Forgot Password?
Login now or REGISTER FREE!



The Christian Chat Network > Blogs > nova : UCSD Study Shows 'Junk' DNA Has Evolutionary Importance (debunk)

Rate this Entry

UCSD Study Shows 'Junk' DNA Has Evolutionary Importance (debunk)

Posted 06-09-2009 at 09:43 AM by nova

Quote:
ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2005) — Genetic material derisively called “junk” DNA because it does not contain the instructions for protein-coding genes and appears to have little or no function is actually critically important to an organism’s evolutionary survival, according to a study conducted by a biologist at UCSD.
See also:
Plants & Animals
So what science use to say was junk is now not junk? Funny how things that were “true” in science change when it may serve to further evolution. Previously it was “junk”DNA left over from evolution that served no purpose that is of course when this “junk” DNA harmed evolution if it was in fact not junk. Funny how us nut job young earth creationists made statements about this junk dna and how it was not junk but served important functions! See below quote and my reply

Quote:
In the October 20 issue of Nature, Peter Andolfatto, an assistant professor of biology at UCSD, shows that these non-coding regions play an important role in maintaining an organism’s genetic integrity. In his study of the genes from the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, he discovered that these regions are strongly affected by natural selection, the evolutionary process that preferentially leads to the survival of organisms and genes best adapted to the environment.
Ha so in other words its just what creationists have been saying sense clear back in 2k and before in fact! Stop steeling our ideas that we came up with years ago I mean seriously. It is realy bad form.. answers in genesis aug 2k technical journal
‘Junk’ DNA: evolutionary discards or God’s tools?

1


Quote:
Andolfatto’s findings are important because the similarity of genome sequences in fruit flies, worms and humans suggest that similar processes are probably responsible for the differences between humans and their close evolutionary relatives.
Here comes them red words again suggest] They do not prove they suggest but the suggestion is all assumed and believed and they have hope it is. I would say they have blind faith that this is the case. probably responsiblebased on what? A assumption a hope a pipe dream?the assumption of old earth and evolution based on no facts

Quote:
“Sequencing of the complete genome in humans, fruit flies, nematodes and plants has revealed that the number of protein-coding genes is much more similar among these species than expected,” he says. “Curiously, the largest differences between major species groups appear to be the amount of ‘junk’ DNA rather than the number of genes.”
Wow notice this now the DNA thought to be junk is junk the largest differences between major species … appearto be in the junk DNA. So When junk DNA can be made to seem to support evolution its not really junk but when millions of sequences of code is found in the so call junk DNA its junk again? Hmm you can not have it both ways it is ither always junk or never junk take your pick.

Quote:
Using a recently developed population genetic approach, Andolfatto showed in his study that these expansive regions of “junk” DNA—which in Drosophila accounts for about 80 percent of the fly’s total genome—are evolving more slowly than expected due to natural selection pressures on the non-protein-coding DNA to remain the same over time.
Or how about not evolving at all in the one kind to another kind sense? Looky there it goes back to being not junk DNA

Quote:
“This pattern most likely reflects resistance to the incorporation of new mutations,” he says. “In fact, 40 to 70 percent of new mutations that arise in non-coding DNA fail to be incorporated by this species, which suggests that these non-protein-coding regions are not ‘junk,’ but are somehow functionally important to the organism.”
They hope it reflects... Resistance to mutations that evolution if true in the macro sense needs to even have a remote chance of being true. Note 40 to 70% of mutations in the non coding dna fail to get passed on to the next generation.suggests huh? So again I have to ask whats the real evidence here? Of course the non coding DNA is not junk (see answers in genesis article linked above) just as young earth creationists have said for many years.We have known its important to animals for a while now.

Quote:
Andolfatto also found that “junk” regions exhibit an unusually large amount of functional genetic divergence between different species of Drosophila, further evidence that these regions are evolutionarily important to organisms. This implies that, like evolutionary changes to proteins, changes to these “junk” parts of the genome also play an important role in the evolution of new species.
Hmm large amounts of functional genetic divergence between different species of _____ you could fill in the blank here with any given kind of animal or insect. baseless assumption built in that species (kinds) evolve

Quote:
“Protein evolution has traditionally been emphasized as a key facet of genome evolution and the evolution of new species,” says Andolfatto. “The degree of protein sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees, and other closely-related but morphologically distinct taxa, has prompted several researchers to speculate that most adaptive differences between taxa are due to changes in gene regulation and not protein evolution. My results lend support to this view by demonstrating that regulatory changes have been of great importance in the evolution of new Drosophila species.”
Again they make the baseless assumption that evolution happens. Notice it is not says the evidence (none is provided) it is says the scientist. Ill end this post here the remaining of the above section just has way to many baseless assumptions to cover.



1 Linda K. Walkup has a B.A. in biochemistry and biology from Rice University, and a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from the University of New Mexico Medical School. She is actively involved in the New Mexico Creation Science Fellowship, teaches creation science classes and gives seminars on molecular biology-related creation/evolution issues. She is currently employed in homeschooling her two children and organizing the local homeschooling science fair.

Posted in Uncategorized
Views 375 Comments 0 Email Blog Entry
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 0

Comments

 


Social Groups

Join an existing social group or create your own! Socials groups make excellent extensions for any online ministry.

Christian Chat

Follow CCNet

Follow happenings at The Christian Chat Network on Facebook and Twitter.




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 PM. Custom vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. The Christian Chat Network