How do creationists explain... 'Junk DNA'

[Ectezus]

Lets talk Atavism.

"An atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism )

How come we humans have the genes to create fully functioning tails? Whales have genes for hind legs and chickens got teeth genes?

Evolution easily explains this, in fact it even *predicts* evolutionary leftovers or 'junk DNA' from previous generations.

Not only does this junk DNA positively fits in the nested hierarchy of life model, it also has no negative contradictions. Like how we don't have genes to create feathers for example. This is because unlike apes, birds never were an evolutionary ancestor of us Homo Sapiens, therefore we obviously would not expect to find those leftover genes.

I'm curious, how do creationists explain the fact that animals (including us) have genes that are leftovers from their ancestors according to the evolutionary 'tree of life' model?

- Ectezus

 

[AVET]

I'm curious, how do creationists explain the fact that animals (including us) have genes that are leftovers from their ancestors according to the evolutionary 'tree of life' model

Unless this is a joke - (and yes, I've seen pictures) - you're assuming these genes were always present in our gene pool from day one, and I disagree.

 

[Ectezus]

you're assuming these genes were always present in our gene pool from day one, and I disagree.

Eh what? I am? Where?

No I did not say anywhere that the genes have been there since 'day one'.
Animals have leftover DNA from previous generations. They did not have that DNA before those earlier generations evolved the trait. There is no DNA blueprint that thinks ahead for future generations.

- Ectezus

 

[AVET]

Eh what? I am? Where?

Didn't you just say this?

I'm curious, how do creationists explain the fact that animals (including us) have genes that are leftovers from their ancestors according to the evolutionary 'tree of life' model?

 

[Ectezus]

AVET,

I've already explained to you WHAT I said.
We've got genes from our ancestors, ie: apes (and not the ones you see today!). Apes on the other hand obviously do NOT have DNA leftovers from humans. Such a thing would be logically impossible because we Homo Sapiens evolved later in the nested hierarchy of life model.

Now if you want to give an answer to the question I've asked, please, be my guest. If you're just here to troll I politely ask you to go somewhere else since you're not really adding anything to the discussion.
If you're confused on certain aspects of my post I'll gladly clarify them in private messages but please don't clutter this topic with those inquiries because I can assure you the topic itself is clear enough for other people.

- Ectezus

 

[Hespera]

Its clear if you have any notion about DNA and biology in general. For one, they would not speak of "day one".

We are looking forward to seeing how the chicken / dinosaur experiments turn out.
A chicken with a long tail and teeth would be pretty interesting.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now if you want to give an answer to the question I've asked, please, be my guest.

Again --- there are things in our gene pool that were not there in Genesis 1 --- and came after the Fall, not before it.

If you're just here to troll I politely ask you to go somewhere else since you're not really adding anything to the discussion.

I don't troll.

If you're confused on certain aspects of my post I'll gladly clarify them in private messages...

I don't debate by PM, I do it publicly; and I believe you addressed your question to creationists, did you not?

... but please don't clutter this topic with those inquiries because I can assure you the topic itself is clear enough for other people.

It might be clear enough for some other people, but if you can't simplify the question to the point that a technologically-challenged person like myself can understand it, then perhaps we need to get someone who can.

After all, you don't have any qualms about asking me to clarify something, do you?

You guys have no qualms about asking the deepest questions, which I gladly answer, even though I know you're not going to understand the answer - (the Bible says you won't). Then I get jeered for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its clear if you have any notion about DNA and biology in general.

Which I don't.

For one, they would not speak of "day one".

But a creationist, whom this thread is addressed, would.

We are looking forward to seeing how the chicken / dinosaur experiments turn out.

What "chicken/dinosaur experiment"? As I understand it, a chicken is a dinosaur.

A chicken with a long tail and teeth would be pretty interesting.

So would a satyr, a unicorn, a four-legged grasshopper, and a bat with feathers that you guys have noticed in the Bible, but absolutely, unequivocably, and totally refuse to explain technologically.

It gets tiresome seeing you guys explain how a whole race of Homos appeared, just by finding three teeth and a skullcap, then seeing you scratch your heads when it comes to us asking you about satyrs and unicorns.

In short, I'm not interested in your coelacanths, if you're not interested in my unicorns.

[Actually, even if you were interested in unicorns, I still wouldn't be interested in coelacanths. ]

 

[Ectezus]

Ok, AVET you've made your point about not wanting to answer the OP. This whole 'analyzing one line at a time and giving a snappy comeback' think you're doing is so easy and childish. They don't address any of the issues presented in this topic.

You're 4 posts in a 7 post topic and so far the only thing you've done is to twist and turn around the question and nitpick on offtopic subjects. Well done!

We all know you love the attention but maybe, just maybe, you should simply not reply if you don't have any relevant answer or explanation as requested.

Once again AVET, I politely ask you not to continue derailing this thread. Just make one more snappy comeback (which I'm sure you will) to this reply and get out please. I'm interested in other people's opinions. I know yours as you've expressed your opinion often enough.

For ONCE I would like a topic to be about the actual point instead of just your interpretations and your ego.


- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

/thread

 

[Open]

The answer Ectezus is........ well you won't get the answer you are looking for.

Some creationists will say it is not up to us to know the mind of God, others will admit evolution, but say that it occurred at an amazing pace post fall, others still will say that such vestigal traits are planted by God as a test and yet others as a trick by the devil.
Many Christians who have thought or studied the matter may have concluded that perhaps evolution was the only rational explanation. Some worked that in to their Christian faith and yet in others it caused a falling away from a faith in a book they thought infallable and the literal word of God.
Indeed, if you dig deep enough, I'm sure you'll find as many answers as creationists.
One thing I have noted is that many creationists only want an explanation by wat of a sermon or a soundbite on such issues to allow them continue in cognitive dissonance. They will be able to offer little more to you.
Others need to 'deliberately' misunderstand or feign ignorance/indifference or worse still come up with highly convoluted alternative theories/worldviews. Most explanations will be based on poor understanding.
Take your pick. I'm sure there plenty more I have not thought of off hand.
But if you are looking for a well reasoned and honest answer I for one woud be surprised (and delighted) to see one.....
Best of luck, I'll be following this one.

It is such a relief to have left the silliness of creationism behind me.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The Fall! It's always the fall man. (said in your best Cheech accent)

 

[Gawron]

I am not a young earth creationist, but I have an answer.

I just don't feel like having to fight through all the personal attacks which will follow if I post it. And I mean no offense here at all, Ectezus, none at all. But do you really care about an answer, or is this just YEC bashing?

 

[Ectezus]

The answer Ectezus is........ well you won't get the answer you are looking for.

Yeah probably not, I often expect too much of rational/logic answer when I know deep down inside that it's almost impossible. The thing I really don't understand is how anyone can believe something that has so many contradictions that they can not explain.

The same thing happened in another thread of mine about Irreducible Complexity, which is one of the, if not THE cornerstone of intelligent design, yet no one is able to bring up an example what they think proves irreducible complexity. How can you believe in some concept so strongly, without any example for it?

I can understand how one might look at nature and the world and think "This is just too amazing to have happened without a designer". That feeling of granduer is in everyone, including atheists, but for them it just manifests in a different way.

In this topic I genuinely would like to know what the general opinion or consensus is about the original point I've made. I expected some answers like "the devil did it" or "It's gods way of testing us" and I can imagine most people probably don't want to admit that but to be frank, I have no idea if that's really what the main opinion is for most creationists.
Just by reading the topic you would at least expect them to start wondering about the subject. I'm just trying to find out what their counter-argument is for something so simple, so strongly in favor of evolution and yet so hard to explain with a supernatural designer point of view.


- Ectezus

 

[Norbert L]

"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."(Anerson 1972)

Or in other words you can't start with Junk DNA imply it establishes evolution and reconstruct the universe.

The only thing that is visible is that the whole sequence of DNA becomes very different from the sum of its parts and is the only thing that's been established.

Also Creationism is not Evolution.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Or in other words you can't start with Junk DNA imply it establishes evolution and reconstruct the universe.

I don't quite follow. Could you please expound a little?

 

[MoonLancer]

lol. Cant just leave. You have to announce it to everyone.

About junk dna. I think that's sortof a misnomer. its not really junk, Some of it may not serve its intended purpuse, but its not junk.

or are you just using the term becuse thats what alot of people understand?

sorry is this off topic?

 

[pgp_protector]

So I guess AVet is a sock of AV1611VET

Wonder why they didn't say that on their first post though ?
(At first I thought it was someone making fun of AV1611VET's posting style )

 

[Ectezus]

About junk dna. I think that's sortof a misnomer. its not really junk, Some of it may not serve its intended purpuse, but its not junk.

or are you just using the term becuse thats what alot of people understand?

sorry is this off topic?

No not offtopic at all, and yes you are correct.

I added the words 'junk DNA' after I wrote most of the post. The original topic name was: "How do creationists explain... Atavism". But it just doesn't have the same ring to it don't you think?

'Junk DNA' is a popular term which illustrates the meaning behind the word quite perfectly if you ask me. But I agree that the word junk should not be taken 100% literal. It's only junk in the fact that the genes itself are deactivated and are leftovers from earlier traits/generations according to the evolutionary tree of life model.

-------

Oh and lets not flame AV after he stated he wouldn't come back to this topic. That's like a stab in the back. He quit after I've asked him to and I thanked him for it.

- Ectezus