contains the text "dsf8aifji". It doesn't do anything useful, or dangerous, but if you copy the contents of you disk drive, you'll find the copy also has a file called sdfj.pxe that doesn't do anything.
If it's there or not doesn't make any difference to the rest of your computer (apart from taking a few extra milliseconds to do a copy) it's just along for the ride.If it doesn't help, of course, ignore it.

OK but tell me what it looks like, what it's made of. It really does absolutely nothing? (But pseudogenes do, sort of fitfully as it were?) Are any of the four bases present at all, any chemical combinations/molecular structures formed from the bases at all? What are introns? I've seen them defined as "interruptions." Do they occur anywhere in the functioning DNA sequences? I really want to see a diagram, like the ones that show the 3D arrangement of the double helix with all the spheres, or the ones with the base combinations illustrated.I'm beginning to grasp that Intelligent Design theory argues that Junk DNA is NOT junk but that its function is so far unknown because the whole science is new, and that evolutionists are the ones who regard it as junk, correct? (Do IDers deny the Fall and its effects, seeing what we have as God's perfect creation as is?) I would think YECs like myself would suspect that it could very well be junk as I do, because it's consistent with the view that life is deteriorating since the Fall, devolving not evolving, exhibits entropy etc etc etc.

I'm replying to Faith's post, but this is for all in general.We have a number of "Junk DNA" topics. I'm glad to see an interest and willingness to discuss it. But it's best to do it in another topic."Junk DNA" a useful term or not? looks to me like the current "open thread" for discussing Junk DNA. Let's move the discussion there. Faith, I'd really appreciate if you could copy your post there (just copy / paste the "peek" version of your post here, and post it there). You can link your current post to your new one... but I can do that for you if necessary.As I said, I'm glad to see this investigation go on. Let's do it somewhere where others can benefit from it in the future.

(Thanks Ben)Faith,
Hopefully something useful at Message 15I'm not sure what the ID position is (It's probably something to do with information entropy, they like that phrase a lot), although a degrading from the fall and the insertion of junk with evolution would look about the same, so far as I know...This message has been edited by Dead Parrot, 05-19-2005 10:36 PM

Feel free to move off-topic discussion over to a new thread any time. Just do a general reply, and link back to the post in this message. You can also reply in the original thread, linking to the new thread.So, feel free to post a reply to Faith's message in the mentioned thread. You can edit your post here (#98) to link to your response in the other thread.Thanks.This message has been edited by AdminBen, Thursday, 2005/05/19 06:50 PM

Apparent inplicit perfection? What extra-Biblical evidence is there that perfection existed sometime in the past?I agree that there is evidence that humans are becoming less fit to survive outside of the modern society. Those very medical advances that are keeping us from dying young, are allowing us to pass on the genes that would have been lost to the human gene pool due to natural selection. Childhood diabetes, hemophilia and other heriditary diseases are becoming more prevalent. Additionally, susceptibility to disease is somewhat an inherited trait. That susceptibility is passed on the the following generations.This is just an observation, not a suggestion that we allow children to die so we can improve the gene pool.

---

The Darwin Awards are given under false pretenses...Most of the awardees were already old enough to have children

FaithJust to confirm I've responded to your posts in the junk dna thread.CheersMick

I don't mean to jump in the middle of your conversations, but just so you know that those diagrams you often see in text books are not really what DNA and proteins look like. They are just representations of what they are to make it easier for people to understand. Actually, it does absolutely nothing according to our current understanding of genetics. What other bases are there? Trust me, it won't help. It's possible. There are many useful body parts nowadays that were once useless. Not just evolutionists, but everybody that has an understanding of empirical science. We only know what we can measure and experiment with. Although it is possible that these genes have their own useful functions, based on our current understanding of genetics they don't. And we can't start saying that they are purposeful even though we don't know what they do. Make sense? There's no such word in science. Perhaps you would like to submit it to the peer review system?

Hi GAW-snow,The discussion got moved to this threadCheersMick

I was relying on the mere appearance of things, but of course some do not see this implicit perfection in nature. I was saying I think it's "apparent" -- but not all see it. Also the damage I was saying is also "apparent." This would be a good topic for contrasting the Biblical view with evolutionism, maybe for another thread sometime. Although humane motives prevail, the fact is that they are logically inconsistent with the assumptions of evolution, which logically would propose an ethics of selecting the healthy and strong and depriving the sick and weak of the ability to propagate. This was the philosophy that led to Nazism, but it is rarely acknowledged that it is a direct logical conclusion from evolutionism. In fact it was held quite seriously by much of the intelligentsia of the early part of the 20th century, and not only in Germany.Now we of course apply the principle of compassion to these situations, but the very explanation of the problem in evolutionistic terms makes this compassion an imposition upon the situation rather than an organic or logical conclusion based on it. Evolution and the ethics of compassion are in constant tension therefore.

I hope you get the time to start such a thread sometime, because to be frank I think the views you express in the following two paragraphs are completely wrong.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet