What about the DNA evidence?

[mzungu]

I find it curious as to how someone can believe in verbal plenary inspiration while at the same time accepting evolution.

does that mean your view of inspiration of the Bible has suffered since you adopted this theory of evolution?

The only people who have a problem with science are the ones who subscribe to a literal translation of the Bible and hold it as a textbook above any science textbook when science is found to conflict with the Bible. Other Christians (the majority) subscribe to the bible as a spiritual guide and thus find no conflict with science.

 

[mzungu]

Intelligent Design

There is as much science in ID as there is in cartoon physics. Who are you kidding? ID is another name for creationism and creationism is based purely on genesis. Where on earth do you see science in genesis is beyond me.

You really have no idea as to what science is let alone how it works!

 

[stevevw]

One of ENCODE's criteria for having a "function" was the DNA playing a structural role in the chromosome. This pretty much means that if the DNA is part of a fixed structural domain, regardless of its sequence, it has "function". This is defining function into existence and one of the reasons ENCODE is so controversial.

Well i know this maybe old news but i am just discovering some of these things as i haven't really been interested in genetics. Just the average Joe blow out there who is like me don't know of such things. What i have learned if i spoke to some of the people i know they would not understand even the basics of genetics. You have probably been involved for years so you will have greater knowledge.

There are a lot more people who dont know then do and most dont want to even bother. Thats why i say if you want to discuss genetics properly then you need to have studied it as it is fairly complicated. You can rely on the experts but you have to check it out and see if what they say holds up.

I try to get a basic understanding then get to know individual aspects. I am interested as i believe this is the best way to really find the evidence one way or the other.

 

[mzungu]

Well i know this maybe old news but i am just discovering some of these things as i haven't really been interested in genetics. Just the average Joe blow out there who is like me don't know of such things. What i have learned if i spoke to some of the people i know they would not understand even the basics of genetics. You have probably been involved for years so you will have greater knowledge.

There are a lot more people who dont know then do and most dont want to even bother. Thats why i say if you want to discuss genetics properly then you need to have studied it as it is fairly complicated. You can rely on the experts but you have to check it out and see if what they say holds up.

I try to get a basic understanding then get to know individual aspects. I am interested as i believe this is the best way to really find the evidence one way or the other.

If you are not qualified in genetics then how can you check the work of the professionals? Trust me when I say that in science there is a thing called peer review; whereby scientists of the same field review the work of their colleagues and pass judgement. This system in science is what keeps science from being infected with pseudo-scientific works and all manner of supernatural beliefs.

Scientists indeed do make mistakes but they learn from them just as you learnt to walk by falling. Every time we learn we increase our knowledge and as knowledge grows we understand more but in an exponential way.

What we learn in 1 year today, took centuries before. This my good friend is what science is all about. Oh and by the way; it demands a lot of hard work too.

 

[sfs]

I find it curious as to how someone can believe in verbal plenary inspiration while at the same time accepting evolution.

Since I don't believe in verbal plenary inspiration, you'll have to ask someone else. To me it seems a bizarre idea.

does that mean your view of inspiration of the Bible has suffered since you adopted this theory of evolution?

No, my view of the inspiration of the Bible is rooted in studying the Bible, literature and classical and ancient Near East culture. It simply means that the Bible isn't even an issue when evolution comes up. There are people who believe in verbal plenary inspiration and still accept evolution.

 

[Black Akuma]

lying and untrustworthy are separate things,

this is non sequitur fallacy

No, it's not.

 

[createdtoworship]

Since I don't believe in verbal plenary inspiration, you'll have to ask someone else. To me it seems a bizarre idea.


No, my view of the inspiration of the Bible is rooted in studying the Bible, literature and classical and ancient Near East culture. It simply means that the Bible isn't even an issue when evolution comes up. There are people who believe in verbal plenary inspiration and still accept evolution.

how does one believe in verbal plenary inspiration and not believe in genesis literal creation?

 

[mzungu]

how does one believe in verbal plenary inspiration and not believe in genesis literal creation?

Simple; genesis is a supernatural event that has nothing to do with the reality of the physical world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Simple; genesis is a supernatural event that has nothing to do with the reality of the physical world.

Does that include the Abrahamic Covenant, which makes Israel the "Promised Land"?

 

[sfs]

how does one believe in verbal plenary inspiration and not believe in genesis literal creation?

You would be better off asking those who believe it. Start by treating Adam and Eve as historical figures who were not the only members of Homo sapiens (or whatever species) present at the time, and treat Genesis 1 as describing something other than the chronology of creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm just wondering why they say 80% has some function or activity.

They defined function as anything that changed the biochemistry of the cell which is a wide open definition. It is so wide open that the trash in your trash can would qualify as having function since it changes the biochemistry in the air. Real junk would qualify as functional using ENCODE's definition.

Examples of DNA with "function" include short sections of DNA that are transcribed into extremely low copy mRNA's. They never took the time to see what those mRNA's did nor did they show that the mRNA's produce proteins, and their existence can easily be attributed to leaky mRNA transcription.

I can appropriate that only a very small amount of the gnome is associated with how proteins are made within our cells. And that some or a lot of the 80% may just be a copying process but there maybe more that is associated with important connections to that process and are vital.

I think it is worth stressing that the 80% of the genome they talk about, they never actually found how that DNA affects fitness, if at all.

I just suspect that as we find out more we will see that it is more complicated than we think.

At the same time, I would encourage you to not ignore what we have found.

 

[stevevw]

If you are not qualified in genetics then how can you check the work of the professionals? Trust me when I say that in science there is a thing called peer review; whereby scientists of the same field review the work of their colleagues and pass judgement. This system in science is what keeps science from being infected with pseudo-scientific works and all manner of supernatural beliefs.

I have to go to many sites and compare. If i want to know about how it works i will go to the science sites which are more technical where they will have breakdowns of the particular topic. But then it can start to go over my head and i take in as much as i can. Then i try to find sites that can explain it in everyday language though they may not go into as much detail and you have to be careful with personal opinions. Some say to only have peer reviewed backup but i have seen many different references qualities. Its hard when there is a mixer of knowledge levels and no real criteria for what is acceptable backup or not laid down in black and white.

I will also look at the religious sites to get their point of view. Its hard for someone who hasn't had training as they will not know what they are looking for. But you begin to understand better as you go if you are willing to learn and spend some time doing research. But if you dont have that level of knowledge required in genetics then its hard. Still i like to debate it as i can throw things out there and see what others say.

Scientists indeed do make mistakes but they learn from them just as you learnt to walk by falling. Every time we learn we increase our knowledge and as knowledge grows we understand more but in an exponential way.

Mistakes are made in all walks of life. But if you want to find out about something then you go to the ones that know. This doesn't mean they will make mistakes sometimes and you shouldn't put them on to high a pedestal and take everything they say as gospel. You have to get opposing views to test and see if what they say is correct. Sometimes peoples personal views can get in the way.

What we learn in 1 year today, took centuries before. This my good friend is what science is all about. Oh and by the way; it demands a lot of hard work too.

I agree i was only saying this to my daughter. Now we are getting closer and closer to the core of things. When you consider the knowledge and tech we have even from 30 years ago. Computers is a good example. That is why i am interested in things like the experiments with the large hadron collider and higgs boson and the mars rover missions and now genetics.

We seem to be getting close to some big discoveries or it seems like that to me. Someone in the field would probably think it was just another step. But we have gone from having a fundamental understanding to now looking into the fine detail in a short time. I think we may see some big discoveries in the next few years.

 

[createdtoworship]

You would be better off asking those who believe it. Start by treating Adam and Eve as historical figures who were not the only members of Homo sapiens (or whatever species) present at the time, and treat Genesis 1 as describing something other than the chronology of creation.

well I am just commenting on your quote that there are others that view verbal plenary inspiration while adhering to evolution. I have not met one. Have you?

 

[Michael]

They defined function as anything that changed the biochemistry of the cell which is a wide open definition. It is so wide open that the trash in your trash can would qualify as having function since it changes the biochemistry in the air. Real junk would qualify as functional using ENCODE's definition.

GRRR! You *still* haven't even attempted to explain why humans are born with very distinct personalities right from the start! Until you do, please cease and desist calling various DNA strands "junk" DNA. It may very well serve a specific function related to personality, food digestive issues, specific reactions to viruses, etc. You have no right to claim that 80 percent of DNA is "junk" DNA. That's just insulting until and unless you address the *personality* issues!

 

[Loudmouth]

GRRR! You *still* haven't even attempted to explain why humans are born with very distinct personalities right from the start!

So you are saying that the odor molecules coming from the trash can are responsible for a humans distinct personality?

Until you do, please cease and desist calling various DNA strands "junk" DNA.

I will keep pointing to the evidence which supports a lack of function for junk DNA. When you have evidence otherwise, please post it. It seems that you don't want to follow the evidence.

 

[sfs]

well I am just commenting on your quote that there are others that view verbal plenary inspiration while adhering to evolution. I have not met one. Have you?

And I'm just telling you that I'm not a very good source of information on this subject. I've met people with quite strict ideas about Biblical inspiration who accept evolution, though whether they'd use the term "verbal plenary inspiration" I don't know.

You might try reading B.B. Warfield on the subject. He was a staunch inerrantist, and was at least open to the possibility of evolution.

 

[sfs]

GRRR! You *still* haven't even attempted to explain why humans are born with very distinct personalities right from the start! Until you do, please cease and desist calling various DNA strands "junk" DNA. It may very well serve a specific function related to personality, food digestive issues, specific reactions to viruses, etc. You have no right to claim that 80 percent of DNA is "junk" DNA. That's just insulting until and unless you address the *personality* issues!

Huh? We have evidence that much of the genome is nonfunctional (for normal meanings of "functional"). We also know that much that makes each person unique is genetic, and where we have identified the source, it has been in the functional genome. There's no reason at all to think that explaining human variation requires assigning function to junk DNA. What do the two things have to do with one another?

 

[Michael]

Huh? We have evidence that much of the genome is nonfunctional (for normal meanings of "functional").

"Functional" in *what specific way*? I have no idea how you could rule out every *possible* function they might serve.

We also know that much that makes each person unique is genetic, and where we have identified the source, it has been in the functional genome. There's no reason at all to think that explaining human variation requires assigning function to junk DNA. What do the two things have to do with one another?

Until we can *fully* explain all the subtle variation in human behavior and personality at birth, we can't really be sure what those 'unexplained' areas of DNA actually do. It's just an *assumption* that they have *no function at all*. The term "junk" seems highly inappropriate IMO.

 

[Michael]

So you are saying that the odor molecules coming from the trash can are responsible for a humans distinct personality?

Why do you trivialize things like that? I'm saying that we can't fully explain all the subtle variations in human behavior and attitudes at birth, so you have no idea if that DNA actually serves no purpose.

I will keep pointing to the evidence which supports a lack of function for junk DNA. When you have evidence otherwise, please post it. It seems that you don't want to follow the evidence.

All you can hope to point me to are the studies that identified various traits that are associated with various DNA strands. What you won't be able to show me is any study that clearly demonstrates that none of the rest of the DNA has any value or use.

Like I said, a lot about human attitudes and behaviors at birth cannot and have not yet been explained. It's way too early IMO to simply 'rule out' some useful purpose in that 80 percent of the DNA that we really don't understand very well.

 

[sfs]

"Functional" in *what specific way*? I have no idea how you could rule out every *possible* function they might serve.

#554.

Until we can *fully* explain all the subtle variation in human behavior and personality at birth, we can't really be sure what those 'unexplained' areas of DNA actually do. It's just an *assumption* that they have *no function at all*. The term "junk" seems highly inappropriate IMO.

It's not an assumption; it's a conclusion.