Este debate traz muitos links a muitos artigos com extensas listas de discussões nos comentarios. Aqui registro os links para posterior releitura. Primeiro, o comentario da Matrix a ser usado como entrada nos debates:
Comentario oficial da Matrix/DNA:
Accordingly to Matrix/DNA Theory, what is called “junk DNA” is the memory of 10 billions years of universal evolutionary history before life’s origins. Upon this memory was added the 3,7 billion years of biological evolution, which merely refers to the biological DNA, which is the terrestrial biological representative of a universal Matrix – the universal genetic code of a unique natural system that is coming under evolution since the Big Bang. So, the non-coded regions of DNA is like the skeleton and the coded region is like the organic soft meat of the DNA. That’s why the size of the genome is not at all correlated with biologic complexity: it is information of a time there was no expressed biology anyway. At that time, biology was included into the systems, as atoms and galaxies, but only as potential principles.
The long repetitions of same letters means that evolution at astronomical level is too much slow in relation to time of biological level and every Matrix’s evolutionary jump needs to register the changes occurring at the whole space and time.
And the DNA is being observed by humans and their scientific instruments only at its horizontal material plain, visible due visible light, but the DNA is built also in a vertically plain, by seven dimensions encompassing all seven differents vibrational states of natural light. So, the evolution of DNA at one dimension is dependable from the evolution at others dimensions. Every evolutionary step at each dimension need be registered into the whole code, that why sometimes the DNA is fulfilled with long repetitions of letters waiting the events at other dimensions.
Due the same motive that a human body can not exist without its bone skeleton and the code inherited from ancestors, the active regions of human DNA can not be supported without the skeleton’s DNA, mistakenly called “junk”, and without the ancestors shapes known as atom systems, galactic systems, etc. Disease like cancers when a cell is repetitive ad infinitum without control is also a problem about faults of dimension’s connections. That’s the nowaday state of investigation by Matrix/DNA Theory method.
There is no “Darwinist evolution”, but a long universal process of genetic reproduction of the unknown natural system that triggered the Big Bang ( if you want call it God or Nothing, no problem, fell free) , which is accomplished by several steps of micro-evolution and that contains the mechanisms pointed out by Darwin a lot more. There is previous design for the universal natural system being developed here, but it is a natural process without the needs of a intelligent designer, like mother giraffe is able to produce a new baby giraffe without applying intelligence.
The onion longer DNA than human is explained by Matrix/DNA astronomical model of our astronomical system ancestor which was a closed system and as such, it is mimicked by plant cells. The animal cell and genome is about opened systems, which is less complex than closed system in mechanical Newtonian fashion but more evolved as biological opened system. Onions mimics the Sun’s and Earth’s shape of superposed geological layers, and those astros emits their “genetic informations” when each layer is consumed by radiation. I have not seen the onion’s DNA but if Matrix/DNA Theory is right, it must shows the longest chains of repetitive letters because in this way the long astronomical time is registered in the universal genome.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/junk-dna-hires-a-pr-firm/#comment-553756 ( publicado, post 119, Louis C. Morelli)
( DNA-lixo deve ser… lastro de fractais!)
Posted by PZ Myers on March 12, 2015
Junk DNA hires a PR firm
New York Times science writer defends the myth of junk DNA
Worries Carl Zimmer, a “No junk DNA” scenario could help creationists:
AskScience Special AMA: We are the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium. Last week we published more than 30 papers and a giant collection of data on the function of the human genome. Ask us anything!
Francis Collins rejects junk DNA –
Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate
ScienceShot: Biggest Genome Ever
Is most of our DNA garbage?
Three reasons why nobody should be surprised by junk DNA
The ENCODE Data Dump and the Responsibility of Scientists
An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome
The Complexity of Eukaryotic Genomes
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism
The New York Times
Re: Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?
What Is Junk Dna
Physicist suggests: “Onion test” for junk DNA is challenge to Darwinism, not ID
Trechos importantes a notar de todos os artigos e comentarios:
1) But tell me, Joe, how ID explains why the pufferfish has a genome 1/8 the size of the human genome, and why another fish, the African lungfish, has 50 times more DNA than a human and 400 times more than some other fish, via your hypothesis “God made all genomes by sorcery.”
2) So the answer would be no, as BA77 proves by linking to ancient debunked crap from IDers, no, no IDer can explain why the onion genome is 5x the size of the human genome… or why the VARIATION in genome sizes within the genus Allium is several times larger than the whole human genome.
Why is it that within some genera of frogs, where all the species look equally complex, some species have far less DNA than humans, while other species in the same genus, distinguishable only by experts, have far more DNA than humans? Why?
And excluding frogs, all amphibians that have been studied, including caecilians that have no legs nor eyes, have much, much more DNA than humans. Why?
Nor can any of you answer Wd400′s frequently repeated question: if every baby born has ~ 100 more mutations than its parents, ~200 more than its grandparents etc. etc., and if all that DNA is functional, and mutations are “catastrophic” as IDcreationists always say, why don’t all babies die?
3) part of the argument about junk is the quantity- the size of the genome is not at all correlated with biologic complexity. Further the ratio of junk vs. functional is pretty large.