Evolution/Creation on Trial

[The Cadet]

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.

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.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Okay. How does any of this discredit evolution?

 

[RickG]

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.

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 ........

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

If you take varied animals and mate them together, you get a blend of the two. You can even mate a horse with a donkey. I think there are a few other "species" that can mate outside their species. These proves that species can change.

So if you apply what you see now, with what may have happened in the past, you can come to the conclusion that species have changed in the past as well. And it's pretty clear from what fossils we find, that species do change over time.

In one experiment, a researcher breed wolves based on their temperaments. In only a few generations he had changed their color and body structure so much that he stopped the experiment. There may be some kind of barrier keeping species from changing too much, but we haven't yet identified one. And if we did find some genetic barrier, it would take millions of generations, and every environment we could throw at it to test the hypothesis. And that would just be for one species. But so far, gnats and fleas are holding on to their original design pretty well after thousands of generations.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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 ........

Someone has to stand up to the experts!

 

[RickG]

Okay. How does any of this discredit evolution?

Exactly, most of the arguments presented in the CF against evolution wouldn't discredit evolution even if those arguments were valid.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

It's the same where creationist were found to be right about the inverted retina is done on purpose as it was learned to improve daytime and nighttime vision.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

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.

 

[whois]

Exactly, most of the arguments presented in the CF against evolution wouldn't discredit evolution even if those arguments were valid.

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.

modern genomic research has already overturned many tenets of the modern synthesis.
the tree of life as we knew it no longer exists, gene trees and species trees seldom correlate with one another.
koonin makes it clear that adaptionism and gradualism are likewise obsolete and the origin of life research is a failure.
all of these things do not bode well for evolution.
HGT is more prevalent in animals than was previously believed, epigenetics (lamarcism) is a proven fact.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

That's nice. But since it has no bearing on whether evolution is credible or not, I fail to discern its relevance in this thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

What? No. Since when was that a requirement of evolution?

 

[RickG]

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no doubt that there is still a lot to learn, but I seriously doubt that future research will discredit evolution.

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."

 

[whois]

What? No. Since when was that a requirement of 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.

 

[whois]

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."

the problem with this comment is, not everyone that questions the theories associated with evolution are creationists.
i hardly call koonin a creationist, the same goes for noble and maynard smith.

 

[RickG]

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.

That's like saying in order to prove the earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun revolving around the earth is impossible unless god is disproved. Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?

 

[RickG]

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."

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?

 

[Syamsu]

There is no doubt that there is still a lot to learn, but I seriously doubt that future research will discredit evolution.

I don't agree with that, evolution can still be easily discredited. Scientists have not really taken account yet of freedom in the universe, that things can turn out several different ways, that it is decided. That provides a huge potential for overthrowing evolution theory.

The mathematical ordering of the DNA system is the same as that of the physical universe. There are 4 bases CATG, and in physics there are 4 parameters of mass, time, space and charge. There are 64 triplet codons, and in physics 64 elements of Dirac algebra. There is the double stranded DNA, double helix, and in physics there is the fermion+vacuum spin 1/2 * 2, double helix. There are 20 amino acids, and in physics there are 20 elements of the fermionic + vacuum structure. etc.

What this means is the DNA system functions like a 3D computersimulation. There are DNA worlds which can copy from the physical universe 1 to 1, because of having the same structure. So all the non coding DNA of an animal could just be sketches of the environment of an animal, like plants and trees, it may even include representations of the sun and the moon. This also explains how an organims develops to adulthood. There is an actual 3D representation of the adult organism in the DNA world, which guides the development of the organism to adulthood. And in this DNA world representations of fully functional adult organisms may be chosen as a whole.