Are We Really Full of Junk DNA? | The Creation Podcast: Episode 30
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2022
- Is it really true that less than 2% of genes are functional? Is the other 98% just "junk?"
In episode 30 of The Creation Podcast, host Lauren Pennington and ICR geneticist Dr. Jeff Tomkins debunk misconceptions about the usefulness of genes. This episode will reveal some surprising facts about RNA production, regulatory functions of genes, and more!
Related resource: Guide to the Human Body | Get the book here: store.icr.org/guide-to-the-hu...
#Science #Podcast #Biology #DNA #Cells #Bible #TheCreationPodcast #Life #ICR
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on TH-cam for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Love your ministry ICR 🙏 Keep it up! Praying for you guys
We appreciate it!
@@icrscience 😊🙏
Hehe... In High School biology, about 1974, the teacher said most DNA is just junk, I thought, "That just means you don't know what it is for." I had already learned not to actually SAY things like that😉
Speak truth. Test everything.
I wish to thank you for sharing this DNA Podcast # 30 video with me .
I hope ICR makes more of these with Lauren Pennington hosting. She does an excellent job of asking & listening.
“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”
― Jun-yuan Chen
So true even today, in 2022, you can easily get 'cancelled' as a scientist for questioning evolution, and it's the livelihood of many a researcher, why would you? Even though there are bad theories upon bad theories to try and make it work. A lot of scientists don't like ENCODE specifically for the issues it has brought up about the Junk DNA issue and were scrambling to try to justify their theories about Junk DNA (even still holding to the fact that they think that some DNA is still Junk so their theory must still be correct). These discoveries are making fools of scientists who continue to follow 'Brocolli to Man' evolutionary theory, even decades after darwin himself would have wholehartedly abandoned it!
Also can change your denomination rather than confirm the Central party members else minions...
@@uiPublic exactly right!
You do understand that creationists in American criticize Darwin all the time? True, their criticisms always turn out to be wrong, but they keep right on doing so and no one stops them.
@@lizd2943 you get cancelled as a scientist taking a scientific view of darwin. That’s what Dr Chen was saying, his response was because a scientist questioned him about how he was doubting darwin. Despite the facts, scientists praise darwin’s molecules to man theory in the US. The rest of the world knows better though. Source: I’m the rest of the world.
@@lizd2943nonsense, their criticisms are 99% right, because Darwin was an uneducated unscientific idiot! He failed school, failed medical college and flunked theology training. All he was good at was killing and collecting animals. Darwin had no clue about the complexity of even the simplest cell, he was clueless about organelles, DNA, enzymes, protein machines and the Krebs cycle etc etc, most intelligent scientists admit, if Darwin knew what we know today, he would not have published his ideas on evolution in the first place.
As the. Psalms say: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made”
Can y'all do an episode more in-depth on Endogenous Retroviruses? How evolutionists have attempted to use ERVs as evidence of common descent and why they're NOT evidence of common descent?
They ARE evidence of common descent. We can only have these small shared pieces of DNA, in the SAME PLACES if we have a common descent from an ancestor.
The usual creationist excuse is to point to some elements of ERVs that have been co-opted to have function in the host organism, which doesn't refute them as evidence of common descent at all.
@@lizd2943 They do the same silly excuses for the fused chromosomes at CR2.
@@StudentDad-mc3puThat's an assumption. The exact same error they made when they called DNA "junk"
@@truthbebold4009 Calling something 'junk DNA' is not an error, neither is it the correct scientific term - so you are simply building a strawman argumeng here. Non-coding DNA does have functions, including having a role in Gene expression - however what it does not do is code for proteins. Some of it does code for RNA which has a function withing the cell and the body.
Some of this non-coding dna is fragments of viral dna which we hvae inherited from ancestors and which we share with great apes.
Much of what the guest explains is accurate. However, scientists are generally divided on the matter. Ever since ENCODE there has been a significant decline in the use of the term "junk DNA" for more neutral terminology in the literature. It does not make sense that the genome would be 100% functional though because part of our genome is a repository of historical viruses and pseudogenes. But I give this video some props for the insights since even designs made by humans are not 100% functional either (generic aesthetics, arbitrariness of safety factors, overspacing, color, redundancies, repetitive elements). There certainly are numerous parallels with nature and design.
Uh, no. ENCODE only got their 80% functionality claim by calling transcription a function, which it is not. They were criticized by everyone in the field and withdrew it.
@@lizd2943 Pubmed results by year shows the declining trend of the term since 2012 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=junk+dna). Neutral terminology is being used instead more and more.
Clear and inspiring, thank you
This is great!
Great discussion only ruined by the constant adverts, which also make listening while driving totally unsafe.
This Hard Don’t stop👀👀 Let’s colab sometime ‼️
WHAT A WONDERFULL PRESENTATION.... WHAT A DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE "'''''' SEEMS LIKE GOD
@ICR check out this gem of irony:
Skeptic says: "secular scientists would not be seen DEAD on ICR or AIG videos..."
Barely a minute passes and Dr. Dan Stern Cardinale is seen commenting. This all happened during the live chat of this video.
Well I'm certainly not going to, like, be in an ICR or AIG video. But I'm sure as heck gonna point out that they're wrong.
Doki etc: "... check out this gem of irony:" - What point are you trying to make here, exactly? Somebody allegedly makes a categorical assertion which is then shown to be mistaken. This happens all the time. What conclusion do you want people to draw from it?
Live chat is not preserved for premieres. I guess the world will never know :)
@@CreationMyths But you did it in a place where your comments were visible only for a short time.
@@uncensoredpilgrims You're in luck! I did a whole video on this very episode on my channel. I probably can't post links here, but it was a livestream on August 24th, 2022.
🎉🎉🎉 Happy Sabbatical,Did you know 1/25/24 Abba gave US in Waco Texas University,The Book of Genesis Adam and Atoms. The Beginning of Creation and on The Sabbath Day Abba Rested from All His Creative Work
Random mutations are essential for evolution theory. Populations naturally vary, and individuals with beneficial mutations may be more likely to survive and pass on their mutation to offspring. DNA changes and modifications (mutations) play a crucial role in shaping the evolution of life on Earth. Evolution:
Natural selection acts on genetic variation, leading to gradual changes in the population.
New species can emerge over long periods as advantageous traits accumulate. Your DNA and my DNA are 99% the same. A chimpanzee is 98.6% the same as you and I.
god didn't put junk in us, we do that to ourselves.
So if OO Repository's function overall some cells Masters rest slaves or no?!
💫
The junk part is coming up with evolution ideas. Probably Darwin has a larger portion of it than the average person. 😅
He neglects to point out two important studies that have shown that only a relatively small percentage of the genome is conserved. Estimated between 8 to 15%. The other part mutates at a high rate indicating that it is not important. So it is correct to say that not all noncoding DNA is conserved (only 2% is coding), however, there is no evidence based on mutation rates that most noncoding DNA in not junk. As one who has studied mutation mechanisms in human DNA for many years, I feel confident in saying that all changes in human DNA can be explained by random processes and that no rational person (or creator) would ever design a genome in this fashion.
What a cart load of crap🤮
So if OO Repository's function overall some cells Masters rest slaves or no?!
as in Christ's the Head for we clients...