News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Another of evolutionism's treasured lies is on its way to extinction. They have maintained that since all life employs the same code, all life must be descended from an "universal common ancestor".

Turns out there's more than one code.

"G-I-F-T" - think you know what these letters mean? In English, the term refers to a present, something given. In German, the term means poison. Same alphabet - different code.

Many have heard of the "stop codon" found in our DNA. When it is encountered, transcription comes to a halt. It functions similar to a period at the end of a sentence.

This is not the case with Mycoplasma. In the language of the Mycoplasma's DNA code, our stop codon is instead the code for tryptophan.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html

This fact has led at least one prominent evolutionist to call their counterfeit "tree of life" (distinct from the true Tree of Life) "a fiction", to the dismay of his comrades.

-Repeat DNA Function Negates Classic Evolutionary Argument
-By: Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Certain repetitive DNA sequences have long been viewed as "confirmation" of evolution. Since they are not genes that code for proteins, they were considered to be unnecessary. Therefore, they were supposedly available for alterations that would eventually lead to a brand new function within the cell or body after all the "right" mutations had accumulated.

Let's check this out....
-
Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Repeat DNA Function Negates Classic Evolutionary Argument (http://www.icr.org/article/repeat-dna-function-negates-classic/)

Thumbs up on this Post, CTD!

-Evaluating Real vs Apparent Design-
-One fact about sections of DNA is that their four letters are precisely arranged as a set of plans and specification detailing the materials and controls to reproduce a new organism. Since DNA 1) selects 2) in advance 3) exact attributes 4) for a purpose, it has the same features of intelligence as any engineer’s specification. Throughout recorded human experience, plans and specifications are always a product of intelligence. In addition, all known natural processes that randomly choose letters one-by-one outside the context of an intelligence to guide the selection—as evolutionists assert—always yield nonsense that is totally inconsistent with information held in DNA.
-------------
Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design (http://www.icr.org/article/evaluating-real-vs-apparent-design/)

-DNA: A Stew-pendous Creation
-By: Frank Sherwin, M.A.
-
Often those who prefer non-Darwinian explanations for the origin of the species are accused of being unscientific. One may believe in creation (or intelligent design), evolutionists maintain, but there certainly isn't any evidence for it. Ironically, it is research by the scientific community that begs to differ, revealing stunning and sophisticated features of the living world:
DNA's simple and elegant structure -- the "twisted ladder," with sugar-phosphate chains making up the "rails" and oxygen- and nitrogen-containing chemical "rungs" tenuously uniting the two halves -- seems to be the work of an accomplished sculptor.
Yet the graceful, sinuous profile of the DNA double helix is the result of random chemical reactions in a simmering, primordial stew. Just how nature arrived at this molecule and its sister molecule, RNA, remains one of the greatest -- and potentially unsolvable -- scientific mysteries.

There are a number of points of note in this remarkable quote. The most obvious is that judging simply by what the secular scientist can see (Romans 1:20), DNA has all the earmarks of a Sculptor who is gifted, skilled, and clever. But then notice they deny what is "clearly seen" choosing to attribute the "graceful, sinuous profile" of DNA to "a simmering, primordial stew." In 1952 a graduate student in Chicago attempted to emulate prebiotic conditions on a young Earth "billions of years ago." But organic life and DNA were never "created." What biochemists cannot do given almost unlimited funding, time, and contact with the brightest and best scientific minds in the world -- a "simmering, primordial stew" can do! There have been other simulation experiments, but no one has been able to make "the sugar molecules dioxy-ribose |sic| and ribose necessary to build DNA and RNA molecules."

"Random chemical reactions" are not what any biochemist would bet on when making something as detailed as DNA, even in the fullness of time. Recent discoveries have added even more woes to the primordial stew hypothesis.

If the origin of DNA/RNA continues to remain "one of the greatest -- and potentially unsolvable -- scientific mysteries" then the door is wide open to a supernatural explanation. Questing, unbiased scientists should be free to go down that path. Darwinists are hoping that some day a purely chemical explanation for the origin of the complex DNA molecule will miraculously appear, but that day will never come.

That's for certain! Who can count the reasons?

...but what can overcome blind faith and pride - now there's the problem.

The list goes on, CTD. You are correct and thank you for bringing this to 'light'....

-Revealing Purpose in 'Junk' DNA
-By: Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Chromosomes are compact linear entities in the nucleus of the cell. They are composed mainly of DNA, some RNA, and proteins called histones. People have been created with 23 matched pairs (46 total) of chromosomes. Years ago, scientists discovered that only about three percent of the human genome (the complete set of DNA inherited from the father and mother) is comprised of genes--about 35,000 of them. The remaining 97 percent was given the unscientific title of "junk" because secular biologists felt that over evolutionary time the DNA had lost its function. This useless DNA was the foundation for the secular argument that the genome was not designed.

Creation scientists countered--as they did with other alleged vestigial organs and tissues--that just because we don't know the function at the present, that doesn't mean the DNA doesn't have some important function. One need only look at the tonsils and appendix that were once taught by Darwinists to be vestigial but are now known, thanks to good scientific research, to serve important functions in the human body.

Sadly, the title "junk DNA" stuck, and hundreds of thousands of biology students and laymen were taught—incorrectly—that the trillions of cells in our body had mostly vestigial or useless genetic material (DNA) that served no function. Today, it is more correct to say that some sections of DNA are non-coding, but are not junk and have an important function.

For example, it has been discovered that some of the formally "useless" DNA actually controls embryos. An article in Developmental Cell magazine1 by Barbara Knowles and others examines the surprisingly high level of DNA called transposable elements (TEs) in the maternal transcriptome in mouse eggs and initial cleavage embryos. TEs or "jumping genes" are a number of types of DNA pieces found in virtually all life forms. They function as promoters (specific areas of a DNA molecule containing sequences required for critical function) for a number of RNA molecules. This scientific research counters the evolutionary assumption that many repetitive TEs in the human genome are useless. "I think a lot of 'junk DNA' has a function, and in a weird way it's controlling gene expression," stated Dr. Knowles.

Cells also contain introns, non-coding sections of DNA that are spliced out of the messenger RNA (mRNA) strand before it leaves the nucleus of a cell to become translated in the cytoplasm. This splicing technique is quite complicated and requires enzymes and energy. Such a complex performance led many to suspect that introns have a control function.2

Creationists continue to state that God doesn't make junk. Instead, we have been "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 137).References

1.Hardman, H. 2004. [PSA for Peaston, et al., in Developmental Cell, 2004 7:597606] "Junk" DNA may be very valuable to embryos.
2.Sterner D. A., Carlo T., Berget S. M. 1996. Architectural limits on split genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 93: 15081-15085.
*Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.

Cite this article: Sherwin, F. 2007. Revealing Purpose in "Junk" DNA. Acts & Facts. 36 (8): 13.

Doesn't really rate a new topic, but I liked this:



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ign-behind-a-wall-of-denial-and-ridicule

-CTD, It may not be a 'new topic', yet it is very interesting!Thank you!

-Things that are Made
-By: Gary Parker, Ed.D.

"Evidence of creation? Isn't creation just something you believe? How can you find scientific evidence of creation?"

Evolutionists routinely say that creation doesn't belong in the science classroom because you can't observe it, and even many Christians wonder if it's really possible to find positive scientific evidence of creation. Yet recognizing evidence of creation is something we do easily and naturally in the normal course of events.

Given that we can and do distinguish created objects on the basis of scientific observation and logical inference, let's take a fresh look at living systems.

From viruses up, the two basic "ingredients" in living systems are DNA (or an equivalent nucleic acid) and protein. DNA is the molecule of heredity, and proteins are the fundamental molecules of structure and function.

-Let's look further into this.....

Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Things that are Made (http://www.icr.org/article/things-that-are-made/)

The created order itself encourages that faith in us, for "the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). What a fantastic "silent sermon;" what a call to faith! The evidence of creation is all around us; how precious when the Creator is in us.

-Journal Reports Bias in Human-Chimp Studies
-By: Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Two reports in the Journal of Creation (JOC) provide a current review and refutation of the “nearly identical” human-chimpanzee DNA similarity paradigm.1,2 Creation biologist Dr. Jerry Bergman and I authored these papers after the Answers Research Journal (ARJ) published results from the ICR research project detailing large-scale genome-wide DNA alignments between human and chimpanzee.3 Additionally, several ARJ papers published earlier in 2011 describe how the chimpanzee genome was sequenced and assembled—another important aspect of the DNA similarity paradigm.4,5 This significant group of research papers represents a fairly thorough refutation of the claim that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes and marks an important phase in ICR’s research program in the biological sciences.
------
-Thank you, CTD, for keeping the DNA Code Articles going....
-Let's check out this new update from ICR...

-Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research: Journal Reports Bias in Human-Chimp Studies (http://www.icr.org/article/6777/)

-Arithmetic and the Genetic Code
-by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Where do physical traits such as height and eye color come from? Biologists say these characteristics are phenotypic (physical) expressions of the genotype—the genetic code. The case for creation can be seen in this amazing genetic code of life. The human body’s trillions of cells use over 75 special kinds of protein and RNA molecules to make one protein following DNA’s detailed instructions. A second genetic code has recently been discovered, adding to the complexity of the already intricate molecule of heredity.

Secular explanations for the origin of the sophisticated genetic code point to either the unknown or something like a “primordial abacus.” The only other alternative is a supernatural agency. The genetic code is the result of the purposeful arrangement of parts—design, implying a Designer, as Genesis clearly portrays.
---
-Let's check it out!
Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Arithmetic and the Genetic Code (http://www.icr.org/article/arithmetic-genetic-code/)

-How Are Cavemen Different? Finding a Home for Cavemen
-By: Georgia Purdom [Answers in Genesis]

Amazingly, scientists have recovered DNA from several Neanderthals and compared it to modern DNA. The differences are small but intriguing. What can we learn from the DNA about our early relatives?

New DNA technology has allowed scientists to peer into the past by mapping the DNA of so-called cavemen. And they have found some noticeable differences. So, what do those differences really mean—are those early people somehow less “human” than we are?

Before we can answer that question, we first need to understand two related issues. What can DNA tell us about the differences among people? And how does the biblical account of human origins shed light on these differences?

What Are the Differences in the DNA?
The ability to map DNA is an amazing feat, considering the DNA is thousands of years old! Many ancient human remains are found in equatorial regions where heat and humidity have destroyed the DNA. However, remains of the Neanderthals and another group of humans discovered in a cave in southern Siberia, the Denisovans, have been found in cold, dry, protected areas that better preserved the DNA.

When the first draft of Neanderthal DNA was published, the researchers concluded that it is 99.7% identical to modern human DNA. They also found that approximately 1–4% of DNA specific to Neanderthals can also be found in modern Eurasians. This led them to conclude that a very small number of Neanderthals mixed with early modern humans and produced children. Neanderthals had a wide geographic distribution in Eurasia, from Spain to southern Siberia, and from Germany to the Middle East, so it is not surprising that more of their DNA is found in modern Eurasians as opposed to other populations, such as Africans.1

To date, approximately eighty genes have been shown to differ between Neanderthals and modern humans.2

These genes produce proteins that govern a wide range of functions such as metabolism (how we burn food), the growth of the skull, and skin shade. Further study of these genes may help us understand how Neanderthals were different and perhaps why they died out.

For instance, one gene produces a protein involved in skin and hair color. Rare variants of this gene among modern humans lead to pale skin and red hair. The Neanderthal gene has a variation so far unknown in humans today. It is likely that this variant led to pale skin and red hair in Neanderthals.3 If this is so, Neanderthals would have been able to absorb more sunlight than if they had darker skin. This would have been useful in producing enough vitamin D to live healthy lives in the northern regions.

Denisovan DNA is also similar to DNA in modern humans. Approximately 4–6% of DNA that is specific to Denisovans can also be found in modern Melanesians (those who live in the islands northeast of Australia).4 As with the Neanderthals, this indicates that very few Denisovans mixed with and produced offspring with early modern humans—at least with those in Southeast Asia.5

Both Neanderthals and Denisovans do have small-scale differences with modern humans. Before the first draft of Neanderthal DNA, they were sometimes considered to be different human species or subspecies. But this is an arbitrary, manmade designation since two modern chimps of the same species will have more DNA variation than Neanderthals or Denisovans have to modern humans. In light of the genetic evidence, Neanderthals and Denisovans are fully human and should be classified as Homo sapiens.

-Are the DNA Sequences Accurate?
Many difficulties must be overcome to accurately sequence ancient DNA. Sequencing DNA involves determining the correct order of the individual components (bases) that comprise the DNA. Contamination and degradation are two of the biggest obstacles.6 Contamination comes both from bacteria found in the fossil (which can sometimes account for more than 90% of the DNA found!) and from bacteria transferred through handling by modern humans. Degradation occurs when the DNA is “chopped up” and certain DNA components are modified by chemical reactions. Fortunately, scientists have developed techniques that greatly limit the danger of contamination and degradation altering the actual human DNA sequence, so their impact is usually negligible.

Another issue involves the limited number of ancient individuals with viable DNA. For example, there are only two known fossil remains for Denisovans from a single cave. At the most they represent two individuals. Compare that to the thousands of modern humans whose DNA has been sequenced. A small sampling of an ancient population may not truly reflect the full range of variety in that particular group. The Neanderthal samples, in contrast, come from over a dozen different individuals at sites on different continents, so they are much more likely to represent the population as a whole.

It is also important to acknowledge the many evolutionary assumptions that are made when comparing the DNA sequence of ancient individuals to modern humans.7 For example, a common human-chimp ancestor was assumed. One paper stated, “To estimate the DNA sequence divergence . . . between the genomes of Neanderthals and the reference human genome sequence . . . [we used] an inferred genome sequence of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees as a reference to avoid potential biases.”1 Apparently the authors of the paper don’t consider assumed human-chimp ancestry as a bias, but it is! Creation scientists are actively studying methods to avoid these biases so that more valid comparisons can be made.

-A Biblical Perspective
Genetics has clearly established that Neanderthals and Denisovans were fully human. Any physical differences should be viewed as nothing more than variations that can occur within the human race descended from Adam and Eve. For a time, these descendants all lived together at the Tower of Babel. Following the post-Babel migration and late into the Ice Age, differing human populations began to appear in the fossil record, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

The next questions for creationists are how and why these differences appeared.8 How is much easier to answer than why! One possibility is that environmental pressures, such as the Ice Age, “selected” for or against traits within the range of human genetic diversity. (In other words, those that had a particular combination of characteristics survived in that environment, and others did not.) This may have led to the specific set of features found in Neanderthal people. Many animals following the Flood and during the Ice Age experienced an explosion of variations that allowed them to live and function well in new environments. This could also have been true for humans.

Other possibilities include genetic effects seen mainly in small populations. Small populations would have been typical for a period of time following the breakup of the human population at Babel, as people were separated based on language. The groups that left Babel would have begun with only a few reproducing individuals and not interbred initially with other groups.

A phenomenon known as genetic drift can cause certain genetic variations to become “fixed.” If the population is small, everyone with certain variations can die, without passing them down, and the survivors pass down just one variation to future generations. If no people are moving in or out of the population, characteristics like the pronounced brow ridge or the robust body form in Neanderthals can become dominant.

Another possible impact of the Babel breakup is the founder effect. The founders of each group leaving Babel might simply have differed from one another. Certain traits in one group might have been unknown among the founders of any other group. Those traits would then be unique to each group. Rather than being fixed by genetic drift, the Neanderthal’s pronounced brow ridge or robust body form may have been found among the founders of only one group after they left Babel. Those people may have migrated intentionally to places where they were most comfortable (similar to human behavior today).

As time passed, the different groups would have migrated, as humans have always done. People who had the traits of modern humans possibly interbred, at times, with the other groups, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. Yet there seems to have been a sudden loss, or a dilution, of the characteristics possessed by those other groups. The genetic makeup of modern humans became dominant.

Inbreeding can have disastrous effects on small populations by amplifying defective genes. Maybe this is why Neanderthals and Denisovans eventually became extinct. We don’t know. Why this happened is still a mystery.

What is not a mystery is that so-called cavemen, including Neanderthals and Denisovans, were fully human. They were among the descendants of the people scattered at the Tower of Babel—made in God’s image to bring Him glory.

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis. She earned her doctorate from Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology.~~