Creation Evidence - Junk DNA

If the only thing that matters in the genome is DNA that codes for proteins then what is regulating those protein coding genes? How do they know what to do and when to do it? You don't suppose the answer lies in the supposed 'junk' they keep ignoring do you?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• metamorphosis
• empirical
• evidence
• creator
• God
• Creationism
• Darwin
• Charles Darwin
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Intelligent
• Design
• Truth
• Proof
• Logic
• Reason

[YurNotSpecial]

@Equestions "How do [genes] know what to do and when to do it?"

It would be an excellent idea to make a video explaining how gene expression works.

[Mithcoriel]

@TChapman500 You're the one who's confused. The argument is: "Why did natural selection make half a mouse trap? What would be the advantage?" and the answer is: "It didn't. It was first selected for as a tie clip. Those animals with 'tie clips' survived better. Then some started mutating into 'mouse traps' and were even better off, etc."

Also, think of a bridge that has a support structure while being built. And once it's finished, the support is removed. NOW, it breaks if you remove a part.

[benthemiester]

K. Miller exact quote.. "The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival"

[benthemiester]

Kenneth Miller just a few short years ago said.....Why would would an intelligent designer spent his time designing a bunch of mindless scribble? Today many neo Darwinist are trying to re-write history by trying to now say.... We knew it wasn't junk all along, and the term "Junk DNA" is just a colloquial term used for non protein coding DNA. While it is true in the past a very few brave souls questioned this paradigm, they were ignored by neo Darwinist scientist who made up the majority.

[usertripppleA]

I wonder if you had the chance to look up the difference between non-coding RNA and junk DNA?

[usertripppleA]

Dear Equestions, you keep showing a paper about non-coding RNA and talk about junk DNA. What exactly do these things have in common? Do you know what junk DNA is? Do you know what non-coding RNA is? Also, how exactly can we use junk DNA to determine ancestry? Do you have any idea about the scientific background of the things you are talking about?

[emptywithoutbrain]

you keep insisting that the DNA is a literal form of coding, when you can not present any relevant evidence to demonstrate otherwise. For example you have failed to outline how your specific god is responsible for the creation of DNA. The scientists you refer to as evolutionary scientists are not. They are scientists of a specific field in the study of Evolution. For example in this video I think you maybe referring to are geneticists who, have an expertise in the field of genetics.

[srexob715]

@ITTutorCanada You are still making incoherent posts. Talk some sense and people might be willing to respect you, but not until then!

[ITTutorCanada]

@srexob715 Are you speaking of yourself, because everything you just said to me is incoherent. What the hell does "you see sister?" mean? Honestly bro, go sit down and relax I think you got so angry that too much blood rushed to your head and you may have had a mild stroke you're not making any sense whatsoever.