Quote:

No, junk dna doesn't make sure dna replication is safe, that's not it's purpose.



Ok, let me elaborate. It makes transcription (I think that was the term I was looking for) possible in part, and even slows it down so that it doesn't happen too fast. Mutations of junk DNA can cause cancer, which doesn't prove that they have a purpose, but does prove that we do need it intact.

Furthermore, it gives a reference frame for the correct copying of DNA. It has its purposes. Just, forget your theory for a second, and quit ignoring scientific discoveries just because they contradict your assumptions. Evolution can still be true, even if junk DNA has a purpose.

Of course, this doesn't account for all of junk DNA, but we also don't know everything there is to know about genetics yet.

Quote:

but it does seem to indicate that it once could have been usefull dna and now just doesn't has a real purpose anymore.



Maybe, but there's no proof of this.

Quote:

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).


This argument seems to almost(?) contradict your 'degeneration' or 'downfall evolution' theory a bit don't you think? You seem to say that this human junk dna must be kinda the same as chimps,



I think it must be the same as chimps because our coding dna must be about the same as chimps (actually I may be wrong about this because our proteins if I remember correctly are very different from chimp proteins). But this is just speculation on my part, because I don't know what 'causes' junk dna to appear. My theory predicts that in the future we will have found a purpose for pretty much all of the non-coding DNA, or will at least have a consistent explanation for its existence besides evolution. That's what I'm waiting for. Everything up until that time is speculation, which is ok, but not exactly proof of one theory or another.

Quote:

well if that's the case, why do you skip the possibility of a more direct relation between both species?



Believe me, I would assume that this was evidence of an ancestor if I thought it was possible that we were the descendants of a primitive man-like creature. Even if for some reason I was convinced evolution happened, I wouldn't abandon my belief in God. So this isn't a conflict of interest for me. I might have to come up with all sorts of ways to make the two ideas compatible, but it wouldn't really offend my sensibility.

Quote:

then don't you think it's enough similar to conclude both things are related?



The problem for me is that this isn't very conclusive evidence. With our still-limited knowledge of genetics, we can make all sorts of speculations. But I'm more worried about the impossibility of evolution.

Quote:

You said it yourself, that you doubt certain evolutionary changes can happen more than 1 time.



Actually I doubt that any evolutionary steps can even happen the first time.

Quote:

I'm also quite sure the junk dna between different species of humans or monkeys is different too. Why exactly would you expect it to be similar?



Maybe what I said was misleading. I was just saying that if this junk dna truly was junk, then it might be expected to be similar regardless of evolution. The only problem for my theory is that junk DNA exists in the first place. Of course, scientists are slowly alleviating that problem with further discovery.

Quote:

I'm not sure which evolutionists claim to be able to guarantee that stuff, but I would definately not claim to be perfectly right. Like I said, scientists don't give guarantees, any scientist doing that nevertheless, is a bad scientist not being open enough for a different model.



Good. Then you agree that the majority of evolution should be thrown out of school textbooks. Since the way its taught, where I went to school anyway, is that evolution is THE way things happened, and all other speculation on origins must fit within the model of evolution.

Quote:

I know some evolutionists probably kinda sunk into that swamp of believing only their own 'scientific' words, but you've got similar stuff going on at the religious side



The difference of course being that scientists are supposed to be objective and not get caught up in their faith. Evolution, I'm sorry to say, is faith-based. There are things in nature that may 'suggest' evolution, but the fact is that its still based on faith (assumptions, presuppositions, whatever you want to call it). Even if you believe evolution you CANNOT deny this fact. Unless you have of course bred a dog to become something other than a dog? As compelling as the fossil record might be, it pales in comparison to the complete lack of modern evidence of evolution.

All creationists want is for evolutionists to finally admit that there is little to no SOLID evidence for evolution, and that teaching it in school as fact is beyond being unethical.





I keep hearing this theory that if we lose evolution we lose all of science. Taking speculation out of science simply leaves you with the basic observable facts. This is what science is all about. If we stop speculating as to how bones were evolved, don't they still exist? Can't we still study and understand them? Evolution has done nothing to advance science, and instead has been used to mislead and confuse our youth. Teaching incorrect assumptions about anatomy as fact (whale legs, coccyx, appendix) has actually proved to be detrimental in understanding science.

Evolution is the only theory I know of that doesn't actually predict anything about observable science, but simply predicts its own speculative evidence. In fact, its the only theory that is allowed to exist despite that the things it might predict about observable biology aren't there (mutations not doing what they are predicted to do, etc).

While the more extreme side of me sees the need for evolution to go altogether, I'll be happy if all of the lies are taken out of textbooks. Why evolutionists are so offended by this idea is beyond me. Of course, that even the most intelligent of evolutionists still believe in the myth of vestigial organs goes a long way in possibly explaining this phenomenon.

Quote:

They are selected out, there's just still traces/parts left off dna that once had a function. Dna information doesn't simply dissappear when it becomes defect. Genetic information that's neutral or positive, will stay, I think this junk dna is quite neutral.



Maybe he just meant the fact that its so consistent. Why would it be relatively universal among the entire species if it provides no benefit? Of course, I could be mistaken.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/11/06 00:14.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."