Talk:Junk DNA is not really junk

From EvoWiki

Someone put discussion into the article again... --tk 09:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Illusion of Junk DNA

When an apple seed generates a tree for the production of apples in its own image, the seed's DNA contains the instructions or algorithm not only for the production of apples, but for the production of the entire tree structure as well. So what is believed to be junk DNA is actually DNA needed for the generation of that system or organism which the seed employs for the purpose of self-reproduction.

This brings us to the human genome. Based on the fact that the parameters of our universe are exquisitely fine-tuned for the production of human life, and on the fact that the cosmic system yields the complexity of human life, we are allowed to infer that a single human genome created the universe for the production of human life in its own image, similarly as a seed creates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.

So the observation of nature tells us that if we roll back the expansion of the universe in time, it is reducible not to an inanimate initial singularity, nor to a quantum blip, but rather to a single and most complex initial human genome.

Thus according to this purely naturalistic theory of creation a single human genome constitutes the seed or genotype of the phenotype universe. The postulate that our genome constitutes the cosmic system's input and output implies that the human genome contains DNA not only for the production of a human body, but also for the production of the entire universe.

Evidently the cosmic human genome is uncreated and immortal, because the universe has no power to act upon the initial seed or cause of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon the initial seed of its own origin.

Here the basic assumption is the human genome's immortality. So far absolutely no evidence exists to demonstrate that there was a time when the human genome did not exist. Until we provide evidence that the human genome is not immortal, the above proposed theory of creation stands.

-- Kazmer Ujvarosy San Francisco, CA

I can't tell whether this is creationist nonsense, new-age nonsense (as anything which uses the word "cosmic" in an inapropriate place inevitably is) or a grotesque hybrid of creationism with fashionable postmodernist nonsense. Either way the author clearly has no idea what the junk DNA in question is (an apple genome contains genes for building the whole organism not just seeds: no shit, Sherlock, but nobody was claiming otherwise). I don't know where to begin with paragraphs four and five. Joe D (t) 14:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)