What Good Is Darwinian Evolution?

[justlookinla]

About 90% of our genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with genetic drift. How can DNA have function when that function can not be changed by any mutation? How can 90% of our genome be immune to deleterious mutations?

How can 'junk' DNA suddenly not become 'junk' DNA? Answer: It was never 'junk' DNA to begin with.

 

[justlookinla]

Not all junk DNA turned out to be useful you know

No 'junk' DNA was useful for a while...until the mistake was found.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How can 'junk' DNA suddenly not become 'junk' DNA? Answer: It was never 'junk' DNA to begin with.

Not all the junk has been shown to have function, only a small bit of it has. Most of our DNA is still junk

 

[PsychoSarah]

No 'junk' DNA was useful for a while...until the mistake was found.

The mistake for a small portion of it.

 

[justlookinla]

Not all the junk has been shown to have function, only a small bit of it has. Most of our DNA is still junk

According to the folks who claimed all 'junk' DNA was 'junk'? I wouldn't place much confidence in their opinions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

According to the folks who claimed all 'junk' DNA was 'junk'? I wouldn't place much confidence in their opinions.

I wouldn't place much confidence in yours considering you don't even have any advanced education on the subject. If you did, you would know that it is impossible for all junk DNA to have a function.

 

[justlookinla]

The mistake for a small portion of it.

"Stretches of non-coding DNA were originally labelled "Junk DNA" on the assumption that non-coding sequences did nothing at all. Our knowledge of how DNA works has vastly improved, though, and this is no longer the accepted position among biologists. In Human Origins 101, Holly M. Dunsworth writes:

The function of over 95 percent of our DNA is still a mystery. That is, we have spelled out the code, but have discovered that most of it does not code for proteins. Genes can be separated by a vast desert of noncoding DNA, which is sometimes called “junk” DNA. But is it useless? Probably not, because included among noncoding sequences are the crucial promoter regions which control when genes are turned on or off.

The human genome has more noncoding DNA than any other animal known to date and it is not clear why. At least half of the noncoding sequence is made up of recognizable repeated sequences, some of which were inserted by viruses in the past. These repeats may provide some genomic wiggle room. That is, long stretches of noncoding DNA provide a playground for evolution. It may be a huge selective advantage to have all that raw material available to mutate and eithermodify existing traits and behaviors or express new ones all together. Humans are characterized by the ability to be flexible and to adapt quickly, so our junk DNA is potentially a priceless contribution to our humanness."

 

[PsychoSarah]

"Stretches of non-coding DNA were originally labelled "Junk DNA" on the assumption that non-coding sequences did nothing at all. Our knowledge of how DNA works has vastly improved, though, and this is no longer the accepted position among biologists. In Human Origins 101, Holly M. Dunsworth writes:

The function of over 95 percent of our DNA is still a mystery. That is, we have spelled out the code, but have discovered that most of it does not code for proteins. Genes can be separated by a vast desert of noncoding DNA, which is sometimes called “junk” DNA. But is it useless? Probably not, because included among noncoding sequences are the crucial promoter regions which control when genes are turned on or off.

The human genome has more noncoding DNA than any other animal known to date and it is not clear why. At least half of the noncoding sequence is made up of recognizable repeated sequences, some of which were inserted by viruses in the past. These repeats may provide some genomic wiggle room. That is, long stretches of noncoding DNA provide a playground for evolution. It may be a huge selective advantage to have all that raw material available to mutate and eithermodify existing traits and behaviors or express new ones all together. Humans are characterized by the ability to be flexible and to adapt quickly, so our junk DNA is potentially a priceless contribution to our humanness."

the human genome does not have more non coding DNA than any other animal, I would fact check your source

 

[serge546]

Disease theory was ultimately created by a guy who disagreed with evolution and pre-existed the theory of evolution, so it certainly does not rely upon the theory of evolution. As pointed out by Randy Guliuzza of the Institute for Creation Research Darwinism has actually "ret.arded medical research" rather than helping it:

Pasteur also did not know what viruses were. The word "virus" is latin and means "poison", a very vague definition indicative of Pasteur's limited understanding of them. Now, using your logic, modern virology is not valid because Pasteur did not have a complete understanding of them and thought they were something different than they are.

It does not matter that Pasteur disagreed with evolution, modern microbiology and virology completely embrace and rely on evolutionary theory. It does not matter that he was a creationist, he did not use the Bible to discover his findings. What he did use was the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the human genome does not have more non coding DNA than any other animal, I would fact check your source

Yup, the simple amoeba can have more than 100 times the "genetic information" than the human genome. Now either an amoeba is 100 times more complex than a human being,, which seems rather dubious to me, or they have tons and tons of junk DNA. You decide.

Sizing up genomes: Amoeba is king

 

[justlookinla]

Yup, the simple amoeba can have more than 100 times the "genetic information" than the human genome. Now either an amoeba is 100 times more complex than a human being,, which seems rather dubious to me, or they have tons and tons of junk DNA. You decide.

Sizing up genomes: Amoeba is king

Interesting words "information" and "coding".

 

[florida2]

Yup, the simple amoeba can have more than 100 times the "genetic information" than the human genome. Now either an amoeba is 100 times more complex than a human being,, which seems rather dubious to me, or they have tons and tons of junk DNA. You decide.

Sizing up genomes: Amoeba is king

Indeed, there are many animals and plants with bigger genomes that us. The trumpet lily and the Norway Spruce are two that spring to mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Stretches of non-coding DNA were originally labelled "Junk DNA" on the assumption that non-coding sequences did nothing at all. Our knowledge of how DNA works has vastly improved, though, and this is no longer the accepted position among biologists. In Human Origins 101, Holly M. Dunsworth writes:

The function of over 95 percent of our DNA is still a mystery. That is, we have spelled out the code, but have discovered that most of it does not code for proteins. Genes can be separated by a vast desert of noncoding DNA, which is sometimes called “junk” DNA. But is it useless? Probably not, because included among noncoding sequences are the crucial promoter regions which control when genes are turned on or off.

The human genome has more noncoding DNA than any other animal known to date and it is not clear why. At least half of the noncoding sequence is made up of recognizable repeated sequences, some of which were inserted by viruses in the past. These repeats may provide some genomic wiggle room. That is, long stretches of noncoding DNA provide a playground for evolution. It may be a huge selective advantage to have all that raw material available to mutate and eithermodify existing traits and behaviors or express new ones all together. Humans are characterized by the ability to be flexible and to adapt quickly, so our junk DNA is potentially a priceless contribution to our humanness."

Quoting science you don't understand really doesn't help the discussion.

This is the question that creationists must answer.

A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious.
On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE​

You need to explain how function for a specific stretch of DNA can never change or be done away with no matter how many mutations you add to it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yup, the simple amoeba can have more than 100 times the "genetic information" than the human genome. Now either an amoeba is 100 times more complex than a human being,, which seems rather dubious to me, or they have tons and tons of junk DNA. You decide.

Sizing up genomes: Amoeba is king

There is an amoeba with a genome 200 times larger than the human genome (670 billion v. 3 billion). As others have mentioned, plants such as the onion have a genome with 100 billion bases, while an equally complex plant, the bladderwort, has a genome that is only 87 million bases (3% of the human genome).

The bladderwort has already shown us that it is possible to remove almost all of the junk DNA in a genome and still have a perfectly functioning plant.
Accessible research: A tiny bladderwort (that's a plant with little "bladders") genome - The Panda's Thumb

 

[justlookinla]

Quoting science you don't understand really doesn't help the discussion.

This is the question that creationists must answer.

A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious.
On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE​

You need to explain how function for a specific stretch of DNA can never change or be done away with no matter how many mutations you add to it.

Give it time. Compared to the designer, 'scientists' are a pretty stupid lot.

 

[Loudmouth]

Give it time. Compared to the designer, 'scientists' are a pretty stupid lot.

Answer the question.

A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious.
On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE​

 

[Delphiki]

Give it time. Compared to the designer, 'scientists' are a pretty stupid lot.

- The all-powerful God has a plan that we can't alter.
- He doesn't want anyone to go to hell.
- He creates a hell and creates us with free will as part of his plan.

I dunno... It looks to me as if scientists, whose role in this universe is little more than observers and collectors of evidence, outwit their "almighty" creator by many fold.

If a most simple-minded atheist can tell you how an omnipotent being doesn't need to rob people of their free will to ensure no one goes to hell. That's only one up I have on your God right there already.

 

[justlookinla]

Answer the question.

A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious.
On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE​

The answer is that scientists are constantly discovering what God already knew, life is incredibly complex and varied. Your inability to comprehend that is something you'll have to deal with.

 

[justlookinla]

- The all-powerful God has a plan that we can't alter.
- He doesn't want anyone to go to hell.
- He creates a hell and creates us with free will as part of his plan.

I dunno... It looks to me as if scientists, whose role in this universe is little more than observers and collectors of evidence, outwit their "almighty" creator by many fold.

If a most simple-minded atheist can tell you how an omnipotent being doesn't need to rob people of their free will to ensure no one goes to hell. That's only one up I have on your God right there already.

I'm sure you believe that you'll do very well being your own God.

 

[Loudmouth]

The answer is that scientists are constantly discovering what God already knew, life is incredibly complex and varied. Your inability to comprehend that is something you'll have to deal with.

All you have are empty claims with nothing to back them.

Answer the question.

A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious.
On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE​