http://cross.tv/67940 Anti-th|mas

http://cross.tv/67940 Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm… The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it? - Rob Crowther,PhD The Myth of Junk DNA http://www.mythofjunkdna.com/ Here: Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and junk DNA. The topic is Junk DNA, which is the name given by naturalists to the portions of the DNA code that do not code for proteins. Is Junk DNA really just leftover junk from a blind, purposeless process of fully naturalistic evolution? Or does it have a function, like intelligent design theorists say? Let’s put these predictions to the test and then update our worldviews to fit with the scientific evidence. After putting these two predictions to the test we discover That Be He was right all along. For more Information click below: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/has-the-progress-of-science-vindicated-mike-behe-or-ken-miller/ In 1994 that DNA is filled with junk left over from naturalistic, random evolution: The prediction of Ken Miller Anti-theistic biologist Ken Miller said in 1994 that DNA is filled with junk left over from naturalistic, random evolution: "…the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. One thing you have to like about Ken is that he manages to fit in some predictions along with his factually incorrect statements under oath. The prediction of Michael Behe Theistic biologist Michael Behe said in 2002 that DNA isn’t as junky some people think, because of the evidence: As a public skeptic of the ability of Darwinian processes to account for complex cellular systems and a proponent of the hypothesis of intelligent design, (1) I often encounter a rebuttal that can be paraphrased as “no designer would have done it that way.” … If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose? …. Hirotsune et al’s (3) work has forcefully shown that our intuitions about what is functionless in biology are not to be trusted. On this episode of ID The Future, Biologic Institute's Dr. Richard Sternberg, PhD, explains what a gene is, how it works and how our understanding of genes and DNA has changed over the years. He also discusses the growing number of discoveries that are overturning the notion of junk DNA. "You can have one gene that can produce hundreds of proteins." http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

Ciencia | Educación | JESUS REVOLUTION RADIO | Evolution | junk DNA | genetics | RNA Sequences | biology | antisense RNA | science | intelligent design | genes | proteins | encoding | misconceptions | biochemical | darwinism | enzyme | enzymes | gene regulation | fine-tuned regulation | DNA sets | functional sequences | DNA | functionality | folding of the chromosome | chromosome | Polemics | Biology | Cell | DNA | Evidence | Evolution | Experiment | Failed Prediction | False | Falsifiable | ID | ID Theory | Information | Intelligent Design | Junk DNA | Junk RNA | Ken Miller | Mat