- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BrimonThere are many different types of mutation some result in less DNA some more. Evolution does not discriminate either. Its whatever is "fittest". So evolution can result in more or less DNA - but generally DNA increases over time (but this is all part of the shrouded subject of junk DNA which I'm not sure geneticists know much about yet).
Well, to the best of my understanding it is true. What I mean is this. DNA carries information doesn't it? A one-celled organism would not have the DNA information to manufacture everything needed for, for example, a horse. So new information must have been added over the years for evolution to be true?
As creatures diversify the gene pools become increasing ientists are evolutionists, and, secondly, scientists can get it wrong without being deranged.
EDIT: On second thoughts just read scottishinnz's posts - though I'm not sure if junk DNA is necassarily non-functioning. I do recall reading that junk DNA might determine when and how many times DNA transcription occurs - but it just seems to be a speculation.
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYou are right that it is thought some 'junk' DNA is functional. Much of it does seem to be non-functional from what we know, but as you said, some of the non-coding DNA regulates transcription and/or replication. What I think you are thinking of with how many times transcription occurs are called Tandem Arrays. This is when you have multiple copies of a gene that code for the same protein. At first this would seem unnecessary, like junk extra copies, but in fact, these copies allow the organism to more quickly produce a lot of those proteins which are encoded for by the copies. All the copies can be transcribed at once, so you can get a lot of that protein really fast. 60% of the Human Genome is repeats, but junk DNA is lately coming to mean DNA which has no function we know of yet, rather than just repetative or non-coding sequence.
I'm not sure if junk DNA is necassarily non-functioning. I do recall reading that junk DNA might determine when and how many times DNA transcription occurs - but it just seems to be a speculation.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Jun 06
another reason for my suggesting that the 'junk' DNA may not be pointless is some reasurch done on 'evolving' circuitry. the set up was that they had a set of components attatched to a set of wires and switches that could change the way they interconnected. (all computer controlled). the 100 or so seperate circuits were initially set to a random arangement and then tested to see if how well they performed at the task they were being designed for. the best were then used to create a series of offspring circuits which were then tested and so on and so forth for n many generations untill they had a circuit that performed the desired task. the circuit they ended up with was far smaller than any circuit a human would designe and it was non obviouse how it worked. to the extent that there was a set of components that didn't apparently do anything. however when removed the circuit stopped working and they haddn't at time of publishing worked out why. I have no idea if there is a similar effect in humans, and asking sombody whether you could remove their junk dna to see if they stopped functioning is probably not an option.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Jun 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowYep. You found all the words I was looking for. And there I was racking my brain.
You are right that it is thought some 'junk' DNA is functional. Much of it does seem to be non-functional from what we know, but as you said, some of the non-coding DNA regulates transcription and/or replication. What I think you are thinking of with how many times transcription occurs are called Tandem Arrays. This is when you have multiple copies ...[text shortened]... DNA which has no function we know of yet, rather than just repetative or non-coding sequence.
Cheers.
08 Jun 06
I'm with CreepySlash:
I REJECT EVOLUTION AND I BELIEVE IN CREATION.
A BILLION YEARS....YEAH, RIGHT.
God breathed life into Adam. Can man do that? No!
God sent His Son to die FOR ALL OF OUR SINS (NOT JUST MINE YOU GUYS TOO).
Haven't any of you seen 'The Passion of the Christ'?
Yes, Conrau, I go by http://www.answersingenesis.org
I also go by http://www.khouse.org
I also go by the movies: 'The Omega Code' 'The Omega Code 2' 'Revelation'
Check them out guys.
Are you ALL afraid to or what?
That's what I'm getting from you.
You're putting science in front of your fears.
Nosrac
08 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NosracStop spamming threads!!!
I'm with CreepySlash:
I REJECT EVOLUTION AND I BELIEVE IN CREATION.
A BILLION YEARS....YEAH, RIGHT.
God breathed life into Adam. Can man do that? No!
God sent His Son to die FOR ALL OF OUR SINS (NOT JUST MINE YOU GUYS TOO).
Haven't any of you seen 'The Passion of the Christ'?
Yes, Conrau, I go by http://www.answersingenesis.org
I also g t I'm getting from you.
You're putting science in front of your fears.
Nosrac
Here's my Carson impression;
"It CAN'T be true, it CAN'T be true. I'm going to go in a huff. I'll hold my breathe [turning purple]. But God said so..... [stamps feet]"
Seriously man, you have never raised any sort of objection whatsoever, other than your (less than credible) opinion.
[edit; oh, as for your "billion years" comment, what's more likely, a billion years or some supernatural creator blowing up some guys nose? Actually, wait, don't bother answering, you're nuts!]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by NosracEvolution is not a system of belief. You do not believe in evolution as you believe in Jesus. Evolution is a documented fact. The theory of evolution is an accepted explanation in biology.
I'm with CreepySlash:
I REJECT EVOLUTION AND I BELIEVE IN CREATION.
A BILLION YEARS....YEAH, RIGHT.
God breathed life into Adam. Can man do that? No!
God sent His Son to die FOR ALL OF OUR SINS (NOT JUST MINE YOU GUYS TOO).
Haven't any of you seen 'The Passion of the Christ'?
Yes, Conrau, I go by http://www.answersingenesis.org
I also g ...[text shortened]... t I'm getting from you.
You're putting science in front of your fears.
Nosrac
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by Conrau KExactly. "Belief" in evolution is like "belief" in gravity or the heliocentric model or the germ theory of disease.
Evolution is not a system of belief. You do not believe in evolution as you believe in Jesus. Evolution is a documented fact. The theory of evolution is an accepted explanation in biology.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by BrimonA one-celled organism would not have the DNA information to manufacture everything needed for, for example, a horse. So new information must have been added over the years for evolution to be true?
Well, to the best of my understanding it is true. What I mean is this. DNA carries information doesn't it? A one-celled organism would not have the DNA information to manufacture everything needed for, for example, a horse. So new information must have been added over the years for evolution to be true?
As creatures diversify the gene pools become increasing ...[text shortened]... ientists are evolutionists, and, secondly, scientists can get it wrong without being deranged.
I suppose so. Information would also have to be added for a horse to evolve into a one-celled organism. That doesn't mean one has "more" information than the other unless you come up with a way to count information.
As creatures diversify the gene pools become increasingly thinned out - carrying around a smaller fraction of the DNA information for their kind.
I don't understand. What's a kind? This sounds like the typical creationist perspective which suffers from problems such as: lack of ways to define and quantify complexity, information, "functional complexity", or whatever else you want to call it. In addition, "kind" is undefined as is what exactly the "DNA information for a kind" is made up of.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by flyUnityWhat do you mean by "backwards" and "forwards"? These are not evolutionary terms.
Ok, Im not understanding this, You say the "extra" DNA came in a random way, totaly by accident. So how come you state there is no negative consequences? To me it seems like if it came in a random way, it could either go backwards just as well as forward? or are you saying the the more DNA you have, the better?
If a random mutation is detrimental in the environment that the organism is in, it gets naturally selected out of the gene pool. In common speech, the animal or plant with the new genetic modification does not manage to mate and bear young as well as it's competitors.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by NosracYou're putting your fears in front of science.
I'm with CreepySlash:
I REJECT EVOLUTION AND I BELIEVE IN CREATION.
A BILLION YEARS....YEAH, RIGHT.
God breathed life into Adam. Can man do that? No!
God sent His Son to die FOR ALL OF OUR SINS (NOT JUST MINE YOU GUYS TOO).
Haven't any of you seen 'The Passion of the Christ'?
Yes, Conrau, I go by http://www.answersingenesis.org
I also g ...[text shortened]... t I'm getting from you.
You're putting science in front of your fears.
Nosrac