Junk DNA

 So according to creationists Junk DNA so called is really not junk, they've discovered that it has regulatory functions, turning genes on and off.  I've found that idea to be pretty puzzling.  It takes ninety eight perecent of the enome to regulate two percent of it?  Does not compute.  Am I missing something.?

Before I started jearhearing about this idea that jhunk DNA isn't really junk I'd been accepting the idea  without question and in fact finding it to be very compatible with creatinism.  Seems to me that all that dead DNA reflects the FAall, and [erpahaps the Flood.  It represents capacities the human being, and all animals foer that matter that also have a lot of noncoding DNA, once had many capacities and strengths we no longer posses since we've become vulneratlbe to all kinds of injuries, idseases and so on since the Fall.  I think of mutations as a major agent of the Fall, attcking healthy DNA and over time destroying it, being the main creators of junk DNA.  

So I see Junk DNA as most likely really junk, destroyed genes from a far stronger and in fact truly amazingly capalbe creature that no longer exists because of si.  Amazine how well we manage to functino on just two perecent of what we once possessed.  

That's how I think of it.  You can laugh now.

later:  

creationist modelor hypothesis

The original Kind would have had no junk DNA, just all functioning genetic material

The original Kinds would have had all heterozygous genes that are made up of two alleles.  That gives the maximuum variability ossible in the original two of sexually reproducing reatures.  

Oh, and the two individuals, male and female, would have had identical genomes except for the sex chromosome.

**********

Refering back to the previous post I need to come up with a neat principle to express the fact that all change possible is built into the genome of the species or Kind, you can't get any kind of change that would turn one species or kind into another because it's all coded for specific traits that belong to the species built by that genome.  You see the end of all possible change play out in scenarios such as I wa mentioning, where a breed or race arrives at a point of so many fixed loci it can become unable to breed with its former population;  that's a pure bred and it's also the condition ofan endangered species such as the cheetah.  They both have the same genetic situation and it's a situation beyond wihich further change or so called evolution is impossible, or at least sharply reduced because variability in the genes is reduced.  Genetic variability is reduced as phenotpic change occurs, because it is leading to homozygosity for traits.  Vaiability is a function of heterozygosity, that's why I'm sure the original Kinds all had nothing but heterozygous genes.

faithswindow@mail.com

**********

It belongs on the previous post I suppose but I remember that I'd followed out the ygosity  thoughts to answer the question about how the llama came from the camel and I still believe that's how it happened.  The Kind starts out heterozygous, meaing that three out of four of its offspring will have th dominant genetic trait between the dominant and recessive alleles of the genes.  So with a camel you'll always get a camel three out of four matings, one heterozygous, one homozygous dominant, dotty yeo hyryrtozoud.  hr outyh   The fourth offspring will be homozygous recessive but if only one gene is involved whatever its trait is will hardly be noticed in the population.    

And that should persist as long as the population stays large, all the animals being regular camels with the osccasional recessive noncamelish trait that doesn't make much of a blip on the radar.    But if a smallish number of those camels migrate away from the herd an get reproductively isolated from that original population, then it will have a different set of gene frequencies from the original population that will start to produce new phenotypes in the new population from generation to generation, and if there are enough homozygous recessive genes or traits in the new population that tend in the llama direction, which I suppose is in fac tthe case for that Kind, then eventually you will get your llama.

There are probably other combinations possible that would produce something not quite like a llama or the original camel.  Ghink of the wildebeest which as I understand it now has three distinct populations, the origiknal in the millions from which two others developed, no doubt by wantdering away from the main herd and getting isolated in a new location where inbreeding brought out a new set of traits from the original  trats of the main herd.  One of the new populations is smaller, has a sort of bluish cast to its skin and fdifferent shaped antlers ass I undersanditg.  The other population is different from both but I'm not sureh how.  All standard genetics in my humble opinion.  All it takes is randm selection of some smallish number of individuals in rpeproductive isolation.    I've alsways thought this could easily b proved in a laboratory setting with some small animal.  Let it populate freely then separate a smallish number and put them in a separate environmlent and let them breed and you

ll get a new trait popicture in that new population

I still picgture Todd Wood rolling his eyes.  Oh well.