Aren't there some people who style themselves Christian Atheists ?
They would sing from any old hymn sheet I guess.
How would atheists respond to this?
by Knowsnothing 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
bohm
BTS:
"Junk DNA" is a bad argument. The more time goes by, the more evidence emerges that noncoding DNA isn't junk. Organisms move towards greater energy efficiency when possible--that is why we see cave fish, otherwise the same as their above ground cousins, lose their eyes. It improves survival fitness. Why maintain a system you don't need?
There is a high evolutionary price in terms of energy to pay for data storage and calculation, and these noncoding regions contain libraries' worth of information that must be maintained and replicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle
If it is truly junk, it isn't neutral, it is a hindrance. Evolution would presumably select against it.
Who says evolution does not select against it?
If you want to argue against "junk dna" you need to argue against what the term actually mean and not how creationists like to define it. It was introduced in the early 70s by dr. Ohno, who observed that a calculation in population genetics showed that there was an upper bound on how much of the DNAs function could be dependent on its sequence at some mutation rate. The size of the human genomen far exeeded that limit and thus dr. Ohno concluded that the exact sequence of amino acids is irrelevant in a large part of our genomen. full stop, that is junk dna: a part of the DNA where the exact code is not relevant.
That does not mean it is irrelevant (it may have a structural or other function), but it does not alter the conclusion: the sequence cannot matter because the sequence cannot be conserved, and that is called junk dna.
Nature, ofcourse, select against junk DNA but it does so very inefficiently because of the low cost. Your application of Landaus principle seem irrelevant once you realize that boltzmanns constant is in the order of 10E-23 J/K(IIRC), assuming T =10^2, you get a cost of 10^-21 -- exactly how is this biologically relevant?
For bacteria the cost is not neglible because replication is about the only thing they do and they select harder for a lower genomen size, incidently they also have a smaller genomen than humans.
-
cofty
BTS - If non-coding DNA is functional why do organisms much simpler than ourselves have larger genomes?
The onion Alium altyncolicum has double the DNA we do and a very similar species of onion Alium ursinum has TEN times as much.
Why do these two species of onion require such different amounts of DNA from each other and why do they both need more DNA than a human?
We actually know exactly what 60% of our DNA is for.
1.5% codes for proteins
4% is regulatory DNA
10% is structural DNA - centromeres and telomers which compensate for a substandard copying mechanism
21% are LINEs Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)
13% are SINEs Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)
8% are ERVs Endogenous RetroViruses (parasitic)
3% are DNA Transposons (jumping genes, also parasitic)
That gives us 45% of our genome that we know for certain is parasitic - it is JUNK. The remaining 40% is currently unknown.
There is no mechanism to remove junk DNA from our genome although one species of fish, the Fugu sesm to have learned how. It has the leanest meanest genome we know of, just 390 mb (mega bases) compared to our 3300 mb. It appears to have learned the trick of removing junk DNA from its genome.
Don't be shy about using the term "Junk DNA" it is an accurate description of at least 45% of our genome with a further 40% up for grabs.
-
OnTheWayOut
Best answers are from Qcmbr and Bohm on page 1.
-
NewChapter
Chit! It was a competition? That's okay. When it comes to gentics, I know what I know, but I'm still new to it, and so expressing it is a real problem. I'll go about my crushed way now---a little battered---but ever wiser.
-
cofty
Yeah I thought I did quite well too.
-
NewChapter
LOL----and you did. I'm watching and learning----no pressure.
-
cofty
phew thanks - ego recovering gradually
-
Knowsnothing
Something being awesome does not prove the existence of a designer. Such a designer would have to be billions of times more complex than their design---yet where did the designer come from? - NC
I see this argument used many times. The only thing complexity in nature proves is that nature, most likely, could not have come either by chance, or by gradual complexity. Therefore, when one get's to that position and realises someone or something must have interfered in order for things to work (a designer), then it only get's you to that point. A designer. No one is saying where the designer came from. Perhaps the designer is self-contained.
As one continues to analyze natural properties, there is a basis or axiom from which one derives all hypothesis and observations. At some point, we all say, "that's just the way it is." Maybe, with the designer, that's just the way it is. Maybe he need no one to create him. But the universe, as observed, needed someone to put in all the laws. The universe, as we know, could not simply come about on its own.
So, DNA contains 3 billion pieces of information. "Junk DNA" aside, why is there even information to begin with? And honestly, are you arguing that DNA does not need "decoding"?
-
besty
sometimes I observe the choice of username to be unwittingly apt