Many of these differences are discussed in the notes that follow.
History clearly teaches us that lack of evidence doesn't equal either non-existence or no purpose. Those proteins carry out tasks throughout our bodies, such as regulating blood sugar levels, fighting infections and sending communications between cells. The other 98 percent of our genome isn't genetic dead weight, though. The noncoding regions help regulate when and where genes make proteins. Non-coding DNA has many other known functions, including protecting us against inheritable diseases and something as overwhelmingly important as determining male gender in mammals.
It now appears that without portions of supposed "junk" DNA, many if not every mammalian species on the planet would consist of females only. It has been discovered fairly recently that human brain development is guided by our so-called "junk" DNA and, this supposed evolutionary "junk" is responsible for many of the differences between chimpanzees and human beings. Lord only knows how many people on a global level in the meantime, horribly suffered and died.
- What is Kobo Super Points?.
- Chained Hearts (Sentries Book 3).
- Wörterbuch der Liebe: Roman (German Edition);
- Alan Beale's Core Vocabulary Compiled from 3 Small ESL Dictionaries (21877 Words).
It has also been fairly recently discovered that unlike evolutionary science assumed for over years, while DNA sequences of human and chimpanzee genes are nearly identical, actual differences between human beings and chimps, including in particular the human brain, are immense. Rather than much of our DNA consisting of so much evolutionary baggage "junk", in many still mysterious and for now only poorly understood ways, without it there might be little to no visible forms of life on earth, including ourselves. Many astronomers and physicists suspect fundamental theories of energy, motion, gravity and light may be somewhat or very far off from what is actually true from a larger universal view; several have proposed very different ideas challenging mainstream views.
English Vocabulary Word List - Alan Beale's Core Vocabulary Compiled From 3 Small ESL Dictionaries
Obviously, finite beings like ourselves trapped within three dimensions plus time on a comparatively infinitesimally small planet, have no way of knowing if there are any such thing as universal laws. And just as obviously, from a fair unbiased view of the historical record, much of what is assumed or otherwise appears to be true to the majority of scientists today, will more than likely be gone with the historical winds and emerging evidence of tomorrow. As a good example, in some scientists reported there is evidence life may be transported between worlds in space dust.
If true, this negates everything previously believed from Darwin forward regarding the evolutionary origins of life. It may be fair to say modern science knows less about the true origins of life and the larger universal reality than ancient Neanderthals knew about the complexity and vastness of inner and outer space. Meanwhile, other scientists suggest that the long held evolutionary "tree" model of life evolving from a singular source in the ocean may be entirely wrong.
Rather, life may have independently arisen many different times in diverse places from all over the earth. This is strongly supported by a discovery of multi-cellular macro and micro life existing in clay sediments 2. Other still more recent evidence has pushed back the emergence of life from 3. Scientists recently discovered that micro-organisms living several miles deep into the earth's rocky crust are often similar all over the globe, rather than significantly different as evolutionists might assume.
This similarity can be explained if life arose from many tiny identical or nearly identical forms, rather than from just one as the standard Darwinian "tree" model has long assumed. There is also strong evidence supporting a "many emergent point" theory found in the realms of viruses and archaea, both of which today are well-established to cross superkingdoms of life. Much more is contained within the various notes that follow. Information available to the general public online and elsewhere clearly demonstrates that rather than being in general agreement, there is a great diversity and wide range of opinion regarding the theory of evolution and virtually everything else within the modern scientific community, often at the most fundamental of levels.
Because science continues to move at an ever more rapid pace, much of what is contained in these notes is already in need of revision and, this will likely continue to be the case as new evidence continues to emerge. While there are a wide variety of sources linked within the body of these notes, the two primary sources used are the Encyclopedia Britannica and Science Daily. The Britannica is highly recommended as the most reliable general source for human knowledge, while Science Daily contains a large database of recent science research from all over the world containing information often largely absent from modern textbooks and earlier works.
Neither the Encyclopedia Britannica or Science Daily are insinuated to be sources without error and, there is likely nothing of any length anywhere on earth that doesn't contain human bias and error. Likewise, neither is the information contained within this work is likely to be without several error. Care has been taken to revise and minimize errors as much as feasible and, there are many links contained within these notes serving to underscore the various claims found within them.
Due to the complexity of modern science theory, similar and sometimes the same information is repeated in more than one of the following notes, in order to hopefully maintain some context and clarity within the focus of each individual note. Regardless of what any of us believe or fail to believe, we should never be afraid of what the evidence indicates, for as a very wise voice from the past implies, if we do not know or otherwise are afraid of what is really true, we have no hope of being free.
Not only bacteria but viruses, which like bacteria and archaea, can transfer their genes across superkingdoms of life, are also known to mess with their own DNA. None of this of course was known to Charles Darwin, but educators who continue to ignore such evidence continue to do the global community a significant dis-service. This adds to the growing pile of evidence indicating that what is called Natural Selection is only one of several possible reasons why forms of life adapt and change. In fact, there may or may not be any such thing as "random mutations" by Natural Selection.
Besides what is discussed in the article linked above, this new evidence adds a whole new wrinkle into theories of disease and disease origins and why disease exists and persists within a theoretically advantage driven system.
If microbes living within macro forms of life make changes to their own genome, this could and very likely would cause macro forms of life to in turn, adapt and change. Such changes while appearing to be 'random' from Darwin's limited view, would in fact not be random at all. And thus, what science has long assumed are "new" species resulting from "random" mutations would instead be a grossly misleading interpretation of the true reality. If trillions of tiny organisms inside of us can incorporate changes into their own DNA, God only knows what seemingly 'random' mutations might occur on up the chain of larger visible macro forms of plant and animal life.
Leading DNA and disease expert Francis Collins has publicly stated that "modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes. Collins goes on to say that similar base societal laws and similar and sometimes identical so-called "golden rules" found throughout the human civilization record in well over both connected and non-connected cultures, clearly demonstrate a designed shared human conscience.
Collins, who describes himself as a "Darwinist", concludes that similar base societal laws are not what one would expect to result from random processes. Many people today claim to be agnostic, vainly imagining they can worm out of the scientific requirement of providing supporting evidence to back up any claim regarding the physical observable universal reality, as if they are deceiving anyone other than themselves.
To say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to claim the universe is either not created, probably not created or might not be created. All three claims are required by the long established rules of science and evidence, to be supported by evidence demonstrating a better explanation than Eternal Creator for the existence of the observable universal reality. A "better" explanation, in order to remain within the bounds of science, reason and evidence, must be able to better satisfy origins and better explain all of the known evidence.
A much better and more honest question is, why would anyone propose that the universe is not created or might not be created? What fears do they have of being ridiculed by their atheistic peers, what best-seller list are they trying to climb and, what evidence do they have supporting such blind faith superstition? Wouldn't such folks pretending to adhere to the rules of science and evidence, roundly and soundly criticize someone like Copernicus, if he had just proposed the earth either does, probably does or just might go around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any explanation, reason, rhyme or supporting evidence?
- Customer Reviews.
- Join Kobo & start eReading today!
- Mortadelo y Filemón. La gripe U (Spanish Edition).
- Human Rights and Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines: A Note on the Arroyo Government (2001-2007).
- Poems, Lyrics, and Sonnets!
- Cliches and Expressions of origin.
Who are such people posing as 'scientists' trying to fool and, why should we believe them or have any confidence in what they have to say? Why would the average truck driver, rideshare driver or waitress want to sacrifice hard earned tax dollars for their children to be taught by such deceitful puppet masters of baseless superstition? We humans can design complex machines that in turn can perform many functions on their own. Who is to say the great universal "machine" is not in fact, a result of deliberate conception, design and creation?
We humans can design lottery and other types of machines which theoretically generate random numbers.
Who is to say our Creator cannot incorporate random regeneration within a larger designed complex universal reality? And, we humans often create with both practical and aesthetic design incorporated into the same building, pottery bowl and paper clip.
Who is to say that the colorful feathers of a peacock are not an example of both artistic and practical reproductive purpose woven into the same grand design? Consider the extreme arrogance and narrow-mindedness of many modern scientists, who would pretend our Creator can't do at least as well as we can do!
There is overwhelming evidence that all of life is created to adapt and change, while there is zero evidence that life ever has or ever will "evolve" from scratch from magically existing "random, blind, unguided, natural processes". In fact, if life predates our own sun and solar system, as many modern scientists suspect, it remains irrational to pretend that science can every know with any certainty either how, when, where or why life first came into being. And even if it were true that the entire universal reality somehow randomly self-designed and magically sprang into existence, as if the moon is somehow larger and warmer than the sun, it remains humanly impossible to even remotely begin to scientifically verify such a baseless and foolhardy position.
Can a virus inside of a bacterium living inside of a human intestine scientifically and accurately determine there is no human being on which it depends on for survival? How then can a scientist like Lawrence Krauss say with any certainty at all that there is no God? What evidence do they have for magically appearing universes containing magically existing laws and processes, filled with magically appearing students of magically existing intelligence and conscious awareness, struggling to complete a magically existing science exam, sitting in magically existing desks in a magically existing university classroom?
True randomness from the top down not only remains unsupported by any evidence, it contradicts the entire notion of our universe having a beginning and, openly contradicts ALL of the known evidence. If the universe began from a singular point of origin or began in some other fashion as some scientists have proposed , everything that follows is by definition, not random, regardless of how much or how little the universe from there, may or may not be operating of it's own accord. No one can say with any certainty what our Creator may or nay not engage in beyond the veil of our three-dimensional plus time perspective.
How life came to be and behaves is becoming more and more difficult to express in any kind of evolutionary or other rational human terms. Science knows very little about the quantum reality, which is at the root of how both life and disease came into existence and function, as well as at the root of how the entire universe is both structured and operates.
As discussed in more detail elsewhere, today there is strong evidence the universe is designed according to both Pi and the Golden Ratio, two irrational numbers theoretically extending forever and ever, exactly what one might expect from an Eternal Designer. And as also discussed elsewhere, many scientists today believe the entire universe is "fine-tuned" for the emergence of life, which again, is exactly what one would expect to find in a deliberately designed universal reality.
How the universe actually functions from a true universal and beyond perspective is simply far beyond human capability of understanding here in the 21st Century, although likely highly rational from the view of a much greater Mind than our own. As a molecular biologist stated a few years ago in a PBS Video, it is irrational to pretend science will ever have an accurate theory for how life either came to be or functions, given the complexity of the micro, atomic and quantum reality.
As stated previously, for all we know today, life may have existed before our current universe and, may continue to exist forever and ever, leaving earth-bound scientists with no consensus and arguably, no hope of ever having a conclusive legitimate theory for the origins of life. Rather than carelessly lumping them together as militant atheists have a very bad habit of doing, as if they all believe the same thing, many historical and living people who believe in God demonstrate a great diversity of opinion.
And thus, they continue to insist that most human and other DNA is mainly "junk".
This isn't surprising, as science over historical time has often back-tracked on new ideas, only to eventually embrace them yet again. Given that evolutionists insisted for a long time that the human appendix is an example of evolutionary "junk", it is fair to assume that most likely in the future, scientists will eventually admit that ALL of our DNA does in fact, have a legitimate function and purpose, just as now today, the appendix has been conclusively demonstrated to have a legitimate purpose.
Scientists Fail to Study Majority of our Genes While it is true we can survive quite well without an appendix, we can also survive quite well without a finger, hand, arm or leg. This of course, doesn't prove that all of our fingers, hands, arms and legs don't have a valuable and legitimate purpose for being attached to our bodies. Because scientists today don't know of a purpose for some of our DNA doesn't at all demonstrate or even remotely indicate, that all of our DNA does not in fact, have a legitimate purpose.
It is wise to remember that the majority of scientists once believed the sun goes around the earth, once believed disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement and, until the late 's, believed in a static, eternal, non-expanding universe containing a single Milky Way galaxy. And now once again, since the counter-claims of Darwinian biologists noted, new research strongly indicates that these geneticists are in fact correct after all.
Including, as other scientists have also independently confirmed, regulating inheritable diseases. Further research also indicates that without certain so-called "junk" DNA, apparently there would be only females found among mammalian populations. If this all seems rather jumbled and confusing, it is because evolutionary and other science is filled with many conflicting reports and opinions often on the most fundamental of positions.
Unlike representing overwhelming agreed to evolutionary consensus, as highly misleadingly misrepresented in high school and university textbooks and mainstream media.
And, it may also lead to significant breakthroughs in agriculture and other plant and animal applications. The noncoding regions help regulate when and where genes make proteins" Link to Article. This article also details that new evidence indicates many inheritable diseases trace from so-called "junk" DNA. That is, current theories of gravity, light, energy and time, among other things, may be anywhere from partially to entirely wrong.