Junk DNA! ID owns Darwinists

[ASUMountaineer]

Why do people always have to take sides? Why not think, "that's interesting, something to consider?" We don't know everything, so why do we act like we do? To me, the most important thing is to keep questioning, keep researching, keep challenging accepted theories. That's how we advance humanity and society, not by picking sides in some faux-ideological science battle.

[grizzaholic]

Why do people always have to take sides? Why not think, "that's interesting, something to consider?" We don't know everything, so why do we act like we do? To me, the most important thing is to keep questioning, keep researching, keep challenging accepted theories. That's how we advance humanity and society, not by picking sides in some faux-ideological science battle.

If you don't take sides, how will you know if you win or not?

[ASUG8]

Does any of this explain why I like pie?

[Chizzang]

Why do people always have to take sides? Why not think, "that's interesting, something to consider?" We don't know everything, so why do we act like we do? To me, the most important thing is to keep questioning, keep researching, keep challenging accepted theories. That's how we advance humanity and society, not by picking sides in some faux-ideological science battle.

I completely agree with your point
But I'll give you a few add-on observations
People sometimes take side in debates such as these - because - there are folks arguing a point that KNOW NOTHING about what they are speaking about, literally NOTHING

So in the realm of scientific studies - ranging from things like the Earth is actually NOT the center of the universe to slicing peoples veins open does not actually "heal them" we have people arguing about science from a Faith based perspective... There are a few things in this world that are not subject to scientific inquiry or the scientific method of research, beauty and philosophy being the two most obvious. Because they are subjective and Religion also belongs to this category. Religion is untestable by any form of scientific experiment because it relies on faith and assumptions too basic to be subject to the core assumptions of science (logic).

So let me summarize:
Religion is not science, that doesn't make it invalid; it just makes it not science.

[ASUMountaineer]

Why do people always have to take sides? Why not think, "that's interesting, something to consider?" We don't know everything, so why do we act like we do? To me, the most important thing is to keep questioning, keep researching, keep challenging accepted theories. That's how we advance humanity and society, not by picking sides in some faux-ideological science battle.

I completely agree with your point
But I'll give you a few add-on observations
People sometimes take side in debates such as these - because - there are folks arguing a point that KNOW NOTHING about what they are speaking about, literally NOTHING

So in the realm of scientific studies - ranging from things like the Earth is actually NOT the center of the universe to slicing peoples veins open does not actually "heal them" we have people arguing about science from a Faith based perspective... There are a few things in this world that are not subject to scientific inquiry or the scientific method of research, beauty and philosophy being the two most obvious. Because they are subjective and Religion also belongs to this category. Religion is untestable by any form of scientific experiment because it relies on faith and assumptions too basic to be subject to the core assumptions of science (logic).

So let me summarize:
Religion is not science, that doesn't make it invalid; it just makes it not science.

Yup.

[ASUMountaineer]

Does any of this explain why I like pie?

Well, "junk" DNA allegedly has nothing to do with protein, just like pie. Seems rather elementary to me, ASUG8.

[ASUG8]

Does any of this explain why I like pie?

Well, "junk" DNA allegedly has nothing to do with protein, just like pie. Seems rather elementary to me, ASUG8.

Yeah, I should have seen that. My apologies.

[green&gold75]

Did pie spring forth, or did it evolve from simpler tarts?
Did dinosaurs like pie?

[ASUMountaineer]

Did pie spring forth, or did it evolve from simpler tarts?
Did dinosaurs like pie?

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

[green&gold75]

Did pie spring forth, or did it evolve from simpler tarts?
Did dinosaurs like pie?

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

[ASUG8]

Did pie spring forth, or did it evolve from simpler tarts?
Did dinosaurs like pie?

I'm a little rusty on my bible verses but isn't it in Genesis somewhere. I'll paraphrase, but I think it says that on the first day He created pie, and he saw that it was good or something like that.

[houndawg]

Did pie spring forth, or did it evolve from simpler tarts?
Did dinosaurs like pie?

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

Yes the little arms were convenient, but that is a coincidence - they didn't evolve that way because of pie. T-Rex evolved little arms through hundreds of generations of playing the ukulele.

[ASUMountaineer]

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

Yes the little arms were convenient, but that is a coincidence - they didn't evolve that way because of pie. T-Rex evolved little arms through hundreds of generations of playing the ukulele.

HOLY SHIT! I didn't know T-Rex's were Hawaiian!

See, you really do learn something new everyday.

[Chizzang]

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

Yes the little arms were convenient, but that is a coincidence - they didn't evolve that way because of pie. T-Rex evolved little arms through hundreds of generations of playing the ukulele.

That right there is ID at work
You can't explain that through science




Bill O
One of the great Minds behind the overwhelming team of ID supporters

[houndawg]

Yes the little arms were convenient, but that is a coincidence - they didn't evolve that way because of pie. T-Rex evolved little arms through hundreds of generations of playing the ukulele.

That right there is ID at work
You can't explain that through science




Bill O
One of the great Minds behind the overwhelming team of ID supporters

Sure you can explain it through science. As guitars got smaller over time, T-rex's arms adapted. They may yet find a very early T-rex playing upright bass - they were around for millions of years.

[Chizzang]

That right there is ID at work
You can't explain that through science




Bill O
One of the great Minds behind the overwhelming team of ID supporters

Sure you can explain it through science. As guitars got smaller over time, T-rex's arms adapted. They may yet find a very early T-rex playing upright bass - they were around for millions of years.

Settle down there pardner
All real ID Scientists know (KNOW) the earth is only about 6 million years old
You're just talking crazy talk

[SeattleGriz]

That right there is ID at work
You can't explain that through science




Bill O
One of the great Minds behind the overwhelming team of ID supporters

Sure you can explain it through science. As guitars got smaller over time, T-rex's arms adapted. They may yet find a very early T-rex playing upright bass - they were around for millions of years.

Ohh. The much sought after "party" Rex. Now that is one I would like us to find as well. I actually believe they have traced the lineage, through genetics of course, to Spuds McKenzie.

[BlueHen86]

Did pie spring forth, or did it evolve from simpler tarts?
Did dinosaurs like pie?

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

I doubt that.

[ASUMountaineer]

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

I doubt that.

I didn't say they shared the pie.





Great find!

[JMU DJ]

[JMU DJ]

These are questions that most likely cannot be answered by science alone. Clearly pie was intelligently designed by an all powerful creator.

I would assume that dinosaurs did like pie. T-rex's little arms were perfect for handling a delicious pie.

Yes the little arms were convenient, but that is a coincidence - they didn't evolve that way because of pie. T-Rex evolved little arms through hundreds of generations of playing the ukulele.

[SeattleGriz]

So do you agree with the assessment that 80% of the DNA is functional? I only ask, because PZ Meyer is saying it is bullshit.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/09 ... -delu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That isn't function. That isn't even close. And it's a million light years away from "a critical role in controlling how our cells, tissue and organs behave". All that says is that any one bit of DNA is going to have something bound to it at some point in some cell in the human body, or may even be transcribed. This isn't just a loose and liberal definition of "function", it's an utterly useless one.

Now this is all anyone talks about when describing this research: that it has found a 'function' for nearly all of human DNA (not true, and not supported by their data at all) and that it spells the demise of junk DNA, also not true. We know, for example, that over 50% of the human genome has a known origin as transposable elements, and that those sequences are basically parasitic, and has no recognizable effect on the phenotype of the individual.

I don't understand at all what was going through the head of the author of that paper. Here's this awesome body of work he's trying to summarize, he's representing a massive consortium of people, and instead of focusing on the useful, if rather dry, data the work generated, he decides to hang it all on the sensationalist cross of opposing the junk DNA concept and making an extravagant and unwarranted claim of 80 going on 100% functionality for the entire genome.

Seems there are those that write on pretty popular sites such as Panda's thumb that still believe our DNA is full of junk. As stated above, I have figured out who is doing the most squawking and it isn't the mainstream scientists. It is the Darwinists who publish books (not textbooks) and make money.

You should have heard Dawkins. He said in 2009 DNA was full of junk, only to say that the recent Encode findings were exactly what was expected. Total flip flop, but if he didn't, that might cut into his book sales and undermine his efforts to sway the majority of the public who trusts him.

[JMU DJ]

So do you agree with the assessment that 80% of the DNA is functional? I only ask, because PZ Meyer is saying it is bullshit.

I didn't read your long rambling quote, it's my birthday, fuck you.

The only thing I've ever said on this in previous threads is that the idea of "Junk DNA" is passe. I haven't read enough about PZ Myers, but he looks like a arrogant ninny on the subject.

How arguing that a theory (though one that was thrown out callously and was only taken as "fact" by the science illiterate) is wrong shows support of creationism or ID.... I'm still missing the drive home point. How does disproving this theory at all support ID or creationism? Is there some sort of evidence that supports ID here that I'm missing.




ID whomps.

[Chizzang]

I didn't read your long rambling quote, it's my birthday, fuck you.

The only thing I've ever said on this in previous threads is that the idea of "Junk DNA" is passe. I haven't read enough about PZ Myers, but he looks like a arrogant ninny on the subject.

How arguing that a theory (though one that was thrown out callously and was only taken as "fact" by the science illiterate) is wrong shows support of creationism or ID.... I'm still missing the drive home point. How does disproving this theory at all support ID or creationism? Is there some sort of evidence that supports ID here that I'm missing.

Let me sum this up for you then...
Happy Birthday and since at some point scientists have been boggled by the exact properties of DNA and it's defining characteristics beyond doubt - that means they might be wrong about other stuff too

Seriously: That's the argument here

Further summary:
I see you claim to know about this crazy stuff called Algebra
But I see you can't solve all the mysteries of the Universe with that crazy Algebra
So clearly you might be all wrong about this whacky addition and subtraction voodoo too then...


I kid you not - that's the argument

[SeattleGriz]

So do you agree with the assessment that 80% of the DNA is functional? I only ask, because PZ Meyer is saying it is bullshit.

I didn't read your long rambling quote, it's my birthday, fuck you.

The only thing I've ever said on this in previous threads is that the idea of "Junk DNA" is passe. I haven't read enough about PZ Myers, but he looks like a arrogant ninny on the subject.

How arguing that a theory (though one that was thrown out callously and was only taken as "fact" by the science illiterate) is wrong shows support of creationism or ID.... I'm still missing the drive home point. How does disproving this theory at all support ID or creationism? Is there some sort of evidence that supports ID here that I'm missing.




ID whomps.

Happy birthday man!

You must not have read through the thread, and I understand that, for I stated many times, that this does nothing to promote the ID stance, only that it finally shuts guys like PZ Meyer, Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins, Nick Matzke and Jerry Coyne up.

Guys who have made millions publishing books saying our DNA was full of junk.