Extraneous
Well-Known Member
I said that 80% of human DNA is labeled junk DNA. Was that incorrect? Do i have that number backwards?
Upvote
0
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.
Your argument was destroyed. Sadly you did not understand that. I am trying to help you to understand how badly your argument failed.
Now you are being dishonest because that is not all that you said. You left off the part where you were wrong. That indicates knowledge that you were wrong. An honest person that was not afraid would have repeated their entire argument.I said that 80% of human DNA is labeled junk DNA. Was that incorrect? Do i have that number backwards?
Now you are being dishonest because that is not all that you said. You left off the part where you were wrong. That indicates knowledge that you were wrong. An honest person that was not afraid would have repeated their entire argument.
You seem to be engaging in logical fallacy rather than just answering my question.
I'll resubmit the question.
I said that 80% of human DNA is labeled junk DNA. Was that incorrect?
Too late. You made a statement that you have not recanted. But just to be nice, yes at least 80% of the human genome is junk DNA.
Now can you please answer the simple question that you keep running away from?
Im just a lowly uneducated neanderthal bubble dweller, my friend. Please dont confuse me, lets stick to one thing at a time. WE shall address the amoeba question later.
If ToE science has classified 80% of human DNA as junk, and this classification was later refuted, doesn't that show a lack of understanding on their part? How can they possible expect me to believe that they can look millions of years into the past, and observe mans origin, if they don't even understand DNA properly? Isn't it possible that this DNA is not necessarily junk, but instead is simply misunderstood by science? Surely this seems to be a good possibility. If they cannot understand 80% of Human DNA, how can they possibly use it to build ToE?
Actually it is more properly known as non-coding and where did you get the idea that this was refuted? That never happened. Your problem is that you have been listening to creationist web sites and they are loaded with the worst sort of liars for Jesus. Tell me, if you tell a lie for Jesus is it still a sin?
Wrong. "Junk DNA" is just the nickname for noncoding DNA. Please, you don't understand one iota of what you are reading.I don't really listen to preachers much at all anymore. My source was Wikipedia actually. Science did at one time classify 80% of human DNA as junk, and it was only later that they reclassified it as noncoding DNA instead.
Wrong. "Junk DNA" is just the nickname for noncoding DNA. Please, you don't understand one iota of what you are reading.
Do you understand the scientific method?
I understand scientific assumption which is apposed to actually observation.
No, i do understand that science has built ToE on assumption rather than observation. You cant, in all truth, deny that this is the case, although i can certainly understand that you will anyway. This is whats known as human fallibility.I see. You dont even understand the basics.
In your own words, what is "science"?
No, i do understand that science has built ToE on assumption rather than observation. You cant, in all truth, deny that this is the case, although i can certainly understand that you will anyway. This is whats known as human fallibility.
Not remotely. Science is self correcting. You seem to be the one in denial about that being one of its strengths.Denial
Not remotely. Science is self correcting. You seem to be the one in denial about that being one of its strengths.
I didn't see anyone make such a denial. Perhaps you'd care to directly quote them?I never denied that its self correcting to an extent, however it doesn't correct all its errors. Just look at this thread. I showed that science did indeed self correct concerning its own assumptions that were made about so called junk DNA and the useless human appendix.
However, posters tried to deny that science ever corrected itself concerning these things, and instead they asserted that it was never wrong in the first place. This however is not true. This only proves that it doesn't correct itself properly, but is prone to denial and blindness
Just because you really really want something to be true doesnt make it so.
Please answer my question.
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?