INTELLIGENT DESIGN GOD is not our natural Biblical God----it is global banking 1% GMO HUMAN corporations.
GOD'S NATURAL LAWS have always been nature's WONDERS.
TRANSHUMANISM is NOT NATURE'S WONDERS.
This discussion as to what the DNA CODES in a strand not translating into protein may or may not be of value----BETWEEN THE GENES----is the current disagreement between DARWINISTS and TRANSHUMANISTS.
We will use this article today as we end our discussion on PUNCTUATED EVOLUTION as BOGUS SCIENCE.
Looking Between Genes Reveals Differences by Design, Not Evolutionary Descent
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on April 2, 2015
The work of our wise common Designer is evident even between our genes.
Every time a baby is conceived, his or her genetic blueprint is put to work orchestrating construction of his or her human body. Yet geneticists have found that primate animals share many of the twenty to thirty thousand protein-coding genes in the human genome. From almost the same genetic building blocks, very different results are achieved! But is that the result of evolution, or God’s design?
Believing these shared genes are the result of shared evolutionary ancestry, Adam Siepel and his team of computational biologists at Cornell University report they can analyze how natural selection reworked the genome of the ancestral ape-like animal that humans and chimps supposedly shared 4–6 million years ago to produce us.1
Through dietary adjustments in carpenter ants, McGill University scientists were able to control the expression of a single gene called EGFR, producing ants ranging in size from 1.6 to 2.5 mm in length, mimicking what happens in nature. This demonstrated one way that genetic expression can be influenced by the environment. Image reproduced from Mélanie Couture and Dominic Ouel, The Canadian Press.
Blocks and Switches
Genes that code for the construction of the proteins in an organism are like little LEGO® blocks. And each kind of living thing inherits a similar set from which to build itself. “Remarkably we use nearly the same building blocks as chimpanzees, but we end up with very different results,” computer scientist Brad Gulko explains.2 This makes sense, for biochemically speaking all living things have pretty much the same basic needs and share the same planet with essentially the same resources.
The view that Darwinian evolution works by changing protein-coding genes has proven quite implausible because changes in such genes are far more likely to be detrimental than helpful.
THIS IS FAKE DATA FAKE NEWS PUNCTUATED EVOLUTION FAKERY.
Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of the genome consists of protein-coding genes. The Cornell team, trying to determine how evolution worked its magic over millions of years, concluded that less than ten percent (only 4.2–7.5%) of our protein-coding DNA shows evidence of evolutionary tinkering.3
But, as mentioned above, not all the DNA in the genome codes for proteins. In fact, most of it doesn’t! The Cornell team found that the functionally important parts of the human genome are 5.4 to 10.1 times more likely to be in these noncoding parts of the genome than in the coding parts.4 In other words, it appears that, from a genetic point of view, it isn’t so much the building blocks of life that make us differ but how those building blocks are used.
The Cornell team calculated that more than half of the important places distinguishing our genome from a chimp’s are “intergenic”—in between the genes. And “introns”—noncoding spacers within genes—accounted for another 35% of what makes the human genome special. They believe these are the places where evolution has been busy randomly evolving modifications on which natural selection could act.
Both intergenic regions and introns can be involved in switching genes on and off. Thus the team concludes—without commenting on how genetic information evolved in the first place—that evolution crafted us more by randomly tinkering with the way information was used than by altering the information itself.
Answers in Genesis’ molecular geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom points out that it is completely untenable to think that in only a few million years the innumerable random changes needed to create new and increasingly complex kinds of living things could occur and then run the gauntlet of natural selection, even if “only” the flipping of genetic switches was needed:
Now evolutionists are going to have to admit that junk DNA is not junk because there aren’t enough differences in the genes for humans and chimps to be so different. The problem for evolution is how do you get that many changes in such a short period of time evoltionarily speaking?
In the past, many intergenic regions and introns like those pinpointed in the Cornell study were considered useless, functionless leftover evolutionary junk.
Recent studies have shown that the vast majority of so-called junk DNA actually does have a function, as evidenced by the fact that 80% of the nucleotides in our so-called “junk” DNA are biochemically active. This of course is exactly what we would expect in a world of life designed by a wise common Designer, even after 6,000 years of the ill effects due to sin’s curse.
The Cornell team disputes the significance of junk DNA’s importance but admits they are looking at functional importance in a different way:
This finding stands in contrast to estimates that ~80% of nucleotides may be functional, based on measures of ‘biochemical activity.’ However, it is important to bear in mind that these evolutionary and biochemical estimates reflect somewhat different definitions of function, and this may explain some of the difference between them.5
Indeed the Cornell calculation of just what constitutes functional importance in the human genome is heavily influenced by evolutionary assumptions. They calculate that only 4.2–7.5% of our nucleotides are functionally important enough to have been acted on by natural selection over evolutionary time “since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees.” In order to make their calculations “as direct as possible,” the Cornell authors note that they utilized “an evolutionary model that considers sequence divergence between the human, chimpanzee, orangutan and rhesus macaque genomes.” But of course there is no way to directly calculate the effect of evolution over millions of years since such evolutionary change has never been observed and is only assumed to have occurred!
Peeking Between the Genes
While nothing about the Cornell group’s conclusions supports evolutionary claims, its report that regulatory DNA buried within and between genes governs most of the differences between primate animals and humans is borne out by another recent study from Sweden’s Karolinska Institute. Researchers there, comparing transcription factors (proteins that transcribe DNA into RNA) produced by the genomes of humans, mice, and fruit flies, found they pretty much “speak” the same language.
"We observed,” explains lead author Kazuhiro Nitta, “that, in spite of more than 600 million years of evolution, almost all known DNA words [genetic regulatory regions] found in humans and mice were recognised by fruit fly transcription factors.”6
Transcription factors influence which genes get expressed and when. They do this by interacting with the genes’ own regulatory regions. Together the transcription factors and the regulatory regions they recognize can be thought of as genetic switches.
The team pinpointed the regulatory codes recognized by the 242 transcription factors in fruit flies. Then they tried out fruit fly transcription factors on human and mouse genetic regulatory regions. The fruit fly transcription factors recognized them.
Humans do, Nitta’s team found, have some transcription factors that fruit flies lack, but only in cell types that fruit flies also lack. They concluded that evolution of the “DNA words” to which transcription factors bind was the major driving force in the evolutionary divergence of life into so many different forms. They also believe that the evolution of some novel transcription factors made even more differences in complexity possible.7
Amazing Consistency and Still Going Strong
Even the genetic switches specific to each organism are part of that genetic information that makes each organism unique. Evolutionists cannot account for the origin of the information in genes, in their regulatory elements, or in transcription factors. Observational science has yet to uncover any mechanism by which an organism can acquire the genetic information to evolve into a new, more complex kind of organism. The notion that molecules-to-man evolution has been going on for 600 million years—or has ever gone on at all, for that matter--is a Bible-rejecting worldview-based conjecture, shrouded in circular reasoning and inconsistent with biological observations.
That the same basic set of transcription factors is pretty much the same across the board does not demonstrate 600 million years of evolutionary stability—surely a very improbable notion—but rather illustrates the wisdom of our Creator God, the common Designer of all living things. Likewise, the discovery that differences between very different species rest largely in the regulatory parts of their genomes is what we would expect from a wise Creator. In fact, though evolutionists claim it is evidence of their claims, even the consistency of the genetic code—the language in which all living things “write” their instructions—is what we would expect knowing that in the beginning, about 6,000 years ago, God designed all kinds of living things to share the same planet.
Go to the Ant
Yet another recent study illustrates the genetic switching mechanisms God included in His design for living things—while never shown to produce a new and more complex kind of organism—do equip some organisms to vary within their own created kind and thereby adapt. This study, from a McGill University group, revealed why carpenter ants living in the same colony vary greatly in size. They found that 70% of the size differences in these clones descended from the same queen could be explained by whether or not a single gene—EGFR—was methylated or not. Methylation is the chemical attachment of a small group of atoms (called a “methyl” group) to a gene. DNA methylation is a well-known way that genetic expression is regulated.
“We used to think that traits like size that fall along a continuum were controlled by many, many, many genes, each having a small role, with the environment having a smoothing-out role,” explains coauthor Ehab Abouheif. Abouheif and colleagues learned that methylation of EGFR in ant larva was the deciding factor in determining adult size. “What we’ve found is something quite fundamental—by putting a coat on a single gene, you can generate that whole continuum in size. You get this chemical coating on the gene that modifies the way the gene works. You don’t need any changes in the gene.”8
Such controls on genetic expressions are called epigenetic, because they work “above” the level of the genes. Because environment can promote epigenetic changes, this mechanism equips many populations to adapt without losing any of their actual genetic information. Epigenetic changes are one way our Creator equipped living things to adapt while keeping their options open.
McGill researchers found that they could manipulate DNA methylation of EGFR using changes in dietary folate, a B vitamin. They were thus able to produce a continuum of variants from 1.6 to 2.5 mm long. “What the food is doing is affecting these chemical modifications,” explains Abouheif. “We’ve got to find out what other genes are involved, connect the dots between the food and the chemical modification. We have to see how this applies in other vertebrate systems. It’s just the beginning, really.”9
EGFR is not only regulated by DNA methylation but also controls many other genes. In honeybees, for example, EGFR influences the DNA methylation of multiple genes associated with cell growth.10 And EGFR is present in many species, including humans. As Abouheif notes, “What we’re showing is that genes and the environment are equal in their power to generate these continuous traits,” variations that do not even result in any loss of genetic information.
In their conclusion, the McGill authors call attention to the “apparent gap between the assumptions” of Darwinian genetics in its attempt to explain the origin of diverse complex living things and what genetics actually reveals. They admit, “Countless studies have demonstrated that QTLs [quantitative trait loci] cannot in themselves explain all heritable variation underlying quantitative traits, such as growth or size in humans, Arabidopsis and yeast. These difficulties underscore the many challenges that remain in understanding the genetic basis of quantitative trait variation.”11 And though they claim their work helps fill this void, it too fails to support is amoeba-to-ant evolution, or any other scenario of evolving increased complexity through random processes.
When we take a close look at the DNA that provides the blueprint to make us what we are, and to make other living things what they are, we see the hand of wise Designer who created a perfect world, with all kind of plants and animals, about 6,000 years ago. He equipped them to vary and adapt to the changing conditions in a world soon to be cursed by sin. Alterations in EGFR expression have, incidentally, been implicated in association with some kinds of cancer, a reminder that epigenetic control, like the many other good things God designed, can go wrong in this sin-cursed world.
The science of genetics cannot explain the origin of life or of genetic information in the first place. Nor can it offer a mechanism to connect the dots between different kinds of organisms. The science of genetics reveals much about the way God designed the world to function, but rather than supporting an evolutionary origins story it affirms the eyewitness account in the history book of the universe, the eyewitness account provided by the Creator God.
PUNCTUATATED EVOLUTION PROMOTED HERE RATHER THAN DARWIN AND SEVERAL DECADES OF BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH.
GRADUAL EVOLUTION as DARWINISM takes that
'Looking Between Genes' and sees the entire history of living evolution so indeed, a super-majority of genetic code in HOMO SAPIENS looks just like lower animals. An even smaller group of genetic code separate PRIMATES like monkeys/gorillas from HUMANS. It is not the number of genetic codes which make each animal different----it is LOOKING BETWEEN GENES-----that NONSENSE AREA OF GENETIC CODE.
TRANSHUMANISTS seem to what to sell the idea that this VITAL REGION -------BETWEEN THE GENES-----can be manipulated without concern about grave harm because these nonsense zones are filled with CIS----MUTATIONS needing to be deleted/covered, or REPAIRED. TRANSHUMANISTS say-----that NONSENSE ZONE has so many MUTANT CODES it has placed humans in EVOLUTIONARY DECLINE. Ergo, global banking 1% SHIP OF FOOLS feels obligated to remove all that NONSENSE CODE to make room for GMO HUMAN coding.
Below we see the natural replication process of DNA contains the ability to DELETE MUTATIONS----to INSERT MUTATIONS----to change a FRAMESHIFT for translation to do all of this.
This is called a frameshift mutation. A tiny change in the DNA strand leads to misreading of a larger portion, due to the frame of reading.
DNA EVOLUTION WITH GENETIC CODONS IS 'CONSERVATIVE'. THIS MEANS IT SAVES THAT HISTORY BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE FINAL EVOLUTION TOWARDS BEING 'HUMAN'----HOMO SAPIENS.
Removing from this NONSENSE region vital codes for TRANSCRIPTION and replacing with lower-animal genetic code breaks that EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY----that CONSERVATION WRITTEN HISTORY.
THE DNA STRAND HAS A GENETIC CODON WHICH SAYS----I WILL BECOME AN ORGAN CALLED 'THE KIDNEY'. THE NONSENSE REGION OF DNA HAS CODON WHICH SAYS----'I WILL TELL THAT KIDNEY HOW TO WORK. TAKE AWAY THAT NONSENSE CODON AND YOU HAVE A KIDNEY WHICH DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO WORK AS A KIDNEY.
That is what
'Looking Between Genes'
is-----DARWINISTS see LOOKING BETWEEN GENES as natural HUMAN EVOLUTION to come. TRANSHUMANISTS see LOOKING BETWEEN THE GENES as areas to delete/manipulate/silence in order to create GMO HUMANS------DOG BREED SUB-SPECIES OF HOMO SAPIENS.
Eukaryotic gene expression is a multistep process that begins with transcription and pre-mRNA processing in the nucleus followed by export of the mature mRNA to the cytoplasm for translation. All of these steps in the gene expression pathway are extensively coupled to one another both physically and functionally, and this coupling is thought to maintain the efficiency and fidelity of gene expression
Eliminating PTC-containing mRNAs (PTC+mRNAs) is vital because these mRNAs encode C-terminally truncated proteins, which may possess dominant-negative or deleterious gain-of-function activity
TRANSHUMANISTS want to take this natural use of DNA non-sense codon region that works wonderfully when not attacked by CANCEROUS CELLS AND THEIR REPLICATION-----and change the way that organ called KIDNEY works. Ultimately, the changing of non-sense codons tied to any ORGAN attempts to create that HIBERNATING HUMAN-----as ONE SUB-SPECIES OF HOMO-SAPIENS.
Our natural DNA replication process with all that nonsense codon region says-------
WE ALREADY HAVE AN APP FOR THAT.
What is a Mutation?
What Are The Different Types Of Mutations?
Mahak Jalan 30 Jul 2016 (Updated: 2 Dec 2019)
Technically, a mutation is defined as any sudden change in the genes. A mutation may or may not be beneficial to the organism and/or species. Different types of mutation include deletion mutation, insertion mutation, duplication mutation, substitution mutation, missense mutation, nonsense mutation etc.
Evolution is the basis of growth.
It was evolution that took us from single celled organisms to the complex, multicellular organisms we our today. It is to evolution that we owe our existence, our survival and our virtue of being the smartest creatures on the planet.
One of the biggest subset of evolution is mutation. From green eye colour to the male species, all are a gift of mutation. Molecular biology is a fascinating field of study. However, before one divulges into advance topics, let’s get our fundamentals right.
Technically, a mutation is any sudden change in the genes. Conversely, evolution is a change in the gene which takes places over a prolonger period and is for the survival of the species. A mutation may or may not be beneficial to the organism and/or species.
Considering the intricacy of our genetic code and genes, there are a number of ways that these mutations can occur.
Types of mutation
When one or more bases in the DNA are deleted, it causes deletion mutation. For instance, AUGGGACGA becomes AUGGACGA. The G base gets deleted from the middle.
This is the opposite of deletion. In this type of mutation, a base gets added into the sequence. Like so. AUGACGAGA becomes AUGAACGAGA. The A gets added in the middle of the sequence.
This is somewhat similar to insertion mutation. A part of the gene sequence gets duplicated and copied multiple times into the sequence.
AGCGGACGA becomes AGCGGAGGAGGAGGACGA.
The length of the duplicated sequence can vary from a single codon to multiple codons.
In this type, a single base pair gets substituted with another. For instance, ACAGCCAGC becomes ACAGGCAGC – the C gets substituted with a G.
The Genetic Code (Photo Credit : Wikimedia Commons)
Sometimes, a part of the DNA strand may break off from the middle. This segment, before getting reattached to the main strand, sometimes turns 180 ° before reattaching. This is known as inversion mutation. While there is no loss or addition of any bases, the order changes which can lead to a significant change in the protein it codes for.
Let’s take a simple example to understand this. Consider the deletion mutation we spoke of above wherein AUGGGACGA becomes AUGGACGA. Now let’s see how these will be read according to the genetic code.
AUG GGA CGA as opposed to AUG GAC GA
As is visible, the deletion of a tiny base has led to the whole DNA strand being read incorrectly due to the frame of reading. This means, that even though the rest of the strand is correct, it will still be read incorrectly. This is called a frameshift mutation. A tiny change in the DNA strand leads to misreading of a larger portion, due to the frame of reading.
Deletion, insertion and duplication lead to such types of frameshift mutations.
Effects of Mutation
Not all mutations cause undesirable changes in our genes. Based on this, there can be 3 types of mutations.
Some changes cause a change in our amino sequence. These could bring about slight changes, or major changes. However, they definitely cause a change in our amino acid sequence. This is a missense mutation.
Some mutations lead to the coding of a STOP codon, instead of a normal amino acid. This leads to formation of shorter protein sequences which maybe dysfunctional, or not functional at all. These are nonsense mutations
In the genetic code, the third base is less important. AAA and AAG both code for lysine. Therefore, when there is a change in the last base of a codon, the amino acid remains the same. This is due to the degeneracy of the genetic code. These mutations don’t cause any change in our proteins, and hence are called silent mutations
Mutation may not always bring about undesirable changes. The are an essential part of molecular biology, and hence it is necessary to understand their basics. A large number of diseases, like sickle cell anaemia, huntingtin’s chorea, fragile X syndrome, etc. are caused due to such mutations.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES tend to be RELIGIOUS in some way------morals and ethics tied to MORAL PHILOSOPHY. This past century has offered SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of timeline of EARTH'S AND LIFE CREATION which does not match a BIBLICAL----TORAH-----KORAN religious texts. Most US citizens in one or other religious groups have accepted these BIBLICAL TIMELINES are artificial telling a history ---NOT LITERAL.
What we see today are TRANSHUMANISTS----not religious ATHEISM/SATANISM working hard to have REAL 99% WE THE RELIGIOUS CITIZENS focus on DARWIN when everyone should be focused upon TRANSHUMANISM.
The religious RIGHT tend towards these fundamentalist religious groups and the religious RIGHT tend towards FREEMASONRY replacing our mainstream religions.
REMEMBER, IF FREEMASONRY TODAY HAS LEADERS AT THE TOP TIED TO ATHEISM/SATANISM AND THAT FREEMASONRY IS TIED TO OUR CHURCHES----OUR SYNAGOGUES---OUR MUSLIM TEMPLES---
Then we get religious leaders calling our REAL RELIGIONS-----CHRISTIAN TRANSHUMANISM-----JEWISH TRANSHUMANISM----MUSLIM TRANSHUMANISM----HINDI TRANSHUMANISM.
PLEASE DO NOT FOCUS ON WHETHER THE EARTH AND LIFE WAS CREATED 6,0000 YEARS AGO ----FOCUS ON FIGHTING TO KEEP GOD'S NATURAL CREATIONS --------AS HE WANTED THEM.
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created in their present forms by supernatural acts of a deity between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
DAY 4 (SUN & MOON) - 2028 End (Of The World)
In God’s Master Plan for planet Earth the most important events to occur during Earth’s fourth 1,000 year period (year 3,000 – 4,000) was the birth, ministry, & death of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. The Apostle John wrote this about John the Baptist and Jesus: “He (John) was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years? | Answers ...
Aug 16, 2007 · But about 200 years ago some scientists developed new theories of earth history, which proposed that the earth and universe are millions of years old. Over the past 200 years Christian leaders have made various attempts to fit the millions of years into the Bible. These include the day-age view, gap theory, local flood view, framework hypothesis, theistic evolution, and progressive creation.
Author: Dr. Terry Mortenson
Is the Earth 6,000 Years Old? - Restored Church of God
“Young Earth” creationists interpret the Genesis account to mean that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden.
bible states god created the earth 4000 years ago but ...
Jun 27, 2009 · Answers. The Bible does not state that the earth is 4000 years old its the genealogy of the sons of Adam that dates back 4000 years from the times of Jesus and Jesus was crucified 2000 years ago, this works out as 6000 years ago when Adam walked the face of the earth.. Now in the beginning when God Created the heavens and...
How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?
Young earth creationists inadvertently buy into the atheistic worldview that suffering could not have been the original intent of God, stating that the earth was created "for our pleasure." However, the Bible says that God created carnivores, and that the death of animals and plants was part of God's original design for the earth.
How does the Bible teach 6000-years - creation.com
As a firm young-earth creationist, I applaud the gathering and organisation of evidence along biblical lines. However, holding that the earth is 6000 years old (rather than 6500 or 7000) is implied. That the world was created by God is clear and repeated teaching. Exactly when he did it has a lower theological standing.
If the Earth was created 6000 years ago, did God create ...
Originally Answered: If the Earth was created 4000 years ago did God create dinosaur fossils to test man's faith in the Bible? The world was not 6 or 4 thousand years old until the middle of the 1600's when Bishop James Ussher pronounced it.
4 in 10 Americans Believe God Created Earth 10,000 Years Ago
By Tia Ghose June 05, 2014
'The Creation of Adam' is one of the nine ceiling panels in the Sistine Chapel depicting scenes from the book of Genesis.
(Image: © Vlad G / Shutterstock.com)
Four in 10 Americans believe God created the Earth and anatomically modern humans, less than 10,000 years ago, according to a new Gallup poll.
About half of Americans believe humans evolved over millions of years, with most of those people saying that God guided the process. Religious, less educated, and older respondents were likelier to espouse a young Earth creationist view — that life was created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago — according to the poll.
Though the percentage of people who believe in creationism has changed little over the decades, the percentage of people who believe humans evolved without God has more than doubled, and the percentage who believe in God-guided evolution has decreased.
Americans consistently report high levels of belief in the supernatural. About 80 percent of Americans believe in miracles and three-quarters believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, according to a 2013 Pew survey.
At the same time, while most Americans have a healthy respect for science, many could use a refresher course in the basics. For instance, a 2014 National Science Foundation study found that only three out of four Americans know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, and a large percentage didn't know the Earth's core was hot. Large percentages didn't know that the father's sperm determines a baby's sex.
As part of the Values and Beliefs Survey, Gallup called a random sample of 1,028 landline and cellphone users and asked them which of three descriptions most closely matched their beliefs: that humans have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; that humans have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; or that God created human beings pretty much in their present form sometime in the last 10,000 years or so. Gallup has asked people similar questions since 1982.
About 42 percent espoused the creationist view presented, whereas 31 percent said God guided the evolutionary process, and just 19 said they believe evolution operated without God involved.
Religion was positively tied to creationism beliefs, with more than two-thirds of those who attend weekly religious services espousing a belief in a young Earth, compared with just 23 percent of those who never go to church saying the same.
Just over a quarter of those with a college degree hold creationist beliefs, compared with 57 percent of people with such views who had at most a high-school education, the poll found.
Most of the people who believed in evolution also said they were knowledgeable about the theory, whereas those who said they were not too familiar with the theory also were less likely to believe in it.
Americans' belief in creationism is at odds with scientific consensus. Almost all scientists who study human origins believe that we evolved from other life-forms over millions of years. In fact, humans, or individuals in the genus Homo, are said to have emerged on Earth some 2.5 million years ago.