What is junk DNA and how does it prove a supernatural Creator?

[Moir.Adrian]

The philosophy that accumulative mutations over time will increase the survivability of an organism derives from the science fiction of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, which asserts that accumulative mutations over time will increase the amount of order there is within the genome. When the truth is that the accumulation of mutations over time leads to a reduction in regards to the amount of order a thermodynamic instructional system has. So because DNA RNA transcription is a thermodynamic instructional system, it will mean that certain instructions will become unreadable over time as diversification occurs, which is what junk DNA is.

The existence of junk DNA within the human body has been used as an excuse by evolutionary scientists to suggest that life is the result of junk DNA, when the truth is that any set of chemically based instructions that become unreadable over time due to a loss of specifics is equal to a reduction in terms of complexity, rather than an increase. And this is the same for junk files that accumulate over time within a computers operational software whereby certain digital instructions become unreadable, because nearly anything you do on a computer requires the system to create a temporary file.

Each file on a computer that is needed to install, run, or execute a request is only needed at the very moment you make the request, but once the final step in the process is completed, the file is no longer needed, so the file then turns into a computer junk file. And this is similar to what DNA RNA transcription is doing because the DNA strand within a double helix spiral is short term and must be discarded once the mRNA sequence is completed.

So the body requires a defragging process the same as a computer does, and DNA junk files within the body are indeed broken down by other proteins which use the DNA from the junk files to make new combinations of DNA instructions so that little is waisted in terms of material, making the system efficient. And as diversification occurs over time, the rate of accumulative mutations will also increase which reduces a species survivability over time, rather than increasing it.

So because the total amount of genetic instructions for any kind of creature was with the first copy that its genome began replication with, it will mean that each successive copy is only a variant of its original, so that individual species within a group are broken up into separate types and sorts within a kind. And only the original kind for each copy will have all of the information for variation, while each successive copy will have a lowered ability to pass on variability, which is equal to a reduction over time in terms of survivability.

Quotation:
“God gave us free will, and we may choose to exercise it in ways that end up hurting other people. God is an awesome mathematician and physicist. I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation." - Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science. Francis Collins is also the director for the Human Genome Project, and other genomics research initiatives, as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Source; Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Introduction to Genomics

A introduction to basic concepts in genomics to help you understand your genome, how it works, and how it impacts your health.

www.genome.gov

 

[SalixIncendium]

Namaste. Greetings and salutations.

Welcome to RF.

What specifically did you wish to debate here?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Hello @Moir.Adrian , and welcome to the forums.

I would suggest that you read up on some latest thoughts regarding non-coding, a.k.a. “junk” DNA.
The more it is studied, the more it is found to be necessary in both gene expression, as well as the collapse and folding between replication events.

Regardless (as @SalixIncendium beat me to the question)…… what does this have to do with evidence for the existence or non-existence of a singular God in the universe?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the science fiction of Darwinian evolution by natural selection

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. And you needn't bother trying to falsify it if your purpose is to reestablish the Abrahamic god as the author of the tree of life. That ship has sailed. There were no six days of creation in which the kinds including the first two humans were created, so even were the theory falsified, that hypothesis would not become the prevailing paradigm.

An intelligent designer paradigm would replace the then overturned theory, but not that one, and not a supernatural one, either, but rather, an advanced race of extraterrestrials themselves the result of naturalistic abiogenesis and biological evolution. Supernatural agents are still at the bottom of the list of candidate hypotheses, and the god of Abraham remains ruled out even after falsification.

which asserts that accumulative mutations over time will increase the amount of order there is within the genome

You should probably learn the science before calling it science fiction. What you wrote is fiction. "Order within the genome" is a vague predicate and not part of theory, which asserts that nature generates new forms through undirected genetic variation, and nature selects the most fecund forms, a process which has led to increasing complexity in extant life forms and the present-day tree of life.

The existence of junk DNA within the human body has been used as an excuse by evolutionary scientists to suggest that life is the result of junk DNA

More junk science. The presence of nonfunctional code is a strong argument for the theory. It wouldn't be there except that nothing can prevent its generation by the mechanisms like mutation, and nothing can select for or against it if it doesn't manifest phenotypically. Creationism doesn't predict or account for that code, but the naturalistic theory does.

the body requires a defragging process the same as a computer does, and DNA junk files within the body are indeed broken down by other proteins which use the DNA from the junk files to make new combinations of DNA instructions so that little is waisted in terms of material, making the system efficient.

And yet more science fiction. No such mechanism could evolve into existence. Nothing would select for an organism that could identify and remove nonfunctioning DNA?

“God gave us free will, and we may choose to exercise it in ways that end up hurting other people. God is an awesome mathematician and physicist. I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation." - Francis Collins

Why should this opinion matter to a critical thinker? Yes, I know who Collins is professionally, but he's a creationist, which is pseudoscience (Discovery Institute) or less (unfalsifiable "not even wrong" claims from mythology).

I see you've started at least three posts recently, all of which are preaching and none of which you have revisited yet, suggesting that you aren't interested in replies. I'm good with that. I'm content just to rebut you for those who are interested in such ideas.

 

[Audie]

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. And you needn't bother trying to falsify it if your purpose is to reestablish the Abrahamic god as the author of the tree of life. That ship has sailed. There were no six days of creation in which the kinds including the first two humans were created, so even were the theory falsified, that hypothesis would not become the prevailing paradigm.

An intelligent designer paradigm would replace the then overturned theory, but not that one, and not a supernatural one, either, but rather, an advanced race of extraterrestrials themselves the result of naturalistic abiogenesis and biological evolution. Supernatural agents are still at the bottom of the list of candidate hypotheses, and the god of Abraham remains ruled out even after falsification.

You should probably learn the science before calling it science fiction. What you wrote is fiction. "Order within the genome" is a vague predicate and not part of theory, which asserts that nature generates new forms through undirected genetic variation, and nature selects the most fecund forms, a process which has led to increasing complexity in extant life forms and the present-day tree of life.

More junk science. The presence of nonfunctional code is a strong argument for the theory. It wouldn't be there except that nothing can prevent its generation by the mechanisms like mutation, and nothing can select for or against it if it doesn't manifest phenotypically. Creationism doesn't predict or account for that code, but the naturalistic theory does.

And yet more science fiction. No such mechanism could evolve into existence. Nothing would select for an organism that could identify and remove nonfunctioning DNA?

Why should this opinion matter to a critical thinker? Yes, I know who Collins is professionally, but he's a creationist, which is pseudoscience (Discovery Institute) or less (unfalsifiable "not even wrong" claims from mythology).

I see you've started at least three posts recently, all of which are preaching and none of which you have revisited yet, suggesting that you aren't interested in replies. I'm good with that. I'm content just to rebut you for those who are interested in such ideas.

Your friend may be a drive -by

 

[Revoltingest]

Here we go again.

 

[JIMMY12345]

The philosophy that accumulative mutations over time will increase the survivability of an organism derives from the science fiction of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, which asserts that accumulative mutations over time will increase the amount of order there is within the genome. When the truth is that the accumulation of mutations over time leads to a reduction in regards to the amount of order a thermodynamic instructional system has. So because DNA RNA transcription is a thermodynamic instructional system, it will mean that certain instructions will become unreadable over time as diversification occurs, which is what junk DNA is.

The existence of junk DNA within the human body has been used as an excuse by evolutionary scientists to suggest that life is the result of junk DNA, when the truth is that any set of chemically based instructions that become unreadable over time due to a loss of specifics is equal to a reduction in terms of complexity, rather than an increase. And this is the same for junk files that accumulate over time within a computers operational software whereby certain digital instructions become unreadable, because nearly anything you do on a computer requires the system to create a temporary file.

Each file on a computer that is needed to install, run, or execute a request is only needed at the very moment you make the request, but once the final step in the process is completed, the file is no longer needed, so the file then turns into a computer junk file. And this is similar to what DNA RNA transcription is doing because the DNA strand within a double helix spiral is short term and must be discarded once the mRNA sequence is completed.

So the body requires a defragging process the same as a computer does, and DNA junk files within the body are indeed broken down by other proteins which use the DNA from the junk files to make new combinations of DNA instructions so that little is waisted in terms of material, making the system efficient. And as diversification occurs over time, the rate of accumulative mutations will also increase which reduces a species survivability over time, rather than increasing it.

So because the total amount of genetic instructions for any kind of creature was with the first copy that its genome began replication with, it will mean that each successive copy is only a variant of its original, so that individual species within a group are broken up into separate types and sorts within a kind. And only the original kind for each copy will have all of the information for variation, while each successive copy will have a lowered ability to pass on variability, which is equal to a reduction over time in terms of survivability.

Quotation:
“God gave us free will, and we may choose to exercise it in ways that end up hurting other people. God is an awesome mathematician and physicist. I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation." - Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science. Francis Collins is also the director for the Human Genome Project, and other genomics research initiatives, as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Source; Wikipedia Encyclopedia

Introduction to Genomics

A introduction to basic concepts in genomics to help you understand your genome, how it works, and how it impacts your health.

www.genome.gov

Keep it simple - you will get more replies/comments

 

[LuisDantas]

Junk DNA is by no means "evidence for a supernatural creator". Quite on the contrary, it strongly hints of accidental formation of life.

 

[PureX]

When Elizabeth Magie invented and designed the Monopoly Game in 1904, she did so including an element of chance. In fact, when we humans invent games of every sort, we include the element of chance as part of the process of playing the game. Yet that element of chance is very limited within the context of the games many rules regulating how the participants can play the game because chance is only revevant in relation to enfoced expectation. The chance aspect is limited to one roll of the dice to determine what the next position on the board the player must move to, and thereby what options and conditions he will be subjected to.

Likewise, our experience of existence is governed by a very complicated and highly ordered set of rules and conditions that dictate the circumstances that we find ourselves subjected to at any given moment. But there is always an element of chance involved, as well, that can change the outcomes of the experience for us. Sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the bad.

So, why does the flow of existence include some degree of chance? ... We can only speculate. But I think the fact that we commonly replicate it when we are creating our own little metaphorical life re-enactment games says a lot. Because imagine playing the game of monopoly with no element of chance. What would even be the point, right? Perhaps the same would be true of life

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here we go again.

*sigh*

The existence of junk DNA within the human body has been used as an excuse by evolutionary scientists to suggest that life is the result of junk DNA

The possibility of junk DNA begins as a question about a lot of DNA which appears not to do anything. It is not a foundational leg of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory rests primarily upon the enormous tree of life which shows a diversity of life that far exceeds the ability of kinds to make sense of. For example cats are not a kind. There are too many kinds of cats for cats to be a kind. It is clear that diversification continues and makes irreversible changes as species become isolated. Evolutionary theory rests upon the preponderance of such evidence. This, too, appears in the study of DNA. The same genetic tree we can see in the traits of animals can also be found in the DNA, showing common DNA between creatures with shared ancestry as well as new DNA: DNA that is not present in ancestors. There is therefore a preponderance of evidence for evolution irrespective of what anyone things about junk DNA, which is by no means an excuse to believe in stuff. The stuff is already known.

 

[PureX]

Hmmm .... I'm experiencing "junk duplicate posts" today.

 

[Audie]

Keep it simple - you will get more replies/comments

That's a violation of the Gish principle.

 

[Link]

I agree dunk dna is part of perfect design. I also agree, if mutations were at the rate possible for evolution, paradoxically, no species would survive.

The best proof for design is not to discuss these concepts, because it's mathematical dealing with probability (although easy to see), a lot of people don't understand.

The best proof for design is in the concept of irreducible complexity. As a programmer, I know some programs you can add functions and modify sure. But some have to at least have various components working before you can add and modify. This is true of a cell. This is true of any potential life form.

And consciousness and non-consciousness is a binary issue. It's so vastly different to be conscious as opposed to not, that there is never a small step that will just click into consciousness. It's impossible. So in this case that various components all need to emerge at that same time with cohesion, which would never occur, in a simple mutation. So not everything in nature is in fact transitional. Consciousness being a binary non-transitional irreducible complex design. Once you get that, yes, you can have mutations leading to potential design improvement, but as you touched on, the issue is if you get the type of amount of mutations needed for big change, this would lead to dumber consciousness over time, not good type, because most mutations are harmful.

 

[Link]

Regardless (as @SalixIncendium beat me to the question)…… what does this have to do with evidence for the existence or non-existence of a singular God in the universe?

I think people have reading comprehensions issues. Let me simplify what he is saying.

(M) = Mutations
(H) = Harmful
(G) = Good
(A) = A lot of
(S) = Survival of Species
(E) = evolution


HM > GM by a huge number. (Harmful mutations greater then amount of good mutations)

AM -> AHM A lot of mutations implies a lot of harmful mutation


AHM -> Not S A lot of mutations means species won't survive

AGM -> AHM A lot of good mutations means there is a lot of harmful mutation

E -> AGM For evolution to occur, a lot of good mutations must occur.

So let's suppose E. Then AGM is true. Then Not S is true (by transitional rule AGM -> AHM AHM->Not S). Hence the contradiction, showing it is impossible.

So it has to be there is very few good mutations, not enough for the type of marco-evolution. So far, evolutionists have been trying to model with changing the odds of mutations, etc, to model how evolution would work. I don't think it's possible because of this paradox. The amount of harmful would be too much if there is any significant amount of good mutations to adapt quickly enough for significant change.

Good mutations happen. But not enough for the changes proposed, not enough for the time kicker to kick in for natural selection. Rather, the amount of harmful mutations in the numbers necessary for good mutations to make change in time in a species is overwhelming to the extent it would harm the species and bring them to non-survivable state, degrading.

Why, see his explanation of what mutations are, and how duplications occur with "Junk" Dna. If you understand the probability just from the nature of mutations and junk DNA, you will see what he is saying is true. But it takes understanding of the biology and Math, and knowing harmful mutations are the overwhelming majority.