Totally out of date. Scientists (i.e. the people who are not creationists nor IDers and actually DO the work) are the ones who have discovered that "Junk" DNA actually has some influence on Gene expression (Dr Kay, UK scientist).
The bottom line is this. Have any of these scientists who have proved that "Junk" dna has a use exclaimed "It must be design"? Of course not. Why not leave the science to the scientists and not twist what they are saying?
Why would one call it "Junk DNA"? Because one starts with a presumption that coding for proteins is the only legitimate function of DNA, although I am unaware of any empirical evidence for such a presumption. I am aware that, as scientific knowledge advances, the credibility of Darwinism recedes.
So you think people that apply critical thinking skills and skepticism to scientific problems should go kill themselves? Oh, that's right, you are just standing up for your pseudo-scientific religion.
Haha! Some if it may be "extra", and the genetic expression of an organism may never use it. But if you would actually delve into the literature, you would see that much of the genome is translated into RNAs. They are just now starting to figure out what those RNAs do. Alot of it has to to do with regulating gene expression. So no, it's not junk. Also, study bacteria and how they shuffle their genomes and incorporate new sequences through lateral gene transfer. You thought wrong.
The outdated junk DNA paradigm used to be the poster child for neo Darwinist. Just a few years ago Miller called it a bunch of mindless scribble. We now know that it is anything but mindless scribble. This consensus led and perpetuated by neo Darwinist set science back at least 40 years. Even Wikipedia hints to this reality. Mendel was ignored by neo Darwinist for 50 years. Collectively that is a lot of wasted years, when instead of brushing things off, we could have actually been researching.
Even if you have beliefs about evolution or ID it is important to hold the people putting out the DNA information reliable. Without the proper equipment it is necessary to take the word of DNA experts for what they think is fact and fiction about DNA.
I don't believe what I'm told without proofs. From what I can discover from research that millions of copies are made of a DNA strand then their separated and spliced and put into order? What are they ordered to?
I like to hear opposing views, but I always tend to check on their sources. Good thing too. If your only source is the Institute for Creation Research (lol, research and creationism) I already know I don't have to waste my time.
God doesn't make junk?!? He made Dinosaurs, made Noah take the on the Ark, and then 'poof', all gone. No trace of them except 100 million year old fossis.
What does that prove? Well one thing is that all life on Earth past and present is very similar. Almost as if it was designed by the same person. Just like all pictures painted by the same person are similar. Every time you sign your name its similar. If there where no creator or designer wouldn't we expect vast differences?
Biologists don't just point out similarities between animals, and then conclude that this is "proof" of evolution. Generally, science doesn't prove anything, we just collect compelling evidence and test hypotheses. Distinct genetic markers in the genes of organism form patterns that are indicative of common descent. Genetics allows scientists to test common descent.
@UtherPendragan If a creator designed all biology then biology wouldn't be so badly designed.The human heart with no collateral blood flow,the snake's hip bone, the backwards human eye and so on.Further,where is the signature of the creator in all DNA? We do see vast differences in the DNA of distantly related life, like worms and humans, but we also see inherited similarities that make common ancestry certain: cytochrome-c, pseudogenes, ERVs, mRNA, miRNA, iRNA, the list is long and undeniable.
@LordSlag tables and chairs often have lots of inherited similarities like being made of wood. They even may be made from the same board. Even with common ancestry provable we don't assume that the table evolved as at tree, then a chair, and finally after millions of years decided to be a table.
Creation is always assumed when we find creativity except with DNA? Somehow ERV's mRNA and miRNA don't make common ancestry undeniable. That is just what I believe you have been taught.
@smoothpeople33 Tables and chairs have no inherited traits because they do not reproduce, they are manufactured. Therefore, your argument has no weight or relevance at all and the evidence that proves biological evolution still stands mighty, tall, and undeniable. Please learn how to perceive reality correctly and thanks for playing.
Yes, the ideal chance for the 'designer' to show 'his' hand!
If all creatures were similar, and shared DNA sequences, EXCEPT the 'special' creation, humans, boy, that would be some case for a creator. Yet we are almost identical to chimps! Chimps are adapted to life in the jungle. 'God's special creation' is adapted for life in the jungle?? Why not uniquely designed?
Some volvos are similar to fords are similar to mazda are similar to toyotas. SAME designer?
@derek24hudson what environment are humans evolved to? We sit on top of the animal and plant kingdom with the least protection from the elements, terrible sense of smell, terrible eye sight, we don't run super fast, and we cook and prepare every plant and animal on earth like it was a created pallet.
Monkey DNA is monkey and Human DNA is human a code was created to ensure this is the case.
People designed all automobiles and cars were created and didn't evolve from iron and rubber. lol
I think you really got the point. Although humans are almost identical morphologically and in anatomy to chimps who are perfectly adapted to their environment we have moved from that environment through the evolution of greater intelligence and language. Top of the heap? That's the basis of religion, human arrogance, and our likely demise as the 'top species'. When viruses have finished off humans entirely, THEY will, for a brief period, be 'top dog'. Nothing special about us.
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV locations in common. Common ancestor?
Some correct information - with wrong and unsubstantiated conclusions. functional "junk DNA" does not necessarily mean creation. That's all. Moreover, if DNA is always perfect, what's the sense of a lethal mutation and what's the sense of a neutral mutation (that keeps staying in the population)? In fact, that neutral mutation could later on be used for... evolution!
Is your hard drive mostly junk when it is not full? or is it just extra space available that you can fill up later? Would an intelligent designer create a full hard drive with no room to change and update later?
Oh! Poor Creationist, strawman arguments againts science is not argument at all, you see.
I agree that the term "Junk DNA" labeled by Dr. Ohno at the time is a bit infortunate, but still in NO way does it mean that "junk DNA" has to be taken literaly as junk, and he made that clear in his papers if you creationist ever cared to investigate.
heres a question..why are you ignorant to truth?oh thats right because christian's don't attend college..we just hide in caves with our bibles and hide from evolutionist nuts...and just hold our bibles in the air and hope you believe...there is scientific evidence for a creator...and many of the bible's events have been proven..as well as jesus life on earth..through the bible and in the secular sect...but ignore that..maybe it will just go away.
Oh right..i should have known better since carbon dating is so true right?..It can easily meaure the age of matter such as wood and cloth..but as for Mineral rock and lava layers..it fails and fails miserably..180 million years? False..Which bible event's have been proven false..and no i don't wish to hear things not yet discovered..Not discovering something in our present time doesn't make something false...but ignore that maybe it will just go away.
carbon dating is so true right?..It can easily meaure the age of matter such as wood and cloth..but as for Mineral rock and lava layers..it fails and fails miserably..180 million years? False
That is why they don't use C14 to date rocks and lava layers, dummy.
But they do use it to date wood and cloth easily up to 60,000 years
could you please tell me what in the bible has been proven wrong???? the bible doesnt state that the earth is the center of the universe or that dinosaurs necessarily lived with man.. so what are you taking about? archeological evidence is reinforcing the bible everyday.. soooooo?
your using very poor exegesus and ineterpretation skills.... in chp2 vs 19, he says now God made the beasts and brought them to adam. "Now" is not refering to the time he created them he is using Now as a word describing the event that is taking place in the sequence.... Your approach is a horrible attempt at best... next time dig into the hebrew language and youll get a better inference. CHp 1 is specific chp 2 is getting into smaller details then the first. study harder friend.
Where does the bible say the earth is the center of the universe? Why couldn't a global flood cover the earth? Ah because the water would fall off the earth..You don't believe that do you The earth rotates..it is made up of 70 percent water..many miles deep..couldnt the water still fall off the earth or does it need the extra 30 percent? and yes i will agree as far as i know the bible in two seperate areas describes the earth as flat and in another as a sphere
Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
the bible calls the earth a circle,, the bible doesnt claim the earth as the center and please proove that there wasnt a global flood..... in your 180 cagillion years of history?
Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science."
Galileo was warned to abandon his support for Copernicanism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
@Hisson82 so evidence for a "creator" does not in any way show that there is a GOD. Any organism, ie aliens, coul use the language of DNA to create other organisms.
A funny thing this video harps on is the name Junk Dna and of vestidule organs. It was the creationists who demanded to know why the tonsils and appendix had no function. So evo's said they were leftover. Now that science knows they have function, it does not mean that the bible is true. Just that the "leftover" theory was wrong.
Zipfian distributions and Shannon redundancy also arise in randomly-generated texts with no linguistic structure, so what does it matter that it occurs in DNA? The still have to find a meaning for the sequence (Like the universal coing sequences) becuase all they have is nice statistics
@Gorteenminogue No one has made proteins from from scratch,u dumb fuck..no one can get all left handed amino acids to assemble on single protein..Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!! Miller knew this,and no advancements have been made since 1953
Haha.."evolutionists"? Do you mean *scientists*? Everybody knows that everybody in science are "evolutionists", since evolution is both proven, observed and is being used in practice. So it's a bit pointless to use that term..you should use for instance *biologists*, *zoologists*, *physicists*, *palaentologists* or whatever, depending on who you're describing. Cheers!
@winterstellar No one has made proteins from from scratch,u dumb fuck..no one can get all left handed amino acids to assemble on single protein..Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!! Miller knew this,and no advancements have been made since 1953
So things change = the answer to all questions. Wow, that's incredible. I did not realize that all of my skepticism, my critical thinking, and my need for evidence were all in vein. I'm glad that science has been replaced with evolution and that scientists have been replaced with evolutionists. After all, if we are going to turn this into a battle between pseudo-scientific dogma and reality, we might as well preserve the pseudo-science since it has the term science in it.
The term junk DNA is, and has always been, a tentative classification of what scientific research has not identified yet. Instead of rounding everything unknown off to a god/gods or saying god-did-it, the scientific discipline must classify it, and instead of saying "DNA with unknown functions", the term junk DNA has been used. All you have to do, as an independently thinking human being, is to look up the actual definition of the term.
If we evolved from ape, and the apes ass was more beneficial, then why did it evolve?"
It's a little something called 'improved mobility'. The 'ass' of a human is actually three large muscles, the gluteus maximus, medius, and minimus. These essential muscles are what allow us to stand upright and walk as well as we do. And besides, I was not aware that having some extra mass around our anuses was a deadly disadvantage.
Absolutely absurd, are god believers so purely unaware of the nature of the subject of biology to not even understand that the name of something totally trivial. scientists also named a mammal in tazmania the "Tasmanian Devil". does that mean that scientists really think that the devil has been discovered on Earth? NO! all it means is that the animal in tasmania may have some stereotypical qualities of the made up idea held by some humans. This is the same thing going on in the name "junk dna"
Yes it is true that we did not know what the noncoding DNA did when it was found - scientists continued to explore and, just as good science should --- and yes some of it has been found to have regulatory function But much of it has no function. You seem to have failed to mention this. Finally you fail to explain that even if some of the junk DNA is functional it in no way proves a creator for DNA
God did make one small mistake in my opinion. We are the only animal that has to squeez shit past two ass cheeks. This is so disgusting. Not to mention a real pain in the ass!.... Especially if you foget to wipe. Sadly I envy my dog every time she takes a crap.
2.3 MILLION base pairs were deleted from the mouse genome, and ...
"Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."
Nóbrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM, Nature. Megabase deletions of gene
deserts result in viable mice, Nature 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93)
I like how the very first thing you hear is "HOW GOD CREATED DNA" So we're automatically going off of the assumption that there's even a god to begin with, let alone that he created anything.
Even then, you still didn't prove anything besides how ignorant you are and how you dislike the evolutionary theory oh so much. How can anyone take this seriously?
Once you show me some solid fucking evidence of any of your beliefs, only then will I bother to take you seriously.
visit "junkdna dot com" or do your own web-search for a scientific view on junk-dna to find out real information on the issue, because this video really makes no sense at all.
can someone please explain to me why many genes are a combination of several proteins, and why the proteins for a given gene are often scattered widely across the genome instead of all organized together, like any good computer programmer organizes commands?
if i were a designer, ready to write the genetic code for life, i would organize it much more cleanly.
Oh, the blasphemy. Are you saying your creator is a snivelling, chickenshit, hiding scared dog who doesn't want to be seen? Want to know how to convert every atheist to islam? Get allah to show herself.
God- no, aliens as creators MAYBE.
lkrnpk 1 month ago
What lying assholes.
csadler 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Totally out of date. Scientists (i.e. the people who are not creationists nor IDers and actually DO the work) are the ones who have discovered that "Junk" DNA actually has some influence on Gene expression (Dr Kay, UK scientist).
The bottom line is this. Have any of these scientists who have proved that "Junk" dna has a use exclaimed "It must be design"? Of course not. Why not leave the science to the scientists and not twist what they are saying?
Btw dna repair means poor design.
pilgrimpater 4 months ago
Comment removed
pilgrimpater 4 months ago
Why would one call it "Junk DNA"? Because one starts with a presumption that coding for proteins is the only legitimate function of DNA, although I am unaware of any empirical evidence for such a presumption. I am aware that, as scientific knowledge advances, the credibility of Darwinism recedes.
cavalier973 8 months ago
@cavalier973
Wrong, here's a load gun to kill yourself with.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k
So you think people that apply critical thinking skills and skepticism to scientific problems should go kill themselves? Oh, that's right, you are just standing up for your pseudo-scientific religion.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Or tests have been done to show it's junk.
Explain how removing the junk DNA from a group of mice and have them be perfectly fine is not evidence of junk DNA being useless?
Hmmm? What's that you're just a piece of retarded shit creationist? Thought so.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k
Haha! Some if it may be "extra", and the genetic expression of an organism may never use it. But if you would actually delve into the literature, you would see that much of the genome is translated into RNAs. They are just now starting to figure out what those RNAs do. Alot of it has to to do with regulating gene expression. So no, it's not junk. Also, study bacteria and how they shuffle their genomes and incorporate new sequences through lateral gene transfer. You thought wrong.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
So you can't counter that example. Not surprising.
mecher3k 5 months ago
The outdated junk DNA paradigm used to be the poster child for neo Darwinist. Just a few years ago Miller called it a bunch of mindless scribble. We now know that it is anything but mindless scribble. This consensus led and perpetuated by neo Darwinist set science back at least 40 years. Even Wikipedia hints to this reality. Mendel was ignored by neo Darwinist for 50 years. Collectively that is a lot of wasted years, when instead of brushing things off, we could have actually been researching.
benthemiester 8 months ago
This audio should be used to teach in schools
drshamast 10 months ago
Junk DNA? as usual, atheism always undermines science
IloveYOUviruses 1 year ago
Even if you have beliefs about evolution or ID it is important to hold the people putting out the DNA information reliable. Without the proper equipment it is necessary to take the word of DNA experts for what they think is fact and fiction about DNA.
I don't believe what I'm told without proofs. From what I can discover from research that millions of copies are made of a DNA strand then their separated and spliced and put into order? What are they ordered to?
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
"These important parts of dna secular scientists call junk. The creationist position is that god doesn't need junk" And then I quit the video.
89Duo 1 year ago
@89Duo But "science" does need junk! You funny.
GospelHouseKat 10 months ago
I like to hear opposing views, but I always tend to check on their sources. Good thing too. If your only source is the Institute for Creation Research (lol, research and creationism) I already know I don't have to waste my time.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo
yup.
ICR are a bunch of asshats.
you read the actual papers they refer too and you see how disingenuous they actually are.
and this comes form a biology student.
thinkppl 1 year ago
junk dna help evolution alot, look it up
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
*facepalm*
drnekodr 1 year ago
God doesn't make junk?!? He made Dinosaurs, made Noah take the on the Ark, and then 'poof', all gone. No trace of them except 100 million year old fossis.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The code for a chimp is 98% human.
The code for a dod is 85% human.
The code for a sea urchen is 25% human.
What does that prove? Well one thing is that all life on Earth past and present is very similar. Almost as if it was designed by the same person. Just like all pictures painted by the same person are similar. Every time you sign your name its similar. If there where no creator or designer wouldn't we expect vast differences?
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
@UtherPendragan
Biologists don't just point out similarities between animals, and then conclude that this is "proof" of evolution. Generally, science doesn't prove anything, we just collect compelling evidence and test hypotheses. Distinct genetic markers in the genes of organism form patterns that are indicative of common descent. Genetics allows scientists to test common descent.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
@UtherPendragan If a creator designed all biology then biology wouldn't be so badly designed.The human heart with no collateral blood flow,the snake's hip bone, the backwards human eye and so on.Further,where is the signature of the creator in all DNA? We do see vast differences in the DNA of distantly related life, like worms and humans, but we also see inherited similarities that make common ancestry certain: cytochrome-c, pseudogenes, ERVs, mRNA, miRNA, iRNA, the list is long and undeniable.
LordSlag 1 year ago 2
@LordSlag tables and chairs often have lots of inherited similarities like being made of wood. They even may be made from the same board. Even with common ancestry provable we don't assume that the table evolved as at tree, then a chair, and finally after millions of years decided to be a table.
Creation is always assumed when we find creativity except with DNA? Somehow ERV's mRNA and miRNA don't make common ancestry undeniable. That is just what I believe you have been taught.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 Tables and chairs have no inherited traits because they do not reproduce, they are manufactured. Therefore, your argument has no weight or relevance at all and the evidence that proves biological evolution still stands mighty, tall, and undeniable. Please learn how to perceive reality correctly and thanks for playing.
LordSlag 1 year ago 3
@UtherPendragan
Yes, the ideal chance for the 'designer' to show 'his' hand!
If all creatures were similar, and shared DNA sequences, EXCEPT the 'special' creation, humans, boy, that would be some case for a creator. Yet we are almost identical to chimps! Chimps are adapted to life in the jungle. 'God's special creation' is adapted for life in the jungle?? Why not uniquely designed?
Some volvos are similar to fords are similar to mazda are similar to toyotas. SAME designer?
derek24hudson 1 year ago
@derek24hudson what environment are humans evolved to? We sit on top of the animal and plant kingdom with the least protection from the elements, terrible sense of smell, terrible eye sight, we don't run super fast, and we cook and prepare every plant and animal on earth like it was a created pallet.
Monkey DNA is monkey and Human DNA is human a code was created to ensure this is the case.
People designed all automobiles and cars were created and didn't evolve from iron and rubber. lol
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
I think you really got the point. Although humans are almost identical morphologically and in anatomy to chimps who are perfectly adapted to their environment we have moved from that environment through the evolution of greater intelligence and language. Top of the heap? That's the basis of religion, human arrogance, and our likely demise as the 'top species'. When viruses have finished off humans entirely, THEY will, for a brief period, be 'top dog'. Nothing special about us.
derek24hudson 1 year ago
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV locations in common. Common ancestor?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Some correct information - with wrong and unsubstantiated conclusions. functional "junk DNA" does not necessarily mean creation. That's all. Moreover, if DNA is always perfect, what's the sense of a lethal mutation and what's the sense of a neutral mutation (that keeps staying in the population)? In fact, that neutral mutation could later on be used for... evolution!
Nargamorodo 2 years ago
Is your hard drive mostly junk when it is not full? or is it just extra space available that you can fill up later? Would an intelligent designer create a full hard drive with no room to change and update later?
trickyflicky1 2 years ago
Oh! Poor Creationist, strawman arguments againts science is not argument at all, you see.
I agree that the term "Junk DNA" labeled by Dr. Ohno at the time is a bit infortunate, but still in NO way does it mean that "junk DNA" has to be taken literaly as junk, and he made that clear in his papers if you creationist ever cared to investigate.
magua73 2 years ago
This is Science.........whooooow
No it not science, why do christians lie?
gregrutz 2 years ago
heres a question..why are you ignorant to truth?oh thats right because christian's don't attend college..we just hide in caves with our bibles and hide from evolutionist nuts...and just hold our bibles in the air and hope you believe...there is scientific evidence for a creator...and many of the bible's events have been proven..as well as jesus life on earth..through the bible and in the secular sect...but ignore that..maybe it will just go away.
Hisson82 2 years ago
...there is scientific evidence for a creator.
Please show us ingorant college scientists your ''scintific evidence''
Many of the bible's events have been proven wrong, the earth is not the center of the solar system.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth, lived and evolved, for 180 million years,
but ignore that..maybe it will just go away
gregrutz 2 years ago
Oh right..i should have known better since carbon dating is so true right?..It can easily meaure the age of matter such as wood and cloth..but as for Mineral rock and lava layers..it fails and fails miserably..180 million years? False..Which bible event's have been proven false..and no i don't wish to hear things not yet discovered..Not discovering something in our present time doesn't make something false...but ignore that maybe it will just go away.
Hisson82 2 years ago
@Hisson82
carbon dating is so true right?..It can easily meaure the age of matter such as wood and cloth..but as for Mineral rock and lava layers..it fails and fails miserably..180 million years? False
That is why they don't use C14 to date rocks and lava layers, dummy.
But they do use it to date wood and cloth easily up to 60,000 years
gregrutz 2 years ago
could you please tell me what in the bible has been proven wrong???? the bible doesnt state that the earth is the center of the universe or that dinosaurs necessarily lived with man.. so what are you taking about? archeological evidence is reinforcing the bible everyday.. soooooo?
BigG99 2 years ago
The two accounts clearly differ in the order of creation.
Gen1:25-27 humans are created after other animals
Gen2:18-19 humans created before other animals.
That's a contradiction. It comes from two different camps.
The Yahwist and Eulogist camps.
Gen1:27 man and woman are created at the same time
Gen2:18-22 Adam first, then animals, then Eve.
gregrutz 2 years ago
your using very poor exegesus and ineterpretation skills.... in chp2 vs 19, he says now God made the beasts and brought them to adam. "Now" is not refering to the time he created them he is using Now as a word describing the event that is taking place in the sequence.... Your approach is a horrible attempt at best... next time dig into the hebrew language and youll get a better inference. CHp 1 is specific chp 2 is getting into smaller details then the first. study harder friend.
BigG99 2 years ago
@BigG99
I don't deal in that crap, I copied it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
well dont copy something that is clearly bogus and that you didnt come to understand on some level yourself. thank you.
BigG99 2 years ago
"Which bible event's have been proven false."
The earth is a circle.
The earth is the center of the universe.
A global flood covered the earth.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Where does the bible say the earth is the center of the universe? Why couldn't a global flood cover the earth? Ah because the water would fall off the earth..You don't believe that do you The earth rotates..it is made up of 70 percent water..many miles deep..couldnt the water still fall off the earth or does it need the extra 30 percent? and yes i will agree as far as i know the bible in two seperate areas describes the earth as flat and in another as a sphere
Hisson82 2 years ago
Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.
gregrutz 2 years ago
the bible calls the earth a circle,, the bible doesnt claim the earth as the center and please proove that there wasnt a global flood..... in your 180 cagillion years of history?
BigG99 2 years ago
Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science."
Galileo was warned to abandon his support for Copernicanism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
What Flood?
watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
gregrutz 2 years ago
@Hisson82 so evidence for a "creator" does not in any way show that there is a GOD. Any organism, ie aliens, coul use the language of DNA to create other organisms.
A funny thing this video harps on is the name Junk Dna and of vestidule organs. It was the creationists who demanded to know why the tonsils and appendix had no function. So evo's said they were leftover. Now that science knows they have function, it does not mean that the bible is true. Just that the "leftover" theory was wrong.
FreemarketSocialist 2 years ago
Zipfian distributions and Shannon redundancy also arise in randomly-generated texts with no linguistic structure, so what does it matter that it occurs in DNA? The still have to find a meaning for the sequence (Like the universal coing sequences) becuase all they have is nice statistics
snakeguy76 3 years ago
"Creation Biology"? Spot the oxymoron. 14 minutes of my life wasted listening to this crap.
Gorteenminogue 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gorteenminogue No one has made proteins from from scratch,u dumb fuck..no one can get all left handed amino acids to assemble on single protein..Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!! Miller knew this,and no advancements have been made since 1953
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Haha.."evolutionists"? Do you mean *scientists*? Everybody knows that everybody in science are "evolutionists", since evolution is both proven, observed and is being used in practice. So it's a bit pointless to use that term..you should use for instance *biologists*, *zoologists*, *physicists*, *palaentologists* or whatever, depending on who you're describing. Cheers!
winterstellar 3 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@winterstellar No one has made proteins from from scratch,u dumb fuck..no one can get all left handed amino acids to assemble on single protein..Homochirality is the stake through the heart for evolution..life by time and chance impossible..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end paradox!!! Miller knew this,and no advancements have been made since 1953
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@winterstellar
So things change = the answer to all questions. Wow, that's incredible. I did not realize that all of my skepticism, my critical thinking, and my need for evidence were all in vein. I'm glad that science has been replaced with evolution and that scientists have been replaced with evolutionists. After all, if we are going to turn this into a battle between pseudo-scientific dogma and reality, we might as well preserve the pseudo-science since it has the term science in it.
circusOFprecision 5 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Why can't you provide any science to back your assertion that foxes and wolves are not related?
odinata 5 months ago
The term junk DNA is, and has always been, a tentative classification of what scientific research has not identified yet. Instead of rounding everything unknown off to a god/gods or saying god-did-it, the scientific discipline must classify it, and instead of saying "DNA with unknown functions", the term junk DNA has been used. All you have to do, as an independently thinking human being, is to look up the actual definition of the term.
Moryton 3 years ago 2
Nice video!! Keep up the good work. The secular humanists may still own the schools but they don't control Youtube yet!! Cheers...The Stick
thechessstick 3 years ago
"God did make one small mistake in my opinion. We are the only animal that has to squeez shit past two ass cheeks."
Thats proof of creation.
If we evolved from ape, and the apes ass was more beneficial, then why did it evolve?
Evolution is full of shit.
amonkeytamer4u2 3 years ago
"Thats proof of creation.
If we evolved from ape, and the apes ass was more beneficial, then why did it evolve?"
It's a little something called 'improved mobility'. The 'ass' of a human is actually three large muscles, the gluteus maximus, medius, and minimus. These essential muscles are what allow us to stand upright and walk as well as we do. And besides, I was not aware that having some extra mass around our anuses was a deadly disadvantage.
"Evolution is full of shit."
read a book.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 3 years ago
You are a total idiot.
Kujien 3 years ago
Absolutely absurd, are god believers so purely unaware of the nature of the subject of biology to not even understand that the name of something totally trivial. scientists also named a mammal in tazmania the "Tasmanian Devil". does that mean that scientists really think that the devil has been discovered on Earth? NO! all it means is that the animal in tasmania may have some stereotypical qualities of the made up idea held by some humans. This is the same thing going on in the name "junk dna"
slovakmath 3 years ago
Ah, Creation Science- espousing intellectual vapidity since October 23rd, 4004 BC.
pyropakman 3 years ago
Yes it is true that we did not know what the noncoding DNA did when it was found - scientists continued to explore and, just as good science should --- and yes some of it has been found to have regulatory function But much of it has no function. You seem to have failed to mention this. Finally you fail to explain that even if some of the junk DNA is functional it in no way proves a creator for DNA
ShalomYal 3 years ago
This video is bullshit. Epigenetics pwns this garbage.
superfisto 4 years ago
God did make one small mistake in my opinion. We are the only animal that has to squeez shit past two ass cheeks. This is so disgusting. Not to mention a real pain in the ass!.... Especially if you foget to wipe. Sadly I envy my dog every time she takes a crap.
failderhorn 4 years ago
"Junk DNA" exists.
2.3 MILLION base pairs were deleted from the mouse genome, and ...
"Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."
Nóbrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM, Nature. Megabase deletions of gene
deserts result in viable mice, Nature 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93)
DNAunion 4 years ago
I like how the very first thing you hear is "HOW GOD CREATED DNA" So we're automatically going off of the assumption that there's even a god to begin with, let alone that he created anything.
Even then, you still didn't prove anything besides how ignorant you are and how you dislike the evolutionary theory oh so much. How can anyone take this seriously?
Once you show me some solid fucking evidence of any of your beliefs, only then will I bother to take you seriously.
rba718 4 years ago 2
Why do they have Dewitt commenting at all? He's not even a full professor, and he teaches biology, not genetics.
And why do they go to Liberty University for expert opinions?
Liberty University has no Biology program, and indeed, no genetics program. The closest they have to either is a nursing program.
Is this the best expert they could find?
qabala 4 years ago
visit "junkdna dot com" or do your own web-search for a scientific view on junk-dna to find out real information on the issue, because this video really makes no sense at all.
Dividedbymyself 4 years ago
can someone please explain to me why many genes are a combination of several proteins, and why the proteins for a given gene are often scattered widely across the genome instead of all organized together, like any good computer programmer organizes commands?
if i were a designer, ready to write the genetic code for life, i would organize it much more cleanly.
ATL45 4 years ago
maybe the creator doesnt want it to be seen so clearly...
JesusDisciple777 4 years ago
that's a massive cop-out. and if that is true, then the creator is certainly not the God of the Bible.
Romans 1:20 - "His eternal power and godhead can be clearly seen through EVERYTHING that has been made, so that they may be without excuse."
ATL45 4 years ago
there's a difference between that and God appearing to everyone saying i exist so believe in me
JesusDisciple777 4 years ago
Oh, the blasphemy. Are you saying your creator is a snivelling, chickenshit, hiding scared dog who doesn't want to be seen? Want to know how to convert every atheist to islam? Get allah to show herself.
golddigger159 3 years ago
hahaha you cant look at a cell/dna of today and try to compare it to the original life that arose through abiogenesis
thats the whole point of evolution.
nikolasramsay 4 years ago 2
Good info.
majesticguitar2 4 years ago