What about the DNA evidence?

[Justatruthseeker]

Mostly were not shooting down ENCODE's findings; we're shooting down their press releases, which suggested much more than their actual papers did. The ENCODE papers never suggested that 80% of the genome did anything remotely useful; all they did was show that 80% was biochemically active. In their press releases they kind of hinted that this meant that 80% was important, but they'd never come out and say that in their papers, since it's patently ridiculous.

I am not shooting it down either or supporting it, merely pointing out that you do not know half of what you claim as certainty about the genome. You do not even understand 98% of what we have encoded, almost all of its functions are unknown. So I agree, the data at this point can not be used to further the arguments from either side, yet you are quick to point out that similarities in 1.5% of the genome prove evolution. So that leaves 98% still up in the air and is a mere fragment of the whole. And we have already discussed your propensity to jump to conclusions regarding fragments and where that has always gotten you in the past. Nanotyrannus and Torosaurus ring a bell and homo erectus and half a dozen claimed transitory all being the same.

I am simply saying there is not enough evidence to reach any conclusion regarding the genome at this point in time. And any claims to the contrary are patently ridiculous.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But I'll tell you what, since you all seem so sure that all that code is junk, then when you have a child why do you not have them remove a portion of that junk code and let us test out how truly confident you are.

 

[sfs]

I am not shooting it down either or supporting it, merely pointing out that you do not know half of what you claim as certainty about the genome. You do not even understand 98% of what we have encoded, almost all of its functions are unknown. So I agree, the data at this point can not be used to further the arguments from either side, yet you are quick to point out that similarities in 1.5% of the genome prove evolution.

I already told you: the similarities we point out are in the entire genome, not in 1.5% of it. Why do you constantly say false things about science?

I am simply saying there is not enough evidence to reach any conclusion regarding the genome at this point in time. And any claims to the contrary are patently ridiculous.

Given your near-total ignorance of everything genetics-related, I'm saying that you're in no position to say anything about the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I'll tell you what, since you all seem so sure that all that code is junk, then when you have a child why do you not have them remove a portion of that junk code and let us test out how truly confident you are.

It is not possible to do so. In other words you are showing false bravado in your challenge.

Most of the DNA code is still junk. This article helps to explain.

Fighting about ENCODE and junk : Nature News Blog

 

[sfs]

But I'll tell you what, since you all seem so sure that all that code is junk, then when you have a child why do you not have them remove a portion of that junk code and let us test out how truly confident you are.

Because (a) we can't do that yet, and (b) we do not have a complete catalog of the functional bits. (And of course that kind of experiment on humans would be highly unethical. The experiment has already been done with mice, however.)

 

[createdtoworship]

Setting aside any debate about the percentage of functional DNA, of what relevance is it to the matter at hand? How does a high (or low) percentage of DNA with function support creation or intelligent design?

well you have chemical evolution right...

and nucleotides are bonding with others to form DNA.

Only problem is that nucleotides in a water base, will strive for equilibrium.

not complete but break down.

This is in line with ID. As I believe DNA was programmed by a programmer.

 

[Black Akuma]

Only problem is that nucleotides in a water base, will strive for equilibrium.

That's a new one. Source?

 

[createdtoworship]

That's a new one. Source?

law of mass action:

in a watery environment a water molecule will break up a protein into
amino acids, and will break up a DNA into respective nucleotides.

evolution is impossible chemically speaking during abiogenesis.

 

[Black Akuma]

I asked for a source. You can't source yourself.

law of mass action:

in a watery environment a water molecule will break up a protein into
amino acids, and will break up a DNA into respective nucleotides.

I looked it up and that's not what the law of mass action states. Where are you getting this from?

 

[stevevw]

We didn't dismiss it out of hand. First, no one ever said 98% of the genome was junk. Second, there were good reasons for thinking that much of the genome had no function. Those reasons haven't changed, which is why most geneticists and most evolutionary biologists remain convinced that most of the genome is nonfunctional.


Not really, no.


No. Apes have largely the same noncoding DNA as we do.


Mostly were not shooting down ENCODE's findings; we're shooting down their press releases, which suggested much more than their actual papers did. The ENCODE papers never suggested that 80% of the genome did anything remotely useful; all they did was show that 80% was biochemically active. In their press releases they kind of hinted that this meant that 80% was important, but they'd never come out and say that in their papers, since it's patently ridiculous.

Its funny how they have jumped on ENCODE for the use of a word functional as though to say dont exaggerate yet for years they were happy to label the same thing junk which has just as much implications. They seem to want to have it both ways.

 

[Black Akuma]

Its funny how they have jumped on ENCODE for the use of a word functional as though to say dont exaggerate yet for years they were happy to label the same thing junk which has just as much implications.

Who is 'they'?

 

[stevevw]

It seems the geneticist that was in charge thinks there is a lot more going on than what others believe. It seems like early days and by the way he is describing it they have seen that there is more function than they thought but have yet to get a closer and more detailed look. So even though the critics are trying to play it down by saying he has exaggerated the findings the person who has actually done the research is saying even the parts that we thought do little may do more than we think.

So, that 80 percent figure… Let’s build up to it.
We know that 1.5 percent of the genome codes for proteins. That much is clearly functional and we’ve known that for a while. ENCODE also looked for places in the genome where proteins stick to DNA – sites where, most likely, the proteins are switching a gene on or off. They found 4 million such switches, which together account for 8.5 percent of the genome.* (Birney: “You can’t move for switches.&#8221 That’s already higher than anyone was expecting, and it sets a pretty conservative lower bound for the part of the genome that definitively does something.


In fact, because ENCODE hasn’t looked at every possible type of cell or every possible protein that sticks to DNA, this figure is almost certainly too low. Birney’s estimate is that it’s out by half. This means that the total proportion of the genome that either creates a protein or sticks to one, is around 20 percent.


To get from 20 to 80 percent, we include all the other elements that ENCODE looked for – not just the sequences that have proteins latched onto them, but those that affects how DNA is packaged and those that are transcribed at all. Birney says, “[That figure] best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity.” [Update 5/9/12 23:00: For Birney's own, very measured, take on this, check out his post. ]


That 80 percent covers many classes of sequence that were thought to be essentially functionless. These include introns – the parts of a gene that are cut out at the RNA stage, and don’t contribute to a protein’s manufacture. “The idea that introns are definitely deadweight isn’t true,” says Birney. The same could be said for our many repetitive sequences: small chunks of DNA that have the ability to copy themselves, and are found in large, recurring chains. These are typically viewed as parasites, which duplicate themselves at the expense of the rest of the genome. Or are they?

The youngest of these sequences – those that have copied themselves only recently in our history – still pose a problem for ENCODE. But many of the older ones, the genomic veterans, fall within the “functional” category. Some contain sequences where proteins can bind, and influence the activity of nearby genes. Perhaps their spread across the genome represents not the invasion of a parasite, but a way of spreading control. “These parasites can be subverted sometimes,” says Birney.


He expects that many skeptics will argue about the 80 percent figure, and the definition of “functional”. But he says, “No matter how you cut it, we’ve got to get used to the fact that there’s a lot more going on with the genome than we knew.”

ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome : Not Exactly Rocket Science

 

[createdtoworship]

I asked for a source. You can't source yourself.



I looked it up and that's not what the law of mass action states. Where are you getting this from?

water is a solvent of course it breaks things down. Thats not the interesting part. lets start with endothermic reactions, do you know what they are?
They are reactions that bond elements. Like when you drop a red die in
water, you don't expect to see a little drop still in the water, it
bonds to it.

nucleotides don't bond well other nucleotides to make DNA, but they do
bond well with the toxic elements produced in the miller urey
experiment. So no primordial soup will suffice because the nucleotides
will bond to the toxins and be wiped out. They need an endothermic
reaction which requires much energy.

 

[sfs]

So, that 80 percent figure… Let’s build up to it.
We know that 1.5 percent of the genome codes for proteins. That much is clearly functional and we’ve known that for a while. ENCODE also looked for places in the genome where proteins stick to DNA – sites where, most likely, the proteins are switching a gene on or off. They found 4 million such switches, which together account for 8.5 percent of the genome.* (Birney: “You can’t move for switches.”) That’s already higher than anyone was expecting, and it sets a pretty conservative lower bound for the part of the genome that definitively does something.


In fact, because ENCODE hasn’t looked at every possible type of cell or every possible protein that sticks to DNA, this figure is almost certainly too low. Birney’s estimate is that it’s out by half. This means that the total proportion of the genome that either creates a protein or sticks to one, is around 20 percent.


To get from 20 to 80 percent, we include all the other elements that ENCODE looked for – not just the sequences that have proteins latched onto them, but those that affects how DNA is packaged and those that are transcribed at all. Birney says, “[That figure] best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity.” [Update 5/9/12 23:00: For Birney's own, very measured, take on this, check out his post. ]


That 80 percent covers many classes of sequence that were thought to be essentially functionless. These include introns – the parts of a gene that are cut out at the RNA stage, and don’t contribute to a protein’s manufacture. “The idea that introns are definitely deadweight isn’t true,” says Birney. The same could be said for our many repetitive sequences: small chunks of DNA that have the ability to copy themselves, and are found in large, recurring chains. These are typically viewed as parasites, which duplicate themselves at the expense of the rest of the genome. Or are they?

The youngest of these sequences – those that have copied themselves only recently in our history – still pose a problem for ENCODE. But many of the older ones, the genomic veterans, fall within the “functional” category. Some contain sequences where proteins can bind, and influence the activity of nearby genes. Perhaps their spread across the genome represents not the invasion of a parasite, but a way of spreading control. “These parasites can be subverted sometimes,” says Birney.


He expects that many skeptics will argue about the 80 percent figure, and the definition of “functional”. But he says, “No matter how you cut it, we’ve got to get used to the fact that there’s a lot more going on with the genome than we knew.”

ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome : Not Exactly Rocket Science

By "many skeptics" he means just about every evolutionary biologist in the world, and most geneticists. Birney's arguments are frankly stupid.

But what does any of this have to do with the DNA evidence for evolution? Why is it that creationists constantly change the subject away from the actual evidence?

 

[stevevw]

By "many skeptics" he means just about every evolutionary biologist in the world, and most geneticists. Birney's arguments are frankly stupid.

But you said earlier you weren't criticizing his findings but the way he announced it.

But what does any of this have to do with the DNA evidence for evolution? Why is it that creationists constantly change the subject away from the actual evidence?

Then why on earth did they put him in charge if every other biologist disagrees. We have a team of over 400 scientists in one of the biggest genetics research of modern times and the head scientist who represents them is saying something that everyone disputes. Its like putting the best finance person in charge of the nations investments and he gets it wrong.
His accounting is stupid and everyone else can see that. To me that doesn't make sense why put him there in the first place, he was obviously regarded as one of the best.

Well what im thinking is if they get one of the biggest research projects wrong then how reliable is other research. There was suppose to be 30 odd peer reviewed papers done on this and your saying its wrong then whats the good of the papers.

So what it has to do with the DNA evidence is maybe peer reviewed papers aren't that reliable for evidence and maybe some of the findings are not reliable. If what they have found is proved true won't that start to question some of the proof that evolution uses for their argument that apes are 98% genetically similar to humans. If they find that there is more difference in the genetics with what they said was junk then doesn't that push the ape further away from being a close relative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why on earth did they put him in charge if every other biologist disagrees. We have a team of over 400 scientists in one of the biggest genetics research of modern times and the head scientist who represents them is saying something that everyone disputes. Its like putting the best finance person in charge of the nations investments and he gets it wrong.
His accounting is stupid and everyone else can see that. To me that doesn't make sense why put him there in the first place, he was obviously regarded as one of the best.

Well what im thinking is if they get one of the biggest research projects wrong then how reliable is other research. There was suppose to be 30 odd peer reviewed papers done on this and your saying its wrong then whats the good of the papers.

So what it has to do with the DNA evidence is maybe peer reviewed papers aren't that reliable for evidence and maybe some of the findings are not reliable. If what they have found is proved true won't that start to question some of the proof that evolution uses for their argument that apes are 98% genetically similar to humans. If they find that there is more difference in the genetics with what they said was junk then doesn't that push the ape further away from being a close relative.

It's his job to do so. By continuing to hype the results of Encode he guarantees that the money keeps flowing in. Seriously they are doing some good work. They have simply overstated their accomplishments, and what seeker of public money has not done that?

 

[stevevw]

It's his job to do so. By continuing to hype the results of Encode he guarantees that the money keeps flowing in. Seriously they are doing some good work. They have simply overstated their accomplishments, and what seeker of public money has not done that?

Then why do other sites imply the same hype like New science with a headline like Your face may have been sculpted by junk DNA.
Even they are say this junk DNA could be involved in shaping your features. So to me they are even putting more importance on it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...e-been-sculpted-by-junk-dna.html#.Uq4rQPtbzTA

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why do other sites imply the same hype like New science with a headline like Your face may have been sculpted by junk DNA.
Even they are say this junk DNA could be involved in shaping your features. So to me they are even putting more importance on it.

Your face may have been sculpted by junk DNA - life - 24 October 2013 - New Scientist

Because you are taking claims out of context.

Most DNA is still "junk DNA". You will find that those cases where some bit of junk DNA has a function that it is not the whole strand of junk DNA that has a function, only the very start of a string of "junk" or the end of a string of "junk' has function. The interior, which is still the most of those strings is still junk. They could be changed and you would not be affected in the least. In fact you have on the order of 100 mutations from your parents. Most of those mutations are in junk DNA and have no effect at all.

 

[stevevw]

I still dont get how the Archaeopteryx developed wings. Evolutionist says that the Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil from reptile to birds. The fossils they show has fully developed wings.

The other day we were talking about bats and how possibly they started with gliding and then that developed into wings by the membrane growing and the digits getting longer. I said at one stage it would not be able to fly as the membrane and digits would not be big enough and strong enough to sustain the bat. Unless a stage popped out in one go that enabled it to use the feature and fly then the first stages would be useless for flying. Therefore the mutation would be a disadvantage and not be taken on.

The very thought that a mutation that is an error in a complex process with many checks and balances to make sure everything is copied right and producing something complex like wings is mind boggling anyway. Now to me this doesn't makes sense.

With evolution Darwin said it is a gradual process of small incremental changes that transform one species into another. Now when you apply this to feathered wings the same thing would occur. The first stages would produce small under developed wings or part wings that could not be used for flying.

Now i thought that a creature will take on a mutation if it benefits it to adapt to its environment. It gives it an edge over others so it adapts and survives. To me part wings or under developed wings or fins or lungs or sonar would be useless and not taken on. They would not be at an advantage and give the creature an edge as the feature didn't work.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I still dont get how the Archaeopteryx developed wings. Evolutionist says that the Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil from reptile to birds. The fossils they show has fully developed wings.

The other day we were talking about bats and how possibly they started with gliding and then that developed into wings by the membrane growing and the digits getting longer. I said at one stage it would not be able to fly as the membrane and digits would not be big enough and strong enough to sustain the bat. Unless a stage popped out in one go that enabled it to use the feature and fly then the first stages would be useless for flying. Therefore the mutation would be a disadvantage and not be taken on.

The very thought that a mutation that is an error in a complex process with many checks and balances to make sure everything is copied right and producing something complex like wings is mind boggling anyway. Now to me this doesn't makes sense.

With evolution Darwin said it is a gradual process of small incremental changes that transform one species into another. Now when you apply this to feathered wings the same thing would occur. The first stages would produce small under developed wings or part wings that could not be used for flying.

Now i thought that a creature will take on a mutation if it benefits it to adapt to its environment. It gives it an edge over others so it adapts and survives. To me part wings or under developed wings or fins or lungs or sonar would be useless and not taken on. They would not be at an advantage and give the creature an edge as the feature didn't work.

No, it is no longer considered a bird at all, merely a feathered dinosaur, proceeded by birds by at least 10 million years.

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird : Nature News

At least that is the story this week, next week it might be something else entirely.