When Junk DNA Isn't Junk

[suchandra 1]

"Today, we are learning the language in which God created life,"

US President Bill Clinton said on 26 June 2000. "The initial

sequencing of the human genome is historically been

completed."

 

Today, 2006 science says, "Clinton's hurry ahead was childish - about 98.5% of the human genome which has been designated as "junk DNA", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA - contains many hidden treasures. But we are still far from fully understanding the language of DNA."

The existence of large amounts of this so called "junk DNA" (up to 98.5% in humans) in the genomes of eukaryotes has been used as an argument against intelligent design and the role of a Creator and as an argument for the random process of evolution.

In sum, the scientist know very little - what they considered as "having discovered the language how God created life" was just 1.5% of the human DNA - but still they proclaim in schoolbooks, consciousness/identity is generated by the brain cells and originally everything developed by chance from dead chemicals - by automatic evolution.

 

 

Genomes, developed from the big bang: "We have 3 billion base pairs of DNA

 

 

 

 

DNA: THE CODE OF LIFE . The double-stranded DNA molecule is held together by chemical components called bases

Adenine (A) bonds with thymine (T); cytosine © bonds with guanine (G)

These letters form the "code of life"; there are close to 3 billion base pairs in mammals such as humans and rodents

Written in the DNA of these animals are 25,000-30,000 genes which cells use as templates to start the production of proteins; these sophisticated molecules build and maintain the body.

 

 

Our parts list goes a little something like this . . . There are 3,164.7 million base pairs of DNA in the human genome. To put this in perspective, the fruit fly genome has about 180 million base pairs, and yeast have 12 million. But the sheer size of an organism's genome does not necessarily indicate how complex it is.

 

There are 670 billion base pairs in the genome of an aoemeba, we ourselves only have roughly the same number as a mouse. That's all very nice, but it's really not the size of the genome that's important, it's how you use it. That's where genes come in."

 

................................................................................................

Srila Prabhupada. [casting Dr. Singh in the role of a materialistic scientist]. All right, scientist, why is life not coming from matter right now? You rascal. Why isn't life coming from matter today? Actually such scientists are rascals. They childishly say that life came from matter, although they are not at all able to prove it. Our Krsna consciousness movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they create life immediately? In the past, they say, life arose from matter; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will create life from matter. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life began from matter. This refers to the past--"began." Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense.

Karandhara. They say that life arose from matter in the past and that they will create life this way in the future.

 

Srila Prabhupada. What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past?

 

Dr. Singh. They are assuming...

 

Srila Prabhupada. Everyone can assume, but this is not science. Everyone can assume something. You can assume something, I can assume something. But there must be proof. We can prove that life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. But where is their proof that a father can be a dead stone? Where is their proof? We can easily prove that life begins from life. And the original life is Krsna. That also can be proven. But what evidence exists that a child is born of stone? They cannot actually prove that life comes from matter. They are leaving that aside for the future.