What about the DNA evidence?

[sfs]

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.

Who said the research was wrong? I said the press releases were wrong, and Birney's news sound bites are sometimes wrong. He organized the group, he got the funding, so he did the project. He's obviously good at self-promotion, and in the case of ENCODE he's gone rather too far. His perspective also reflects his background in biochemistry and bioinformatics, rather than in biology proper.

The actual ENCODE research is widely used; we use it in our lab.

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.

What do the press releases have to do with the peer-reviewed papers? It sure looks like you're using any excuse to dismiss evolution.

 

[sfs]

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 that article was written by somebody who isn't a geneticist, and who doesn't know the usual meaning of "junk DNA" within biology. He's treating it as if it meant all noncoding DNA (i.e. all DNA that doesn't code for proteins).

 

[sfs]

Would you like to discuss the claimed CCR5 alleles that evolutionary geneticists admit have never been observed for natural selection?

What happened to your interest in discussing CCR5 and natural selection?

 

[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?

you never answered my post...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7789220-2/#post64679485

 

[Subduction Zone]

you never answered my post...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7789220-2/#post64679485

Yes he did. He requested a proper source for your claim.

You never provided one.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

water breaks down elements, it's a solvent. No amount of necleotides would be able to bond together especially taken consideration the absence of endothermic reactions which are basic cementing for the particles. And the fact that naturally speaking because of this lack of endothermic reaction particles will tend to oppose each other and bond to toxins, like those presented in the only experiment abiogenesis has confessed to, the miller urey experiment.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes he did. He requested a proper source for your claim.

You never provided one.

he wanted to know why water broke down elements, and I said because it's a solvent.

then we got into the basics of endothermic reactions.

and now another twister...

amino acids occur in two forms, left and right handed amino acids.

miller urey experiment produced

proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids

nucleotides are made of 100% right handed nucleotides

So DNA would never evolve, nor would proteins (amino acids).

chemical evolution is thus impossible and abiogenesis unprobable.

chance chemistry will never provide 100% right handed nucleotides unless there is chemical expertise involved and a labratory.

evolution fails on the basics

 

[Black Akuma]

Let me guess - Carl Gallups?

 

[Black Akuma]

you never answered my post...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7789220-2/#post64679485

In other topics you've proven to be...less than trustworthy, so I'm looking up the information myself and not taking your word for it.

 

[sfs]

he wanted to know why water broke down elements, and I said because it's a solvent.

then we got into the basics of endothermic reactions.

and now another twister...

amino acids occur in two forms, left and right handed amino acids.

miller urey experiment produced

proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids

nucleotides are made of 100% right handed nucleotides

So DNA would never evolve, nor would proteins (amino acids).

chemical evolution is thus impossible and abiogenesis unprobable.

chance chemistry will never provide 100% right handed nucleotides unless there is chemical expertise involved and a labratory.

evolution fails on the basics

None of that is part of evolution. Why are you bringing it up in a thread on DNA evidence for evolution? Does there exist a single creationist in the world who is capable of addressing the DNA evidence for evolution?

 

[createdtoworship]

None of that is part of evolution. Why are you bringing it up in a thread on DNA evidence for evolution? Does there exist a single creationist in the world who is capable of addressing the DNA evidence for evolution?

actually it is technically called "chemical evolution."

Abiogenesis is merely so.

It fits the topic perfectly.

 

[createdtoworship]

In other topics you've proven to be...less than trustworthy, so I'm looking up the information myself and not taking your word for it.

there is a fallacy for what you are doing.

poisoning the well

 

[createdtoworship]

Let me guess - Carl Gallups?

who is that?

 

[46AND2]

actually it is technically called "chemical evolution."

Abiogenesis is merely so.

It fits the topic perfectly.

Fine. None of us accept chemical evolution. Can we get back to biological evolution now?

 

[createdtoworship]

Fine. None of us accept chemical evolution. Can we get back to biological evolution now?

do you reject abiogenesis as well?

do you reject the development of life?

Because abiogenesis, the development of life, and chemical evolution are synonymous.

"abiogenesis (the
development of life through chemical
evolution from inorganic materials)"

from a non ID non creationistic scientific peer review found here:
Impact
frustration of the origin of life




found by using:

abiogenesis
vs evolution - Google Scholar

 

[Ursus scientia]

there is a fallacy for what you are doing.

poisoning the well

Lack of trust is not a fallacy, it's good practice when talking to someone who makes things up.

gradyll, I provided you with a paper that demonstrates that you can have enantiomer and chiral-specific catalysis. So why you're still claiming it's impossible is beyond me.

Anyway, what 46AND2 said. What about the DNA evidence? I'm sure you've seen some of it because there's an awful, awful lot, but why don't you find it convincing?

 

[46AND2]

do you reject abiogenesis as well?

I neither detect, nor accept abiogenesis. I am agnostic in that regard.

do you reject the development of life?

Of course not. Babies grow to adults all the time.

Because abiogenesis, the development of life, and chemical evolution are synonymous.

No they aren't. That's just silly.

from a non ID non creationistic scientific peer review found here:
Impact
frustration of the origin of life




found by using:

abiogenesis
vs evolution - Google Scholar

 

[46AND2]

I neither detect, nor accept abiogenesis. I am agnostic in that regard.



Of course not. Babies grow to adults all the time.



No they aren't. That's just silly.

Reject, not detect. Darn auto correct.

 

[Black Akuma]

there is a fallacy for what you are doing.

poisoning the well

How is not trusting an untrustworthy person a fallacy?

 

[stevevw]

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.

Well there you go i didn't know that. Seems the article came out in 2011 yet some have used the Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil as proof for evolution. Even so its wings were fully formed and wasn't transitional anyway.

So what does that do to the case for dinos evolving into birds now there are even less transitional fossils. It seems the more that time goes by the more we are seeing some of the big evidences that were held up as proof being refuted.