Viruses that prove common descent

[tas8831]

A hobby of mine is to find the denials in evolutionary posts.

Then you need a new hobby.

Why wasn't it just a few years ago that it was 98% non functional DNA?

No, I don't believe so. References?

But as science advances we are finding that region has RNA coding functions and control functions as well.

Yes. We've known that for decades.

Other then showing how far out of the loop you are, where are you going with this?

And in 10 years when we finally get around to doing a true high detail DNA scan and the facts change again?

On some of the details, certainly.

But how about in creationland? Will ANY new information alter their claims?

No advances in science have thus far, so I bet in 10 years creationists will still be claiming ENCODE was right about 80% functional genome, etc.

Why you'll be saying the same thing...... but 60% isn't ........

But fine let's say 60% since you don't like the number 80, still a big jump from the claimed 98%.

Or if you prefer let's use 20% versus the original 2%. And this just from a mid level scan, most of which has not been completed at the highest level we are capable of.

But let's not inform the readers of this, right?

I am waiting for you to present the "original 2" - it IS true that only about 2% of the genome is protein coding genes - perhaps that is where your obvious confusion comes from?

Of note is the fact that in my post, I provided EVIDENCE supporting my claims.

You?

You have some angry assertions and goofy rhetoric.

You brought a toothpick to a gun fight.

 

[tas8831]

But assuming a creation standpoint better explains junk DNA than evolution does.

So in this post you are arguing FOR junk DNA?

LOL!

So the genome was created perfect and over time through mutations has degraded.

Nice unsupported assertion. Evidence?

The genome is not becoming more perfect, but more and more prone to error over time.

If that were so, then we would see genome-oriented extinctions all around us.

We DO see habitat-destruction and over-hunting induced extinction, but not a lot of extinction caused solely by genome degradation.

Also their non belief in similarity due to creation astonishes me. We would expect nothing less than similarities from all life since all life was created from the same Dust. I.e the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons as is all matter. It is simply the arrangement of those subatomic particles and the atoms themselves that make the differences. But when one uses the same building blocks in creating all life, one expects nothing but similarities. If I create a million different vase design using clay, I expect similarities at the atomic level, even if I use different types of clay.

Who says anything about the atomic level?

If a 'designer' took a truck that they had designed, took a few parts off, modified a few other parts, stuck some other stuff on it and called it a submarine, what would the engineering world think of this designer?

And why would a deity capable of creating the entire universe be constrained to a handful of basic 'designs' from which to tinker with?


Amazing to me that creationists will argue that their creator is not very competent AND can only reuse a few earlier versions of things to create.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So in this post you are arguing FOR junk DNA?

LOL!

Only someone that wanted the genome to be advancing to perfection instead of degrading would miss the irony of his own reply.

Nice unsupported assertion. Evidence?

Where is yours that it is advancing since 98% I mean 80% I mean whatever number you all want to claim is non functional now? Where is your evidence it was less before, or are you agreeing the DNA has become "less" functional???

Oh let's see, the fact that we both know genetic problems are increasing, not decreasing?

If that were so, then we would see genome-oriented extinctions all around us.

We DO see habitat-destruction and over-hunting induced extinction, but not a lot of extinction caused solely by genome degradation.

No, just bottlenecks and the rise of genetic problems.

Who says anything about the atomic level?

How are you going to talk about DNA if we shy away from the atomic level? What, afraid to talk about how everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons when discussing similarity?

If a 'designer' took a truck that they had designed, took a few parts off, modified a few other parts, stuck some other stuff on it and called it a submarine, what would the engineering world think of this designer?

If it went underwater they'd think he had invented a submersible that worked just fine.

And why would a deity capable of creating the entire universe be constrained to a handful of basic 'designs' from which to tinker with?

And why are you with your unlimited mutational abilities constraining the entire universe to a handful of designs? Oh that's right, nothing much random to the universe is there, runs like it was, ummmm, designed? So much so we can make laws to describe it. So much for randomness.

Actually that the Creator could create everything you see in the entire universe from the same protons, neutrons and electrons speaks of genius.

That you think He would require more is because your limited.

Amazing to me that creationists will argue that their creator is not very competent AND can only reuse a few earlier versions of things to create.

Let me see you build a world and a living being from the same protons, electrons and neutrons, then get back to me on how incompetent He is.......

 

[tas8831]

Only someone that wanted the genome to be advancing to perfection instead of degrading would miss the irony of his own reply.

I do not think the genome is advancing to perfection, so you are laughably wrong about that, too.

But please try to be constant - arguing for junk DNA in one post and against it in another is just... classic creationism.

Where is yours that it is advancing since 98% I mean 80% I mean whatever number you all want to claim is non functional now? Where is your evidence it was less before, or are you agreeing the DNA has become "less" functional???

Why would i have evidence for something I never suggested?

Look, I get that you are desperate to prop up your religion, but this is just silly and bordering on dishonest.

Oh let's see, the fact that we both know genetic problems are increasing, not decreasing?

we know this?

Let me predict why you 'know' this - because more problems are now being identified as having a genetic link?

Hint - that does not necessarily mean that the problems are increasing, it is more likely that it has to do with our ability to discover the link.

Or do you think that our knowledge of genetics was the same 50 years ago?

No, just bottlenecks and the rise of genetic problems.

So.... you think bottlnecks are some kind of inherent, thermodynamics event?

How are you going to talk about DNA if we shy away from the atomic level? What, afraid to talk about how everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons when discussing similarity?

Afraid of rabbit holes and diversions? No, I just find them ridiculous.

What does the similarity of atoms have to do with the 'similarity' of basic body plans? seems like you are really reaching.

If it went underwater they'd think he had invented a submersible that worked just fine.

I kind of doubt that.

And why are you with your unlimited mutational abilities constraining the entire universe to a handful of designs?

Um... because nobody declares mutations to have anything to do with the universe? Because nobody claimed that mutations had infinite 'creative ability'?

You folks sure like using your strawman fallacies.

Oh that's right, nothing much random to the universe is there, runs like it was, ummmm, designed? So much so we can make laws to describe it. So much for randomness.

Sure. No random occurrences in the whole universe. Of course, we are talking about biology, not astronomy or cosmology. And we do know from observation and experimentation that mutations in actual genomes occur without regard to fitness of the organism, that is, they occur randomly with regard to fitness. (see for example this).

Actually that the Creator could create everything you see in the entire universe from the same protons, neutrons and electrons speaks of genius.

Unsupported assertion. dismissed as irrelevant.

That you think He would require more is because your limited.

Nice projection.

Let me see you build a world and a living being from the same protons, electrons and neutrons, then get back to me on how incompetent He is.......

If i were a deity, I could definitely do a better job of things.

Look, I see that you are getting angry and all in a huff because your high school-level rhetoric is not impressing me, but if you want to be taken seriously, show us the goods and stop with the contradictory, off-the-cuff assertions.

 

[Ophiolite]

You brought a toothpick to a gun fight.

But as a consequence he has a lovely smile!

 

[pshun2404]

Why wouldn't he smile, the gun-toter is shooting blanks!

 

[tas8831]

Why wouldn't he smile, the gun-toter is shooting blanks!

Har har har!

Funny - I saw no doctored quotes, plagiarism, paraphrased creationist website essays, etc....

 

[pshun2404]

Har har har!

Funny - I saw no doctored quotes, plagiarism, paraphrased creationist website essays, etc....

Look!!! Gun-toters can smile also...refreshing!

 

[tas8831]

I do not think the genome is advancing to perfection, so you are laughably wrong about that, too.

But please try to be constant - arguing for junk DNA in one post and against it in another is just... classic creationism.



Why would i have evidence for something I never suggested?

Look, I get that you are desperate to prop up your religion, but this is just silly and bordering on dishonest.



we know this?

Let me predict why you 'know' this - because more problems are now being identified as having a genetic link?

Hint - that does not necessarily mean that the problems are increasing, it is more likely that it has to do with our ability to discover the link.

Or do you think that our knowledge of genetics was the same 50 years ago?



So.... you think bottlnecks are some kind of inherent, thermodynamics event?



Afraid of rabbit holes and diversions? No, I just find them ridiculous.

What does the similarity of atoms have to do with the 'similarity' of basic body plans? seems like you are really reaching.



I kind of doubt that.

Um... because nobody declares mutations to have anything to do with the universe? Because nobody claimed that mutations had infinite 'creative ability'?

You folks sure like using your strawman fallacies.


Sure. No random occurrences in the whole universe. Of course, we are talking about biology, not astronomy or cosmology. And we do know from observation and experimentation that mutations in actual genomes occur without regard to fitness of the organism, that is, they occur randomly with regard to fitness. (see for example this).



Unsupported assertion. dismissed as irrelevant.
Nice projection.


If i were a deity, I could definitely do a better job of things.

Look, I see that you are getting angry and all in a huff because your high school-level rhetoric is not impressing me, but if you want to be taken seriously, show us the goods and stop with the contradictory, off-the-cuff assertions.

*crickets*