OoSnap said:
This should be interesting. |
Considerring the slab of text your post is I'll just mention 2 points of contention:
Stasis on the DNA Level
There are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and ‘revived’ from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence.
Evolutionists expected DNA sequence after millions of years to be different. It has often used as a cop-out to stasis of organisms in terms of morphology.
The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes:
“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637
This disproves evolution how? It may have been a little surprising but not all that unexpected. We share 40-50% of our genes with that of a banana so sequence homology between bacteria of 250 million years isn't that big a deal. The bacteria share similar enzymes such as polymerases and proteases. Many proteases for instance share a great deal of sequence and structure homology from bacteria right up to mammals. Futhermore, it only takes a few key mutations and you can completely change the function of an enzyme whilst the sequence and structure remain near identical. If anything, it shows these bacteria may even be common ancestors for many bacteria in the modern day.
The next point actually leads on from this. You said:
Junk DNA
“The amount of DNA in organisms,” neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.” (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)
Recent scientific evidence says otherwise:
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation...." http://rnajournal.cshlp.org/content/early/2011/03/11/rna.2658311
"What was once considered "junk DNA" now holds the keys to many novel gene regulatory mechanisms..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20639473
Of course there are numerous more studies that shatters the "Junk DNA" myth. According to Jonathan Wells (received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley) exposes the myth in his book aptly titled "The Myth of Junk DNA" http://www.mythofjunkdna.com/
All you've demonstrated here is that our knowledge is always improving, which in actual fact is the goal of science. We're beginning to understand more about "non-coding" or "junk" DNA now (far more than in the 70s) and it actually adds a layer of complexity and shows that mutations in genes aren't the only way evolution proceeds. These "junk" DNA transcribe RNA that helps control gene expression and is a different method of adding diversty/inducing the minor changes needed for evolution to proceed. Think about how the changing of a single genes' expression could cascade and have a knock on effect to numerous other genes. A whole field of study (epigenetics) looks at how environmental effects can alter gene expression and how these effects can be inherited and passed down to offspring. This is not contrary to the theory evolution but complimentary; adding information and data to an already robust theory.
