Viruses that prove common descent

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, it is. Because you have established that relatedness with modern examples that you can test. So you have a testable reference point to make that conclusion. A “control”.

Consider zooming in on the top end of a sigmoid dose-response curve. If you zoom in and focus purely on the end fraction (highest concentration of an agonist lets say) and you can see 10 graphs all of the same pattern with that compound and a substrate you are measuring, you could predict that repeating that experiment with a similar compound would take the same shape at that point in the graph.

If you concluded that you draw a straight line back from that to a much lower concentration and predict to see the same effect, you would be a fool. Because that is an extrapolation based on unobserved data points. And you would have been wrong, because the curve is sigmoid.

My point? Sure you can make predictions and conclusions about things you can test and observe, but extrapolations are dangerous.



Of course – their human ancestors, as you have established that humans can procreate to give humans. To say anything but a human was an ancestor, is an assumption.





Yes and no. We do have different starting points. I’m not actually arguing creation is scientific, by the way. But back to the point – science starts with assumptions. One of those assumptions is an a priori commitment to naturalistic explanations. That is inherent in modern science, and for good reason.

So if we are going to have any sort of debate in a Christian forum where God for many people are assumed, you have to step a bit away from the limits ofsuch a priori commitments and ask yourself “in X scenario, is the data explainable.” This cannot be a purist scientific discussion as if that is what we are trying to have then there is no debate as God is excluded in any part.

You are foolish if you think that evolutionary thought comes from “facts”. All the data especially modern, is built on the assumption. No new piece of evidence can cause to question the evolution as a base assumption and abiogenesis as another base assumption. These are given assumptions. Take for example, when I was an undergraduate I was taught 98% of the genome was junk, and this is exactly as we would expect from evolution. This was taught, by world leading evolutionary biologists to me as a scientist-in-the-making as factual scientific evidence. Wind the clock forward and those estimates have changed at the most conservative estimate to 90% junk. That’s a big difference. Yet what do we see Dawkins and the like say? “This is exactly what we would expect from evolution – evolution adapting use for relic DNA.” Etc. And when ENCODE finds that 80% of the genome is transcriptionally active – no problem! When the eye is actually used to demonstrate that evolution would predict such bad engineering – evidence against design! As evolution expects! Then it gets found to be near perfectly optimal and the backwards wiring of the eye is in fact a design type advantage for greater efficiency of light tunneling? Surprising, but amazing what evolution can do. When we see complex features independently appear multiple times in distant related species so have had to evolve many times separately – convergent evolution! When we see rapid change – selective pressure! When we see stasis with no change for 500m years – no pressure! When we see giraffes evolving at the same time as animals that do not get longer necks – they evolved to reach higher food! Huh? How is that science? That is pure conjecture, a “just so” story – and yet it is called science.

Evolution is the theory that can and does accommodate every single observation. A scientific theory that explains everything explains nothing. It is non-falsifiable. Heads you win, tails I lose. Grand old theory that – really following the data with no assumptions (not)!



Here you go again. I ask again – how do you know it was inserted into the host DNA?



Because they contain features similar to viral sequences that we can separately define. Again, I have offered potential explanations for that. Keep up.



It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, when considering a genome, how you know that sequence did not originally exist in the host genome. How do you know that? I have not heard an answer yet.



Actually, they would.



You need to understand, badly, that we are only talking about ERVs right here. You have suddenly shifted the goal posts. Another common tactic of the one who does not know how to logically debate. Feel free to bring up other issues that apparently cannot be accommodated by the design paradigm.





You misunderstand my accusation – you are assuming base assumptions as I have outlined – and listen carefully – that exclude any design possibility. Continue to listen carefully:

• My approach is not suggesting that ERVs provide evidence for design/creation.
  
  
• I have been suggested that if you assume naturalistic origins, ERVs offer evidence for common descent, but not proof (in contrast to the title of this thread)
  
  
• Thus, my argument is that ERVs do not provide strong evidence and certainly not proof that creation is false.

This is in contrast to the arguments made by many here, mostly atheists, that ERVs mean CD must be true because it is the only explanation/design cannot account for them. This notion I reject.




Wow, we have a psychic! You apparently know what I cannot get! When have I ever said disproving evolution adds credibility to my particular beliefs? Oh yeah, that’s right – not once. I reject much (not all) of popular evolution because it is riddled with bad science and I dislike bad science. It also misleads people and that is the worst type of bad science. People for 1000s years did not believe in evolution yet still rejected my beliefs. There is a whole movement of IDers and other evolution doubter scientists who reject mainstream evolution but remain agnostic and/or do not hold my beliefs. Stop putting words in my mouth. I’m done with this, except…




Really, brush up on your logic please if you wish to debate in serious debate. Ad hominem once more. I could say the same about the numerous anti-God ranting atheistic evolutionists out there like Dawkins. “I reject his teachings because he is a ranting anti-God lunatic so is full of anti-God propaganda.”

Imagine if I said that and refused to ignore his proposed scientific rationale based on the above. What a field day you and others would have.

But assuming a creation standpoint better explains junk DNA than evolution does. We know from the laws of thermodynamics that all things move toward entropy. So the genome was created perfect and over time through mutations has degraded. The genome is not becoming more perfect, but more and more prone to error over time.

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not in the least, just look at the non-placental mammals for good models.
Montremes and marsupials are mammals, lack placentas, and do just fine.
"unknown pre-mammalian," you mean like the "unknown" montremes and marsupials?
If you find that to be a "severe monkey wrench" you need to brush up on your mammology.
... and the problem with having non-placental mammals (just as we do today) is what?

I don't know, it's your naming system that seems to have the problems. That's what happens when you try to lump everything together.

Actually it all makes perfect sense. Early mammals are no placental, placentals evolve and ERVs play a role in that evolution in a classic free living parasite co-evolves with its host to become an obligate symbiot.
and once upon a time the precursors to mitochondria were parasites and killed their hosts, but it was a more successful path to join up in symbiosis, see .... do unto others goes way back before humans.

Except if they are non-placental then perhaps you have just classified them incorrectly, but heaven forbid you might admit to classification mistakes.... being all you have is bones, you seem pretty sure you have it correct even when you admit there is a severe problem....

Interesting papers, but they do not address the case you seem to be trying to make.Asked and answered.
Fossils are irrelevant unless the contradict the genetic data, and they do not.

Except you have no "genetic data" of those fossilized creatures, so take that trash line of reasoning elsewhere. It doesn't apply.

You are wrong.
Crap, if they could they'd famous, rich and have the love of beautiful women, you're way off base.
There's no programming, you are quote mining, and from almost ancient sources.
Why? Perhaps because bacteria and primates a different? What a novel thought!

And yet you don't hesitate to attempt to use bacteria to prove primate evolution. Imagine that, your so full of contradictions you don't know what you believe.

You don't know my interpretation now, do you?
Fossils are irrelevant unless they falsify.
Subspecies is a convenience term with no reality (as in fact, is species). Time to move beyond your Platonic Idealism into the real world.
Your stuff reads like Professor Irwin Corey rolling out a Gish Gallop.

Ok, we will throw out the species designation and now nothing has evolved into anything. You're entire theory relies on how you classify species. You don't fool anyone with your attempted evasion because you can't get the fossil record to match reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Running to their non existent common ancestor is the only solution they have. Being it is non existent in every single case they can make whatever claims they need to save their theory.....

 

[pshun2404]

H. wrote "once upon a time the precursors to mitochondria were parasites and killed their hosts, but it was a more successful path to join up in symbiosis, see .... do unto others goes way back before humans."

Yes indeed all good fiction begins with the "once upon a time" intro, and this one is no different...a good story with no evidence but barely possible (only conjecture and consensus of others who believe in fiction). Believed as true but unable to produce a single actual example...how sad!

 

[pshun2404]

in all cases of contract law any claims of insertions or deletions must be demonstrated to assure confirmation. The person or persons making the claim of an insertion or deletion into an existing contract or agreement, to demonstrate credibility of the claim, must produce an example of the earlier copy for comparison. If it can be seen that something previously not there now is, or that something previously there now is missing, then it is considered an insertion (to have been inserted) or a deletion (to have been deleted).

How can one prove a deletion in a data set? If we have access to the complete database by comparing earlier versions with the latest version we can easily detect a deletion with assurance. One can never assume a deletion without comparison to the earlier version. Hearsay, and opinion, regardless of alleged expertise, is not confirmation of the claim.

In accounting systems the same rule applies. If one claims an insertion or deletion into the record has taken place, confirmation can only be demonstrated when the auditor or examiner is allowed to see or discovers the earlier version which does or does not contain the insertion or deletion, and compare.

MacDonalds was once questioned on their claim that all their food was natural. After investigation it could be shown against the genome of a true actual russet potato that an insertion had occurred. They had inserted a segment of butterfly gene into their potato crop to fight a particular pestilence. But the insertion had been confirmed and so now they are quite honest about it.

In choosing a cloning vector, they must be small molecules because they are easier to manipulate. The sequence being inserted must be capable of prolific replication inside the recipient cell in order to enable the amplification of the inserted donor fragment.

Identifying such an insertion is easily confirmed. It is conformed because we can see how it was not there, and now is there! The same is true when we splice out a segment from an extant genome. We can confirm this actually happened by comparing the genome which previously contained the segment, with the same genome from which it is now deleted. Otherwise such a claim may be interpreted to suggest it happened, and dozens could even claim it happened, but that does not confirm it.

So...the ONLY way we can actually confirm that this is an insertion or deletion in the genomes is by showing something not there once, now is, or that something that was there, now is not. Can you see the sense of this? This is not unreasonable at all, In fact, it is totally logical!

We actually should be insulted to have them insist we accept it as true when they cannot show such an event took place in either the human or the chimp genome, and even less likely in some common ancestor. Yet they do and when people like me insist they SHOW ME? I am called all sorts of names..

Somehow only this area of scientific thought is above applying the same rule of actual evidence that is required of every other case...

So I ask again please show me...

If you cannot, then just admit it. There is no shame in being honest.

 

[Jimmy D]

in all cases of contract law any claims of insertions or deletions must be demonstrated to assure confirmation. The person or persons making the claim of an insertion or deletion into an existing contract or agreement, to demonstrate credibility of the claim, must produce an example of the earlier copy for comparison. If it can be seen that something previously not there now is, or that something previously there now is missing, then it is considered an insertion (to have been inserted) or a deletion (to have been deleted).

How can one prove a deletion in a data set? If we have access to the complete database by comparing earlier versions with the latest version we can easily detect a deletion with assurance. One can never assume a deletion without comparison to the earlier version. Hearsay, and opinion, regardless of alleged expertise, is not confirmation of the claim.

In accounting systems the same rule applies. If one claims an insertion or deletion into the record has taken place, confirmation can only be demonstrated when the auditor or examiner is allowed to see or discovers the earlier version which does or does not contain the insertion or deletion, and compare.

MacDonalds was once questioned on their claim that all their food was natural. After investigation it could be shown against the genome of a true actual russet potato that an insertion had occurred. They had inserted a segment of butterfly gene into their potato crop to fight a particular pestilence. But the insertion had been confirmed and so now they are quite honest about it.

In choosing a cloning vector, they must be small molecules because they are easier to manipulate. The sequence being inserted must be capable of prolific replication inside the recipient cell in order to enable the amplification of the inserted donor fragment.

Identifying such an insertion is easily confirmed. It is conformed because we can see how it was not there, and now is there! The same is true when we splice out a segment from an extant genome. We can confirm this actually happened by comparing the genome which previously contained the segment, with the same genome from which it is now deleted. Otherwise such a claim may be interpreted to suggest it happened, and dozens could even claim it happened, but that does not confirm it.

So...the ONLY way we can actually confirm that this is an insertion or deletion in the genomes is by showing something not there once, now is, or that something that was there, now is not. Can you see the sense of this? This is not unreasonable at all, In fact, it is totally logical!

We actually should be insulted to have them insist we accept it as true when they cannot show such an event took place in either the human or the chimp genome, and even less likely in some common ancestor. Yet they do and when people like me insist they SHOW ME? I am called all sorts of names..

Somehow only this area of scientific thought is above applying the same rule of actual evidence that is required of every other case...

Show me...

Can I just post the response you got when you posted this in the past, on a different forum, you know, save all the to-ing and fro-ing?

Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

in all cases of contract law any claims of insertions or deletions must be demonstrated to assure confirmation. The person or persons making the claim of an insertion or deletion into an existing contract or agreement, to demonstrate credibility of the claim, must produce an example of the earlier copy for comparison. If it can be seen that something previously not there now is, or that something previously there now is missing, then it is considered an insertion (to have been inserted) or a deletion (to have been deleted).

How can one prove a deletion in a data set? If we have access to the complete database by comparing earlier versions with the latest version we can easily detect a deletion with assurance. One can never assume a deletion without comparison to the earlier version. Hearsay, and opinion, regardless of alleged expertise, is not confirmation of the claim.

In accounting systems the same rule applies. If one claims an insertion or deletion into the record has taken place, confirmation can only be demonstrated when the auditor or examiner is allowed to see or discovers the earlier version which does or does not contain the insertion or deletion, and compare.

MacDonalds was once questioned on their claim that all their food was natural. After investigation it could be shown against the genome of a true actual russet potato that an insertion had occurred. They had inserted a segment of butterfly gene into their potato crop to fight a particular pestilence. But the insertion had been confirmed and so now they are quite honest about it.

In choosing a cloning vector, they must be small molecules because they are easier to manipulate. The sequence being inserted must be capable of prolific replication inside the recipient cell in order to enable the amplification of the inserted donor fragment.

Identifying such an insertion is easily confirmed. It is conformed because we can see how it was not there, and now is there! The same is true when we splice out a segment from an extant genome. We can confirm this actually happened by comparing the genome which previously contained the segment, with the same genome from which it is now deleted. Otherwise such a claim may be interpreted to suggest it happened, and dozens could even claim it happened, but that does not confirm it.

So...the ONLY way we can actually confirm that this is an insertion or deletion in the genomes is by showing something not there once, now is, or that something that was there, now is not. Can you see the sense of this? This is not unreasonable at all, In fact, it is totally logical!

We actually should be insulted to have them insist we accept it as true when they cannot show such an event took place in either the human or the chimp genome, and even less likely in some common ancestor. Yet they do and when people like me insist they SHOW ME? I am called all sorts of names..

Somehow only this area of scientific thought is above applying the same rule of actual evidence that is required of every other case...

So I ask again please show me...

If you cannot, then just admit it. There is no shame in being honest.

Well if they actually had a single common ancestor...... but since every single common ancestor is missing it gets problematic for them to do anything but make claims of truth which can not be substantiated. Of course in the end it boils down to their simple faith in what is true, although you won't get one to ever admit it.

But their biggest problem is still their deliberate deception. Claiming the material was inserted from human genome 9, when human genome 9 did not yet exist because the human species did not yet exist. But zealots rarely question their high priests, so of course this small fact of something inserted from something that did not yet exist is simply overlooked by their devout worshippers.

The only question in the end is which religion will triumph. The religion of creation or the religion of evolution. One simply attempts to mask itself under the name of science, even when we find science rarely has anything to do with their belief. Instead we have gene sequences inserting before the species exists, and common ancestors that can't be found in any single lineage on any single tree.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can I just post the response you got when you posted this in the past, on a different forum, you know, save all the to-ing and fro-ing?

Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent?

Hmm, I see no proof in any of the responses, just more claims it's true without showing it's true.... can you at least point me towards this "common ancestor" that split?

 

[pshun2404]

Can I just post the response you got when you posted this in the past, on a different forum, you know, save all the to-ing and fro-ing?

Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent?

Sure Jim go for it. It was also a lame excuse that avoided the logic of the issue.

 

[pshun2404]

Hmm, I see no proof in any of the responses, just more claims it's true without showing it's true.... can you at least point me towards this "common ancestor" that split?

That is their style...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is their style...

Oh how I know it.

And then try to justify this claimed merger of non existent genes from chimp chromosome 2A and 2B as coming from human chromosome 9, when by their own theory the human species did not exist yet......

But hey, why use logic when their followers will believe anything they are told. Like genes that couldn't yet exist because the species didn't yet exist copied over from chromosomes that didn't yet exist in gene patterns that didn't yet exist. Why we should be ashamed for not seeing the inherent logic in it all, cough, cough.

 

[pshun2404]

And that does not even speak to the 150,000 base pairs at Human chromo 2 not even found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. 150,000 is a lot of DIFFERENT extra base pairs....BUT because they both have a Chromo 2 its billed as a point of "similarity" save for the fusion event....

So let's see if I get the math right?

150,000 differences = a similarity...hmmm?

 

[dad]

How can one prove a deletion in a data set? If we have access to the complete database by comparing earlier versions with the latest version we can easily detect a deletion with assurance. One can never assume a deletion without comparison to the earlier version. Hearsay, and opinion, regardless of alleged expertise, is not confirmation of the claim.late. The sequence being inserted must be capable of prolific replication inside the recipient cell in order to enable the amplification of the inserted donor fragment.
.

Since no DNA exists for early life on earth, they cannot do it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And that does not even speak to the 150,000 base pairs at Human chromo 2 not even found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. 150,000 is a lot of DIFFERENT extra base pairs....BUT because they both have a Chromo 2 its billed as a point of "similarity" save for the fusion event....

So let's see if I get the math right?

150,000 differences = a similarity...hmmm?

Nor does it account for ignoring the parts that are different, realigning strand sequences so just those that match line up, and calling it similar......

 

[pshun2404]

Nor does it account for ignoring the parts that are different, realigning strand sequences so just those that match line up, and calling it similar......

Oh well my friend, you are right, that is exactly one of the things they do. I guess common sense is just not that common....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh well my friend, you are right, that is exactly one of the things they do. I guess common sense is just not that common....

Because most people no longer think for themselves, but simply accept what they are told to believe. I mean, if many people believe it to be true, it has to be, doesn't it, so why give it any thought?

 

[dad]

Oh how I know it.

And then try to justify this claimed merger of non existent genes from chimp chromosome 2A and 2B as coming from human chromosome 9, when by their own theory the human species did not exist yet......
.

Interesting. Do you have a source for where they claim the ch

 

[dad]

Oh how I know it.

And then try to justify this claimed merger of non existent genes from chimp chromosome 2A and 2B as coming from human chromosome 9, when by their own theory the human species did not exist yet......
.

Interesting. Do you have a source for where they claim the ch

 

[tas8831]

Absurd! Of course there is. But huge areas previously claimed to be so by modern Darwinians have function and therefore they were incorrect. Now instead of revamping the theory to fit the data they are misrepresenting the Encode Team (a consortium of 450 world class scientists from a variety of disciplines) and spinning the media with statements like they improperly call these "functions" and other such nonsense. Plus most all those peer reviewed articles I have cited so far are no part of Encode (though I applaud their work and their honesty in the face of such shameful hypothesis driven muck racking).

it is like creationists have an archive of stock slogans that they pick and choose from over the course of years, regardless of their accuracy or relevance.


"Now instead of revamping the theory to fit the data they are misrepresenting the Encode Team (a consortium of 450 world class scientists from a variety of disciplines) and spinning the media with statements like they improperly call these "functions" and other such nonsense."

Birney admitted - in a blog post, of all places, in which he was pretending to interview himself - that the 80% was basically used to impress the rubes

ENCODE: My own thoughts - Ewan's Blog: Bioinformatician at large

Q. Ok, fair enough. But are you most comfortable with the 10% to 20% figure for the hard-core functional bases? Why emphasize the 80% figure in the abstract and press release?

A. (Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.

We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity.​

Another ENCODE researcher also indicated that the real, evidence-based number is much lower:

Max Libbrecht on ENCODE’s results regarding junk DNA. « Genomicron

"In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy....
I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. ..."

The above was available in 2012.

Yet creationists, in 2017, are STILL touting the original, unwarranted ENCODE paper embellishments.

How was it you described this sort of thing?

Ah yes:

This process of convincing the masses of the speculative for a definite motive (to prove their theory) requires consistent:

a) Interpretation of all data (even that which could be considered contrary to that theory) though the accepted model as opposed to allowing the raw data shape and remake the model (which is good science and true critical thought)


b) Repetition over and over...early Psychologist William James discovered this characteristic of people...that if they hear, or have had modelled before them, something not really true, over and over and over, they come to believe it as if it is true. Goebbels, capitalized on this insight in the 1930’s in Germany and applying it to politics h says “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” The same is true in this matter. Those aspects which are merely opinion about the data are repeated over and over as if they are fact and the masses swallow it whole with no actual discernment taking place.


c) Appeal to Authority ("...a consortium of 450 world class scientists from a variety of disciplines") ...the above is reinforced by this. In addition to the repetition of the COULD BE/MIGHT BE over and over (which brainwashes) when you get a bunch of alleged authorities saying “Yes It is true”....simply because of their sheepskin people say “Well it must be true after all they know”. Really? NOT!


d) And then finally through c) consensus follows (the argumentum ad populum)....which basically is that “if everyone is saying it is true then it must be true” but if history (even the history of science) has taught us one thing it is that just because a bunch believe it does not make it so.​

A hobby of mine is finding the extent of projection in anti-evolution internet posts. It is pretty easy to do, and I get a good head shake out of it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

it is like creationists have an archive of stock slogans that they pick and choose from over the course of years, regardless of their accuracy or relevance.


"Now instead of revamping the theory to fit the data they are misrepresenting the Encode Team (a consortium of 450 world class scientists from a variety of disciplines) and spinning the media with statements like they improperly call these "functions" and other such nonsense."

Birney admitted - in a blog post, of all places, in which he was pretending to interview himself - that the 80% was basically used to impress the rubes

ENCODE: My own thoughts - Ewan's Blog: Bioinformatician at large

Q. Ok, fair enough. But are you most comfortable with the 10% to 20% figure for the hard-core functional bases? Why emphasize the 80% figure in the abstract and press release?

A. (Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.

We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity.​

Another ENCODE researcher also indicated that the real, evidence-based number is much lower:

Max Libbrecht on ENCODE’s results regarding junk DNA. « Genomicron

"In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy....
I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. ..."

The above was available in 2012.

Yet creationists, in 2017, are STILL touting the original, unwarranted ENCODE paper embellishments.

How was it you described this sort of thing?

Ah yes:

This process of convincing the masses of the speculative for a definite motive (to prove their theory) requires consistent:

a) Interpretation of all data (even that which could be considered contrary to that theory) though the accepted model as opposed to allowing the raw data shape and remake the model (which is good science and true critical thought)


b) Repetition over and over...early Psychologist William James discovered this characteristic of people...that if they hear, or have had modelled before them, something not really true, over and over and over, they come to believe it as if it is true. Goebbels, capitalized on this insight in the 1930’s in Germany and applying it to politics h says “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” The same is true in this matter. Those aspects which are merely opinion about the data are repeated over and over as if they are fact and the masses swallow it whole with no actual discernment taking place.


c) Appeal to Authority ("...a consortium of 450 world class scientists from a variety of disciplines") ...the above is reinforced by this. In addition to the repetition of the COULD BE/MIGHT BE over and over (which brainwashes) when you get a bunch of alleged authorities saying “Yes It is true”....simply because of their sheepskin people say “Well it must be true after all they know”. Really? NOT!


d) And then finally through c) consensus follows (the argumentum ad populum)....which basically is that “if everyone is saying it is true then it must be true” but if history (even the history of science) has taught us one thing it is that just because a bunch believe it does not make it so.​

A hobby of mine is finding the extent of projection in anti-evolution internet posts. It is pretty easy to do, and I get a good head shake out of it.

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

Why wasn't it just a few years ago that it was 98% non functional DNA? But as science advances we are finding that region has RNA coding functions and control functions as well.

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

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?