Journey Inside The Cell

Literally hundreds of studies have been written to demonstrate that "Junk DNA" or the non-coding for protein DNA is structured to the point that a code has been found.


"Hints of Language in the Junk DNA" a 1994 article in the Journal of Science spoke to computer analyzed spacing, "non-coding DNA" ie. "Junk DNA" was code.

The computer programs analyze linquistics. And the non-coding DNA representations were submitted for analysis. The Journal of Science said the computer analysis came back indicating that the coding looked like a language.

YouTube&feature=related


And (to be fair) here is a Discussion on "Junk DNA" by a non creationist (definitely).

YouTube

I can plainly see that no matter how much scientific information is discovered, world views in either case will remain the same with those committed to a world view.

No, I do not mean only Creationists. I mean both Creationists and Atheistic Evolutionists.

The camps, I think, will remained set. Neither will be able to hound the other out of existence. The majority of the rest of us laymen have to step back, look at the big picture and decide which we think is more believable - Life is an Accident or Life is an Intelligent Creation?

Don't let obfuscation blur the issue. I expect a poster to object with something like - "But Evolution does not advocate accidents." I have gotten use to clouding obfuscations in this argument. Watch.

"But it is not Random. But it is not accident" is what I expect some savvy Athiestic Evolutionists to next object.

Some of you Evos like to get down to the minute level and score various points. And this little exchange has encouraged me to learn more about the subject matter. But stepping back and looking at the big picture, that Life is an Accident is still to me a Proposterous assumption.

Stuff like DNA does not happen by accident. I have faith. But I don't have that much faith.

(This was not an endorsement of everything ICR publishes)

Originally posted by jaywill
I can plainly see that no matter how much scientific information is discovered, world views in either case will remain the same with those committed to a world view.

No, I do not mean only Creationists. I mean both Creationists and Atheistic Evolutionists.

In what way is the claim that scientists have found that most of the junk DNA has a vital function central to anyones world view. It should be trivial to support this claim if true. You mention 'hundreds of studies' but all you can offer is youtube videos.

If the claim turned out to be true, then it certainly wouldn't affect my world view one bit.

Originally posted by jaywill
Metalanguage was the term I used. I think the term the video used was metacode. I am not sure until I view it again. And I would post it again.

You have code to assemble protiens.

You also have code to direct the isage of code to assemble protiens.
I would call that a metacode. That is code directing how code should be used.

If you want to ...[text shortened]... or totally, let me see you debate NephilimFree on that.

That goes for you too Proper Knob.

“...Metalanguage was the term I used. I think the term the video used was metacode. I am not sure until I view it again. And I would post it again. ...”

It actually used the term “Meta information” (which I misread as “Meta language” because you said “Meta language” so my brain expected those words there! ) which has a similar meaning (by close analogy) to “meta language”

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Meta-information
“...Data that describes other data ...”

and as for “metacode”, it noramlly means “metadata” and means:
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=metadata&i=46848,00.asp
“...Data that describes other data. ...”
(“metacode” is also a computer language but obviously that is not what you mean by “metacode” here! )

in other words, generally, “metacode” = “Meta information”

“...You also have code to DIRECT the usage of code to assemble proteins....” (my emphasis)
that would not conform to the definition of “metacode” because that DNA “ DIRECTS” rather than “DESCRIBES” code to assemble proteins. Remember, the definition is “...Data that DESCRIBES other data. ...”
and since no junk DNA has ever been found to describe functional DNA, this doesn't change my point much!

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================
The link first claims that scientists have found that most of the junk DNA has a vital function. That is clearly false. Scientists have not found any such thing.
=============================================

Quote me a reputable source claiming what percentage they know is junk DNA and what percen we know now about the living cell he would have never written that book, Origin of Species.[/b]

“...===================================
It then says that genes that control coding genes are dependent on them and visa versa -which may be true to a limited extent.
================================

How did the relationship "to a limited extent" evolve ? ...”

not sure what you mean:
It evolved in the same way as other characteristics evolved.
Some genes depend on other genes to function while others don't have such a dependency.

“...=========================================
But then it claims that this means it could not evolve because of the question of which came first; well, obviously the coded genes came first because not all coding genes need other genes to regulate them -so that argument is just nonsense for it ignores the known biological facts.
=================================

Why is it obvious ? ...”

because it would not make evolutionary sense for it to happen the other way around i.e. the genes for regulating other genes to come first. This is because if the genes for regulating other genes to come first then that would mean that those regulating genes would have no function because there be no other genes for them to regulate and thus they would give no advantage and so they would have not been selected by natural selection.


“...And if you are right, those genes that DO need other genes to regulate them - How did that evolve ? ...”

simple, first all genes did not require other genes to regulate them.
Then other genes developed that regulated some of those genes but without those genes initially being dependent on those regulating genes.
Then those other genes mutated and evolved to become dependent on those regulating genes as opposed to merely be regulated by them.

“...Varying rates may be an objection. Then again it may be an excuse. ...”

nope, it is just ONE of the flaws in their maths. SOME of their other flaws (there are a lot more than this) in their maths is that it also fails to take into account the non-fixed population sizes and chromosome mutations etc.

Actually, I forgot to mention that the rate of revolting cannot be reliably mathematically predicted anyway because there is at least one wild-card that determines rate of evolution that cannot be mathematically defined -specifically, the amount and many types of sporadic changes in the environment that can trigger sudden bursts of far more rapid evolution.
So the very attempt at using maths as a bases of their argument was flawed from the very start because of this!

Originally posted by jaywill
Literally hundreds of studies have been written to demonstrate that "Junk DNA" or the non-coding for protein DNA is structured to the point that a code has been found.


[b] "Hints of Language in the Junk DNA" a 1994 article in the Journal of Science spoke to computer analyzed spacing, "non-coding DNA" ie. "Junk DNA" was code.

The computer pr ...[text shortened]... that much faith.

(This was not an endorsement of everything ICR publishes)[/b]

“...The majority of the rest of us laymen have to step back, look at the big picture and decide which we think is more believable - Life is an Accident or Life is an Intelligent Creation? ...”

the theory of evolution does not claim that “Life is an Accident” so the question is flawed because it shouldn't be “Life is an Accident or Life is an Intelligent Creation?” but “life evolved or Life is an Intelligent Creation?”.

“...Don't let obfuscation blur the issue. I expect a poster to object with something like - "But Evolution does not advocate accidents." ...”

No “obfuscation”, the theory of evolution does NOT say “Life is an Accident” nor does it “advocate accidents”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
“...Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.[
...”

well, no mention of “Life is an Accident” or “advocate accidents” there!

“..."But it is not Random. But it is not accident" is what I expect some savvy Athiestic Evolutionists to next object. ...”

the PROCESS of evolution itself is not “random” or “accidental” but inevitable.
Natural selection is not random but rather selects the most advantageous genes -how can something be “random” if it is “selective”?
There are also random mutations which are random but they by themselves don't make things evolve but rather thing evolve when natural selection, which is NOT totally random, selects the advantageous mutations. Therefore, the process is NOT totally random.