Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I made no such claim. The fact is that most of our genome mutates at a rate consistent with neutral drift. This indicates very strongly that it is not functional in any meaningful way - otherwise, it would be conserved.As Cadet noted they argue from ignorance since ENCORE can 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.
This is also an assumption. Just like those in the ENCODE product "assumes" that RNA is doing something. ENCODE is based actually real data revealing over 80% of human DNA is known to be read in at least one cell type. With time they no doubt will learn the true function of RNA in those cells.No, I made no such claim. The fact is that most of our genome mutates at a rate consistent with neutral drift. This indicates very strongly that it is not functional in any meaningful way - otherwise, it would be conserved.
Okay. How does any of this discredit evolution?This is also an assumption. Just like those in the ENCODE product "assumes" that RNA is doing something. ENCODE is based actually real data revealing over 80% of human DNA is known to be read in at least one cell type. With time they no doubt will learn the true function of RNA in those cells.
More and more scientist is learning function in what once thought to be Junk DNA.
You are ignoring Cadets point completely, which is the dispute is over the definition rather than what you asserted. I'm not going to enter a genetics argument, I am not qualified and do not mind admitting it, that is why I stick with the earth sciences, rarely commenting in biological areas. Conversely ........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.
In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt.
Someone has to stand up to the experts!You are ignoring Cadets point completely, which is the dispute is over the definition rather than what you asserted. I'm not going to enter a genetics argument, I am not qualified and do not mind admitting it, that is why I stick with the earth sciences, rarely commenting in biological areas. Conversely ........
Exactly, most of the arguments presented in the CF against evolution wouldn't discredit evolution even if those arguments were valid.Okay. How does any of this discredit evolution?
It's not about does it discredit evolution or not but they know if most of our DNA isn't junk this would mean creationist (ID) made a correct prediction and they can't accept creationist ever being right. Again Shapiro claims to be an evolutionist (but not a Darwinist) and ENCODE results was pretty much what he predicted 10 years ago.Okay. How does any of this discredit evolution?
I can accept that creationists might be right about some things some of the time. It happens. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.It's not about does it discredit evolution or not but they know if most of our DNA isn't junk this would mean creationist (ID) made a correct prediction and they can't accept creationist ever being right.
Even Collins who wrote "Language of God" who argued for Junk DNA has back off with that idea as more evidence reveals that DNA seems to be doing something.I can accept that creationists might be right about some things some of the time. It happens. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
in my opinion evolution is a concept that is impossible to prove or disprove.Exactly, most of the arguments presented in the CF against evolution wouldn't discredit evolution even if those arguments were valid.
That's nice.Even Collins who wrote "Language of God" who argued for Junk DNA has back off with that idea as more evidence reveals that DNA seems to be doing something.
What? No. Since when was that a requirement of evolution?in my opinion evolution is a concept that is impossible to prove or disprove.
in order to prove evolution you must disprove god, which is an impossible task.
There is no doubt that there is still a lot to learn, but I seriously doubt that future research will discredit evolution.Even Collins who wrote "Language of God" who argued for Junk DNA has back off with that idea as more evidence reveals that DNA seems to be doing something.
There is no doubt that there is still a lot to learn, but I seriously doubt that future research will discredit evolution.
if you take evolution to mean a natural origin for life and its diversity, then in order to prove this assumption then you must disprove a supernatural one.What? No. Since when was that a requirement of evolution?
the problem with this comment is, not everyone that questions the theories associated with evolution are creationists.The trouble is that, to a creationist, the sentence "we still have much to learn" reads like "we don't know anything, so you can disregard everything we say."
in my opinion evolution is a concept that is impossible to prove or disprove.
in order to prove evolution you must disprove god, which is an impossible task.
the best we can possibly hope for is an adequate explanation, and that's all.
Exactly, and I have to ask myself, what is the validity of that position when its major arguments are through the use of misrepresenting science. What does it say about that ones faith concerning that religion?The trouble is that, to a creationist, the sentence "we still have much to learn" reads like "we don't know anything, so you can disregard everything we say."
There is no doubt that there is still a lot to learn, but I seriously doubt that future research will discredit evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?