Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Which was in the Milky-Way which was the entire universe. They had math and observations then to prove that too - about the same time they told us where the sun was located, based upon the the belief of the Milky-Way being the entire universe, everything we see contained within - not at vast distances. Seems they were wrong about that one, but right about our position based upon that wrong belief, right?

You might as well denigrate the science of geography because they once didn't know about the Americas. And when we corrected it you might as well say we can continue to dismiss the science of geography.

You cannot recognize the way science continues to veer ever closer to the truth - especially in the matter of the biological sciences.

 

[USincognito]

They have found so many surprises that over the years they are no longer surprise the evidence doesn't fit their assumptions. This is trying to make excuses knowing creationist knows they are having trouble making the evidence fit their theory. This is damage control.

"As you will see in the following quotations, they admit that every DNA analysis method gives a different result.
.......
How does one disprove the theory of evolution if all these contradictions with evolutionary expectations don't do it? How can it be falsified? If the findings of this study don’t disprove the theory of evolution, what will? The facts clearly don’t support the evolutionary hypothesis. There is “overall low congruence with the species tree.” They cherry-picked the data and got (in their words) “100% BS.”

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i4f.htm

Oh please. Don't Google 'incomplete lineage sorting' and post whatever comes up like you understood it.

“Incomplete lineage sorting” is the technical term for “missing links.” They can’t figure out how some modern birds are related because (they assume) the intermediate forms went extinct 66 million years ago. If they just had those missing links, it would all be perfectly clear!​

Here's the full paper. Let's see if the claims on that Creationist site withstand scrutiny.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405904/
This sentence is quoted there:

The TENT contradicted some relationships in avian phylogenies generated from morphological characters (15), DNA-DNA hybridization (24), and mitochondrial genomes​

They highlight "The TENT contradicted" and leave "some" in normal font. But if one continues beyond that sentence.

The TENT was most congruent with past (8,17) and more recent (27,28) smaller-scale multilocus nuclear trees (Figs. 2 and and3A3A and fig. S3D), although most congruence was limited to the core landbirds and core waterbirds.​

and

Despite the many fully supported (100% BS) relationships in the TENT, lower support was obtained for 9 of the 45 internal branches (although still within the high 70 to 96% BS range). Almost all were at deep divergences within the Neoaves, after the Columbea and Passerea divergence and before the ordinal divergences (Fig. 1 and fig. S1). The monophyly of each of the superorders, however, had 100% BS.​

 

[USincognito]

It seem you don't know how metamorphosis works. It's totally different from human development. It's exactly as I wrote two completely different body plans from the same DNA.

Oh the Dunning-Kruger! Here, let me show you the body plan of a human embryo - O. It's a lot smaller than that, but that's the body plan for the first few days of life.

Once again:
- acorn to oak tree
- embryo to human
- caterpillar to butterfly (and you're skipping a step, caterpillars were originally eggs)
are all generally the same process.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You might as well denigrate the science of geography because they once didn't know about the Americas. And when we corrected it you might as well say we can continue to dismiss the science of geography.

You cannot recognize the way science continues to veer ever closer to the truth - especially in the matter of the biological sciences.

But that's just it, besides repeated examples throughout all of recorded history, you are so sure science has it all figured out this time, just like they did all those other times too. Even if every time we have thought that - we were wrong. But not this time, right?

We were discussing finches and your unwillingness to correct mistakes. We were discussing the entire fossil record and your unwillingness to correct mistakes there too. We also discussed genetics - and your unwillingness to correct mistakes there too.

You mean those who "claim" they practice science continue to veer further from the truth, while believing their theory above the data - continuing to ignore breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species. All by the recombination of genomes and new dominant and recessive traits. And when Asian mates with African - an Afro-Asian suddenly appears in the record with no transitory forms between them and the Asian and African.

Who's dismissing geography but you? I believe in Pangaea. I believe the dinosaurs existed long before mankind. I believe there have been six creations and five destruction's. Where in every case new forms of life arose fully formed - mixed in with rare survivors of the previous creation. How many do you believe in?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What both sides fail to realize - or admit to - your choice - is that the fossil record is not the history of life on this planet in 5 different era's, but the ending of that life in 5 different era's. Look around you. When was the last time any of you have seen fossilization at work? Found anything beginning the fossilization process? No, because it takes catastrophic events.

The fossil record is not a mosaic of events spanning millions of years burying things one creature at a time - but the death of all the creatures alive at that time - at once - except the few that survived into the next creation - sharks - alligators - etc. Perhaps even a few dinosaur - what with legends of dragons and all.

This is why man is not found with any of them - he was not yet created - nor are the animals found with man found older than man - except those that survived each cataclysm. sharks, alligators, clams, etc.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, and I have a question. If we cant date shellfish because of contamination by minerals in water - how do you date rocks clearly underwater since all are buried under sedimentary layers - which as we know are formed from water? Only erosion of those sedimentary layers or uplifting has brought any to the surface. Let's talk about geography and geology then. since you don't want to talk about Darwin's Finches and evolution. Even if they are supposed to be the prime example of speciation.

 

[The Cadet]

That's because biologists have given up on mutations as concerning reproduction long ago in real life versus imaginations of the mind. The only place mutations were studied as respecting reproduction is in plant and animal husbandry. Where every single biologist involved agreed mutations were not viable as a new source of information. Where every single experiment failed to produce the outcomes expected.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Lönnig's Law Of Recurrent Variation exists in one place only: his head. His research on the subject was cited by exactly nobody other than himself. Obviously, nobody found it important or meaningful in any way.

No, we are talking about individuals - not populations.

Evolution deals with population genetics. If you don't understand this, you are not talking about evolution. Evolution does not deal with the individual in any significant way. It deals with the population. Why do you think we can even talk about gene conservation? Genes aren't conserved within the individual - any individual could have a mutation to one of those genes. It's just that that individual tends not to pass their genes on, and that mutation does not spread within the population.

Please, before you contest one of the most well-supported theories in modern science, learn what it actually is. If you think evolution deals with individuals, you are wrong. You have no idea what evolution is. This is like your assertion that we can't add new information to the string "01" if all we have to work with is a list of zeroes and ones (an assertion you never walked back, despite the fact that this means that literally every single computer binary has the exact same amount of information, which is completely nonsensical) - you have no idea what you're talking about.

Random mutations do not spread to the population by magic. If someone in LA had a random mutation - at most it would only pass to their descendants - leaving those in New York completely unaffected. In a population of billions, the random mutation will always be limited to those who belong to that particular family line and will never become fixed in the general population.

You're right. The fact that there's virtually no long-term separation when it comes to the human population and the fact that it's so massive (or, for that matter, very much natural selection at all) should lead largely to evolutionary stasis. This, however, is not the case in nature. It's not magic, it's natural selection over multiple generations leading to the beneficial mutation being selected for, in some cases rather significantly. We saw this with the peppered moth, where a single mutation followed by a change in allele frequency led to the entire population changing color, twice, over the span of a few hundred years.

No, in the beginning we have two breeds - one male, one female - each one containing half the genetic code for everything that exists or will exist. Some may be lost through the ages - but nothing new is ever added.

You're wrong. I've cited dozens of papers documenting a distinct increase in genetic information. Would you care to address any of those papers? @stevevw same question. You seem to have abandoned the thread somewhat, which is a shame, because you're a far better dance partner than Justa.

There was no mutation involved - merely the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits

Nope, try again.

You can make all the claims you want - but in the end they are just claims and wishful thinking - countered by the direct empirical evidence. Only when two things mate - does a hierarchy tree come into existence.

Great. Compile your research and supporting evidence and submit it to peer review. I'm serious, you think you have an alternative explanation for the evidence we see that fits it better? Publish! Of course, I don't know how far you'll get, seeing as you obviously don't know about the evidence, and don't understand the evidence, but if you want your scientific idea to be taken seriously, you know what to do. Because at this point...

So now you are promoting spontaneous generation?

...I just can't take you seriously.

 

[Smidlee]

Oh the Dunning-Kruger! Here, let me show you the body plan of a human embryo - O. It's a lot smaller than that, but that's the body plan for the first few days of life.

Once again:
- acorn to oak tree
- embryo to human
- caterpillar to butterfly (and you're skipping a step, caterpillars were originally eggs)
are all generally the same process.

A caterpillar doesn't turn into a butterfly like a embryo to a human. Again you don't seem to understand metamorphosis. The caterpillar cells trigger cellular death thus the caterpillar dies while the butterfly cells which lays dormant spread out the caterpillar's body. A butterfly is a "born again" caterpillar. Metamorphosis doesn't make sense in light of evolution since both body plans needs to be in place from the start. This requires foresight and planning. Again it two different body plans created out of the same DNA.

Oh please. Don't Google 'incomplete lineage sorting' and post whatever comes up like you understood it.efore the ordinal divergences (Fig. 1 and fig. S1). The monophyly of each of the superorders, however, had 100% BS.

In another words evolutionist just dismiss, as always, all the evidence contradicting their world view which is why they continue deny intelligent design in life. Evolutionist have set it up so it's impossible to falsify their story telling. Just as Jones wrote they have to cherry pick the data to make it fit their assumptions.

"With a well-resolved tree, it becomes possible to more confidently infer evolution of convergent traits."
Convergent evolution is used explains away all contradictions to evolutionist trees which mean there is no way to prove any tree matches "reality".

 

[joshua 1 9]

You seem to lack a sense of what science is sure about and what science is unsure about. Science is quite sure about the reality of evolution, just as science is quite sure about the place of the sun in the solar system.

"The reality of evolution" does not mean a thing if people cannot agree on what evolution is. In business you can agree to make a deal but you do not actually have anything untill you work out the details and come to an agreement on the particulars. That is not happening with evolution. There is to much controversy and not enough agreement. Issues like irreducible complexity never get properly addressed. Evolutionists may convince themselves but they fail to convince anyone else so they fail to accomplish anything more than just to stir up controversy. As if that were the only way they could draw attention to themselves.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lönnig's Law Of Recurrent Variation exists in one place only: his head. His research on the subject was cited by exactly nobody other than himself. Obviously, nobody found it important or meaningful in any way.

You mean evolutionists chose to ignore it in the hopes it would go away. But that's why they gave up on mutations, right, because it worked out so well? That's why it was abandoned right, because it was such a success in plant and animal husbandry experiments? So I see you at least finally admit that evolutionists ignore science to promote Fairie Dust only - like all pseudo-scientists do.

EDIT: We have already discussed your logical fallacy in claiming majority is correct because they are the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Evolution deals with population genetics. If you don't understand this, you are not talking about evolution. Evolution does not deal with the individual in any significant way. It deals with the population. Why do you think we can even talk about gene conservation? Genes aren't conserved within the individual - any individual could have a mutation to one of those genes. It's just that that individual tends not to pass their genes on, and that mutation does not spread within the population.

Please, before you contest one of the most well-supported theories in modern science, learn what it actually is. If you think evolution deals with individuals, you are wrong. You have no idea what evolution is. This is like your assertion that we can't add new information to the string "01" if all we have to work with is a list of zeroes and ones (an assertion you never walked back, despite the fact that this means that literally every single computer binary has the exact same amount of information, which is completely nonsensical) - you have no idea what you're talking about.

And that is the problem. Your pseudo-scientific belief that a random mutation that happens to one individual, becomes magically fixed in the population. We are NOT discussing populations - but individuals that mate and produce offspring. Genes passed only to their offspring and further descendants - and never to the population at large. NEVER - not once - unless you wish to concede that at one time the entire population was 2, and so mutations would be viable being passed on to the entire population? So now you admit when we look at the human population - your fantasies about mutations fixing in the population is not a viable option - and never was.

It is impossible for a random mutation that affects one individual to ever become fixed in the population - unless and only if that individuals descendants become the entire population. You know this as well as I do, so why keep prattling about mutations and populations, when we are all quite aware of lines of decent?

Nothing new has ever been added. What "already exists" is merely written in a new format. If one starts with CAT one can never get CATG. You have not one single viable way for new genes to have been created. If all you have to work with is ones and zeros or A and C, you will never get T or G.

Make all the "claims" you like - backed by no evidence of course but more "claims."

You're right. The fact that there's virtually no long-term separation when it comes to the human population and the fact that it's so massive (or, for that matter, very much natural selection at all) should lead largely to evolutionary stasis. This, however, is not the case in nature. It's not magic, it's natural selection over multiple generations leading to the beneficial mutation being selected for, in some cases rather significantly. We saw this with the peppered moth, where a single mutation followed by a change in allele frequency led to the entire population changing color, twice, over the span of a few hundred years.

Except there were no mutations involved. It was the natural genetics involved in breed mating with breed producing new breeds. They adapted to their environment not because of mutations, but because of natural built in mechanisms, just like those that allow certain forms of life to change colors to match their surroundings for defensive mechanisms. No mutations ever once took place in the moth populations, except in your dreams. Next you'll want me to believe the chameleon changes color as it moves because of ongoing constant mutating fluxes in its genome. I mean seriously? Is this your great example of mutation - animals that posses the ability to change colors to match their surroundings, as if this random mutating gene knew the trees had changed color and so mutated the moth. Talk about promoting a higher intelligence - why don't you just start worshiping the god evolution, Oh that's right, sorry, you already do. Please - the ability of animals to change color is a natural occurring trait and has nothing to do with mutations in the slightest. As we all know, the chameleon is not constantly mutating from one moment to the next, it's a natural ability, and like those moths, they change their color based upon vision of their surroundings - not because magical mutation occurred.

You're wrong. I've cited dozens of papers documenting a distinct increase in genetic information. Would you care to address any of those papers? @stevevw same question. You seem to have abandoned the thread somewhat, which is a shame, because you're a far better dance partner than Justa.

Sure - nothing new was produced, but information "already contained" within the genome. Information that already existed was re-written in a new dominant trait. Who are you trying to fool with claims of mutation and new genes, yourself? You are the ones asking we believe that a mutation that occurs in an "individual" magically passes itself to the entire population or randomly and magically affects an entire population at once. Talk about "faith" in miracles.

Great. Compile your research and supporting evidence and submit it to peer review. I'm serious, you think you have an alternative explanation for the evidence we see that fits it better? Publish! Of course, I don't know how far you'll get, seeing as you obviously don't know about the evidence, and don't understand the evidence, but if you want your scientific idea to be taken seriously, you know what to do. Because at this point...

...I just can't take you seriously.

In other words you are going to keep practicing the Ostrich Theory so you can ignore the evidence? Of course I won't get far - I am not part of the good ole boys club promoting Fairie Dust. In case you haven't noticed - your the one not being taken seriously - being as how you continue to practice the Ostrich theory. Drive your head a little deeper Cadet, maybe you can ignore more of the science and hear echos of the PR only. All you got is your ad-hominem attacks so you can avoid having to talk about the science, because you have no defense to the actual science - just the PR.

You can't show me where a single new gene came about - except through the process of transcription - re-writing in a different order information that already existed within the genome. A process that occurs every time two beings mate and produce offspring - no magical mutations involved. And who cares if gene B12 actually was mutated? If it is not in the reproductive organs - it does not get passed down to the next generation. Any mutation occurring in those reproductive genes will never affect the current host - will never better suit it for survival. And any mutations outside of the reproductive genes - will never get passed down. ONLY OFFSPRING ARE AFFECTED BY MUTATIONS - NEVER THE ENTIRE POPULATION UNLESS THAT FAMILY IS THE ENTIRE POPULATION.

 

[whois]

"The reality of evolution" does not mean a thing if people cannot agree on what evolution is.

evolution is basically the concept of a natural explanation of life and its diversity (no supernatural influence).
darwinism and others are the theories that attempt to explain the concept of evolution.
the above makes it clear that even though the theories may be wrong, the concept of evolution can still be valid.
the vast majority of the people mistakenly believe that if darwinism is wrong, then there must be a god.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"It is impossible for a random mutation that affects one individual to ever become fixed in the population - unless and only if that individuals descendants become the entire population. You know this as well as I do, so why keep prattling about mutations and populations, when we are all quite aware of lines of decent?"

But we are all quite aware of retroviruses - and their ability to carry genomes across the species lines. So if anyone wishes to make an argument for inter-species genetic transfer as well as cross-species transfer - I am open to a discussion. Otherwise please keep your beliefs about mutations confined to the individual lineages from mutated creature to descendants only. As we all understand genes are passed down. Which of course would mean that all humans come from two individuals.

But again, I am not opposed to inter-species cross-contamination through retroviruses - any more than I am against cross-species contamination - since we know it occurs. The question is: Are you going to accept where the science is leading us - and all of it's conclusions?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

"Those who study the phenomenon are still struggling to quantitatively assess LGT as a process or processes and accommodate its implications for how patterns in nature should be represented — such as the existence of definable species or a meaningful universal Tree of Life. "

I.e, still arguing over how to classify everything, that species problem again.

But still - all the scientists involved in the actual studies - versus ones that just think they understand, agree.

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

Yes, the more science advances - the more we begin to see that what was once believed true - no longer is. It's called scientific advancement, which for some reason most that call themselves evolutionists attempt to hinder, while claiming to support it. But yet even though the scientists actually studying it understand it is more pervasive and radical in its consequences than ever believed possible, you all still believe it is neither, and won't contemplate anything else, even if it is the only possible way for any claimed mutation to fix in the general population without direct familial descent.

 

[Smidlee]

Sure - nothing new was produced, but information "already contained" within the genome. Information that already existed was re-written in a new dominant trait. Who are you trying to fool with claims of mutation and new genes, yourself? You are the ones asking we believe that a mutation that occurs in an "individual" magically passes itself to the entire population or randomly and magically affects an entire population at once. Talk about "faith" in miracles.

The few papers from Cadet I've glace at seems to pointed toward Shapiro's "Natural Genetic Engineering" where mutation are not random as they appeared. Just like the Wright Brothers used "trial and error" to fine tune information to find a solution to a problem (like build a wing with less drag and more lift) so can asexual organisms like bacteria can uses "trial and error" by allowing mutations in hot spot to find a solution to a problem. Usually changing it's genetic code come at a cost which is why living system tries to resist mutations. This is new information but it's a known fact there is a limit of the amount of information that can be produce through "trial and error" programs even with a super computer. Notice that "trial and error" works best with organism large population like bacteria while less useful with small populations like mammals.

This is a real problem with evolution as the amount of mechanics found in living systems increases the more magical evolution becomes as it somehow has to creates all the mechanism which it runs on.

 

[The Cadet]

And that is the problem. Your pseudo-scientific belief that a random mutation that happens to one individual, becomes magically fixed in the population. We are NOT discussing populations - but individuals that mate and produce offspring. Genes passed only to their offspring and further descendants - and never to the population at large.

Then you're not talking about evolution. Every modern definition of evolution deals with population genetics. Look in any modern biology textbook and you'll find that. Evolution fundamentally deals with populations, not individuals.

There's no magic fixation of random mutations in populations. Even beneficial mutations can fail and be wiped from the population. This happens fairly regularly in simulations of evolutionary algorithms. But beneficial mutations will be selected for, and have a greater chance of surviving to multiple generations, leading to those genes spreading within a population.

And just to give you an impression of how quick genetic information can spread, the most recent universal common ancestor of all of humanity* - that is, a person with whom all humans alive today share a direct descent relationship (the great-great-...-great grandfather and grandmother of every human alive today*) lived probably no more than a few thousand years ago. And that's humans, with a long lifespan, low gestation rate, and relatively huge, wide-spread population. We all directly inherited genetic material from the same person some few thousand years ago. In fact, almost every individual living that long ago is either a direct ancestor of the entire human race* or their lineage has died out. The idea that mutations from individuals cannot spread throughout the population is nonsensical. It ignores how interconnected we are, and how "incestuous" our family trees are.

*There are some noteworthy exceptions, such as highly isolated pacific tribes, but this applies to most of humanity.

NEVER - not once - unless you wish to concede that at one time the entire population was 2, and so mutations would be viable being passed on to the entire population? So now you admit when we look at the human population - your fantasies about mutations fixing in the population is not a viable option - and never was.

I love this. You have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you assume that based on your completely flawed understanding of population genetics, I'm going to concede your point. I'm not going to, because your point is ridiculous. When you obviously do not have any formal training in a field of science where the vast majority of experts disagree with you, the worst attitude you can take on is the arrogant know-it-all.

Nothing new has ever been added. What "already exists" is merely written in a new format. If one starts with CAT one can never get CATG. You have not one single viable way for new genes to have been created. If all you have to work with is ones and zeros or A and C, you will never get T or G.

Yes, and as a result, there is no difference between "01" and the skyrim binary. My previous example was poorly chosen, as I did not make it clear that the alphabet we were using was the nucleotide bases (I should have assumed that you would miss that fact) and I did not use an example which utilized the entire alphabet. I have admitted this previously and retracted the example. Your dogged insistence that there is somehow the same amount of information unless we increase the alphabet used is utterly bizarre to me.

I'll tell you what - you discover the mathematical theorem that explains this discovery, I'll make the computer program, and then we'll split the profits 99/1 (that's 99% to you) on the invention that makes storage media a non-entity. After all, if no additional information is added between "01" and "0110", or "01" and "01101010101111011101000011011110" or "01" and "skyrim.exe", then we should be able to store every single file, regardless of its size, in less than a byte.

Except there were no mutations involved.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110414/full/news.2011.238.html

Ilik Saccheri, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Liverpool, UK, and his colleagues have used molecular genetics to show that one mutation from a single ancestor causes increased dark pigment, called melanism, in the typically light-coloured moth. Their results are published today in Science.​

For an encore, would you care to inform me about how there was no rocket fuel involved with the Saturn V rocket, just fire coming from the back?



I'm getting kind of tired of this. That's why I keep challenging you to take your hypothesis (and it is apparently your hypothesis, as I have never seen anyone else espouse it) and put it into action. Publish it in peer review. You think you have the science to change the entire paradigm held by all of life sciences! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?! This isn't a scientific forum! I am not an expert! This is the token "debate and discussion" realm of a christian ministry, and I am a failed CompSci major with a chip on his shoulder and way too much free time! Go share your wisdom with the world! With any luck, it'll go at least a little better than your attempts to share your wisdom with Cosmoquest.

It was the natural genetics involved in breed mating with breed producing new breeds. They adapted to their environment not because of mutations, but because of natural built in mechanisms, just like those that allow certain forms of life to change colors to match their surroundings for defensive mechanisms.

You know what's funny about this? If you could actually demonstrate this, it would be incredibly interesting. Of course, you don't know what caused the change in peppered moths, and you probably don't know how the defensive mechanisms in animals like the Cuttlefish work, so it's kind of a moot point. You're arguing from a position of...

...You know what? Let's just save time. If you're not going to even try to address any my direct refutations of your points, I won't bother refuting them any more. I'll just post this.

No mutations ever once took place in the moth populations

Wrong

Next you'll want me to believe the chameleon changes color as it moves because of ongoing constant mutating fluxes in its genome.

Wrong

as if this random mutating gene knew the trees had changed color and so mutated the moth.

Wrong

why don't you just start worshiping the god evolution, Oh that's right, sorry, you already do.

Wrong,

Sure - nothing new was produced, but information "already contained" within the genome.

You're wrong.

You can't show me where a single new gene came about - except through the process of transcription - re-writing in a different order information that already existed within the genome.

You're wrong.

ONLY OFFSPRING ARE AFFECTED BY MUTATIONS - NEVER THE ENTIRE POPULATION UNLESS THAT FAMILY IS THE ENTIRE POPULATION.

Hey, he got something right for once. Sure, the point is wrong, but the actual statement is, in and of itself, correct. So yay, good for you.

 

[RickG]

I love this. You have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you assume that based on your completely flawed understanding of population genetics, I'm going to concede your point. I'm not going to, because your point is ridiculous. When you obviously do not have any formal training in a field of science where the vast majority of experts disagree with you, the worst attitude you can take on is the arrogant know-it-all.

So true, people with no background asserting themselves to be more knowledgeable than the experts in those fields. And it is really amazing when even I, a person with no training in genetics, can even see the flaws in those arguments.

 

[Smidlee]

I love this. You have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you assume that based on your completely flawed understanding of population genetics, I'm going to concede your point. I'm not going to, because your point is ridiculous. When you obviously do not have any formal training in a field of science where the vast majority of experts disagree with you, the worst attitude you can take on is the arrogant know-it-all.


.

You mean something like evolutionist here disagree with the "EXPERTS" who involved of the ENCODE project? LOL

 

[The Cadet]

You mean something like evolutionist here disagree with the "EXPERTS" who involved of the ENCODE project? LOL

There is widespread dissent to the results of the ENCODE project. Not because people thought their methods were flawed, not because people rejected their data, but because people rejected their definition. Their definition of "functional" was intentionally chosen to provide hype and did not reasonably represent what "functional" actually meant in the gene pool. It's not just me and a few other random people here dissenting. Did you look at how ENCODE defined "functional"?

 

[Smidlee]

There is widespread dissent to the results of the ENCODE project. Not because people thought their methods were flawed, not because people rejected their data, but because people rejected their definition. Their definition of "functional" was intentionally chosen to provide hype and did not reasonably represent what "functional" actually meant in the gene pool. It's not just me and a few other random people here dissenting. Did you look at how ENCODE defined "functional"?

There is a widespread dissent from atheist who wants to believe that most of human DNA is junk. Remember the ENCODE project was done by evolutionist. Now instead of Junk DNA they believe in Junk RNA. Not All evolutionist believed in Junk DNA.
No one has refuted the actual data of the ENCODE project.

 

[RickG]

You mean something like evolutionist here disagree with the "EXPERTS" who involved of the ENCODE project? LOL

No. I am talking about people who argue against something who have absolutely no background in an area but present themselves as if they are more knowledgeable. An excellent example is the one where you addressed my comment and Cadet responded showing where your assertion was completely false.

 

[Smidlee]

No. I am talking about people who argue against something who have absolutely no background in an area but present themselves as if they are more knowledgeable. An excellent example is the one where you addressed my comment and Cadet responded showing where your assertion was completely false.

As Cadet noted they argue from ignorance since ENCORE can't explain "YET" exactly what all that RNA does then it must be "JUNK RNA" because they want to believe most of our DNA is Junk.
If our cells is wasting a lot of energy producing a butch of Junk RNA then it goes against natural selection as it shows how useless it really is.