Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinists Spin ENCODE Findings More Than Even I Thought Possible

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I was certain the Darwinists would spin the ENCODE findings, but even I am stunned at their sheer audacity. In response to my previous post, Critical Rationalist says that the ENCODE findings, which falsify a prediction Darwinists have been making for decades, far from being a crushing defeat for the theory and its proponents is a positively good thing for Darwinists.

CR writes: “all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows . . . Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win win situation, which doesn’t represent a blow to human intellect.”

Then CR makes the outlandish suggestion that ENCODE is somehow a loss for ID. He writes: “[When ID] Merely assum[es] the entire genome ‘should be functional’ [it] does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized.”

CR is wrong on both counts. Yes, Darwinism will survive ENCODE as he suggests, but not because it is the best explanation for the data. It will survive because materialists have hegemonic control of the academy and for them Darwin is quite simply the only game in town. That’s what Dawkins means when he says he would choose Darwinism even if there were no evidence for it.

No, CR, ID proponents did not merely say that the code “should be functional.” They made a testable prediction in the teeth of the overwhelming opposition from Darwinists. They said, “Darwinists are wrong when they say the vast majority of DNA is junk. We predict that function will be found.” And that prediction was confirmed.

Sorry CR. No matter how you try to spin ENCODE, it is a crushing defeat for Darwinism.

Comments
My previous comment is not showing correctly. It was meant to to say: "The latter’s entertaining-to-watch, slow-mo slide into oblivion is going to continue to be a sight to behold. Erm, I just looked in my pantry, and yep. I need more popcorn" LoL! Michael White is defending Junk DNA over at Huffington Post; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....81788.html Note how the cultist's are jumping all over Shapiro..wateron1
September 16, 2012
September
09
Sep
16
16
2012
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
>"The latter’s entertaining-to-watch, slow-mo slide into oblivion is going to continue to be a sight to behold. Erm, I just looked in my pantry, and yep. I need more popcorn." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-white/media-genome-science_b_1881788.html Note how the cultist's are jumping all over Shapiro..wateron1
September 16, 2012
September
09
Sep
16
16
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
PeterJ @ 55:
“Nothing has changed. The ENCODE consortium scientists were wrong in 2007 and they are still wrong—all of them.” Larry Moran Hold on a second, what’s to be ‘wrong’ about? Surely the only confusion is over what is meant by ‘function’? I think Larry has just about thrown in the towel (or may as well).
Interesting, that the wedge which is dividing off, isolating, and setting up the Darwin Death Cult for its inevitable demise, is being driven by practitioners of mainstream science. Who are more interested in following the evidence where it leads than in curve fitting their science to fit the dogma of the cultists. The latter's entertaining-to-watch, slow-mo slide into oblivion is going to continue to be a sight to behold. Erm, I just looked in my pantry, and yep. I need more popcorn.jstanley01
September 16, 2012
September
09
Sep
16
16
2012
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Found this while reading Ewan's thoughts on ENCODE:> http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1688712549144760104&postID=1278276627187001223 (Note; Nick seems very 'worried' about you guys:-Pwateron1
September 15, 2012
September
09
Sep
15
15
2012
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
It let's them think it's the onion that's causing them to weep.Mung
September 13, 2012
September
09
Sep
13
13
2012
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Regarding the Shapiro/ENCODE link, amusing to watch them still banging away with the onion test.wateron1
September 13, 2012
September
09
Sep
13
13
2012
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Hey Tom. Spot on, as usual.Upright BiPed
September 13, 2012
September
09
Sep
13
13
2012
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Anyone who seriously and logically thinks about evolution for more than ten minutes and still believes it is a moron. Sorry for pronouncing that hard truth. And I have found, through long experience, is that it is futile to argue with them. Granted, that is inductive and only gives a probable prediction. So it is possible that there is a committed darwinist out there who will respond to reason and evidence. I just haven't found one yet. In fact, I've pretty much quit looking. p.s. Note to darwinists. The laws of physics explain physics and chemistry. Information (thought) explains biology. If you want to understand biology then continue to unpack the genetic language. I predict that it will be more complex than any human language by orders and orders of magninute. Why can't physics ever explain biology? Because physics can't explain language. It's pretty simple, really.tgpeeler
September 13, 2012
September
09
Sep
13
13
2012
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
James Shapiro weighs in on ENCODE (and Intelligent Design):
Bob Dylan, ENCODE and Evolutionary Theory: The Times They Are A-Changin' - James Shapiro - Sept. 12, 2012 Excerpt: Last week, the ENCODE project (ENCyclopedia Of Dna Elements) released a tremendous amount of new information about our genomes. The results of literally hundreds of millions of experiments using the most current "high throughput" technologies provided the data for over a dozen scientific papers in the journals Nature and Genome Research. The conclusions about organization and expression of the human genome were so significant that they were the topic of a front-page story in The New York Times. The massive collaborative project examined how our genomes are copied into RNA, interact with regulatory proteins, and are compacted in chromatin, which organizes the genome for cellular differentiation. ENCODE examined DNA from dozens of cell types to find out if the results changed in specific ways from one kind of cell to another. Cell type specificity provides a strong indication that the data are biologically relevant. ENCODE described their most striking finding as follows: "One of the more remarkable findings described in the consortium's 'entrée' paper is that 80% of the genome contains elements linked to biochemical functions, dispatching the widely held view that the human genome is mostly 'junk DNA'. The authors report that the space between genes is filled with enhancers (regulatory DNA elements), promoters (the sites at which DNA's transcription into RNA is initiated) and numerous previously overlooked regions that encode RNA transcripts that are not translated into proteins but might have regulatory roles. Of note, these results show that many DNA variants previously correlated with certain diseases lie within or very near non-coding functional DNA elements, providing new leads for linking genetic variation and disease." In other words, the old idea of the genome as a string of genes interspersed with unimportant noncoding DNA is no longer tenable. Many eminent scientists had opined that the noncoding DNA, much of it repeated at many different locations, is nothing more than "junk DNA." ENCODE revealed that most (and probably just about all) of this noncoding and repetitive DNA contained essential regulatory information. Moreover, much of it was also copied into RNA with additional but still unknown functions. I had a longstanding, personal interest in the repetitive part of our genomes (up to as much as two-thirds of all our DNA) because it is composed of mobile genetic elements. I first discovered these elements in bacteria in my thesis research in 1968. I remember being scientifically offended by a 1980 article from Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel describing this DNA as "selfish" and functionless. My interest in the roles of repetitive and mobile DNA has continued since my thesis more than four decades ago. The initial sequencing of the human genome in 2001 found over 40% to be mobile repeats spread throughout our genomes, thirty times more than protein-coding DNA. In 2005, I published two articles on the functional importance of repetitive DNA with Rick von Sternberg. The major article was entitled "Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function." These articles with Rick are important to me (and to this blog) for two reasons. The first is that shortly after we submitted them, Rick became a momentary celebrity of the Intelligent Design movement. Critics have taken my co-authorship with Rick as an excuse for "guilt-by-association" claims that I have some ID or Creationist agenda, an allegation with no basis in anything I have written. The second reason the two articles with Rick are important is because they were, frankly, prescient, anticipating the recent ENCODE results. Our basic idea was that the genome is a highly sophisticated information storage organelle. Just like electronic data storage devices, the genome must be highly formatted by generic (i.e. repeated) signals that make it possible to access the stored information when and where it will be useful. "ABSTRACT: There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function. Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells. Repetitive DNA sequence elements are also fundamental to the cooperative molecular interactions forming nucleoprotein complexes. Here, we review the surprising abundance of repetitive DNA in many genomes, describe its structural diversity, and discuss dozens of cases where the functional importance of repetitive elements has been studied in molecular detail. In particular, the fact that repeat elements serve either as initiators or boundaries for heterochromatin domains and provide a significant fraction of scaffolding/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) suggests that the repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring. Employing an information science model, the 'functionalist ' perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation. These ideas may facilitate the interpretation of comparisons between sequenced genomes, where the repetitive DNA component is often greater than the coding sequence component." Although we could not predict in detail all the ways repeated DNA would serve genome functions, I think our statements stand up well in light of the recent data. Without knowing the specifics, we were correct in asserting that the genome had to be highly formatted to serve as the marvelous information organelle it is in every living cell and organism. So, while Rick's choice of evolutionary philosophies is different from mine, I am grateful to him for doing so much work on a paper that remains a source of justified scientific pride. Thinking of the genome informatically and of mobile DNA as a potent force for genome organization are central to the arguments presented on this blog and in my book. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html
bornagain77
September 13, 2012
September
09
Sep
13
13
2012
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Ummm darwinists pushed junk DNA because they thought it refutes ID- "no designer would put junk dna in us" stupid strawman. That said ID does not say anything about it because we have no idea what tolerance our genomes have for junk. Not only that no one said the design had to be perfect nor that if it started out perfect that it had to remain that way. With that in mind there is a function that we are not even considering- that of just holding software. Ya see we know we cannot put more data on a disk than the disk can hold. But darwinists don't ever consider software so they never consider that possibility. Then there are future functions that also need to be considered...Joe
September 13, 2012
September
09
Sep
13
13
2012
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
“Nothing has changed. The ENCODE consortium scientists were wrong in 2007 and they are still wrong—all of them.” Larry Moran Hold on a second, what's to be 'wrong' about? Surely the only confusion is over what is meant by 'function'? I think Larry has just about thrown in the towel (or may as well).PeterJ
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
For years ID proponents have been saying junk DNA is wrong. Darwinists have been pushing it. It turns out the ID proponents were correct Actually, no, as people have repeatedly made clear to you, ENCODE doesn't do away with the idea of junk DNA. I'm still waiting to here someone make a defence of ENCODE's 80% given that it includes every nucleotide of every intron...wd400
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
For years ID proponents have been saying junk DNA is wrong. Darwinists have been pushing it. It turns out the ID proponents were correct Actually, no, as people have repeatedly made clear to you, ENCODE doesn't do away with the idea of junk DNA. I'm still waiting to here someone make a defence of ENCODE's 80% given that it includes every nucleotide of every intron...wd400
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington, I like you but I think it's necessary to point out that I'm an ID proponent (I was the guy who wrote the front-loading articles for UD's ID foundations series), although I don't go along with a lot of what the mainstream ID community says. Having said that, I am genuinely interested as to whether or not ID predicts that most of the onion genome will turn out to be functional. Thoughts?Genomicus
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Genomicus, it is quite understandable that you want to change the subject after suffering such a massive defeat. But we decline to oblige you. The record is as plain as day. For years ID proponents have been saying junk DNA is wrong. Darwinists have been pushing it. It turns out the ID proponents were correct and the Darwinists were wrong. Now Darwinists say, “let’s talk about something else.” Why don’t you just admit you were wrong?Barry Arrington
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
This is an interesting bit of research, but I've got an issue with the claim made by many ID proponents that these results were predicted by ID. For example, Casey Luskin says:
We will have more to say about this blockbuster paper from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let's simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called "junk" DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like "surprising" or "unprecedented." They talk about of how "human DNA is a lot more active than we expected." But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted.
Does this mean that ID also predicts that most of the onion genome will have function?Genomicus
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
That exchange on reddit was amusing. I think one of the researchers made a good point when he stated that it can't be known that something is nonfunctional until it is tested. That is the material point - assuming nonfunction a priori is just plain stupid. When we don't know what something does, we should just test it and leave our assumptions at the door. It's not even a natural assumption to make given what we know about the workings of biological systems. The only real reason why people are fighting ENCODE so much is that it undercuts a favorite anti-design argument, namely junk DNA. There's an interesting pattern displayed by Darwin defenders: criticize some organ or biological system (appendix, eye, DNA, etc.), more research is done, criticize research ferociously or pretend that initial criticisms were never made, repeat as needed.Optimus
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
I wonder if that evidence would qualify as information. One hopes it can be stored and even transmitted. And one can surely assume that even Larry Moran himself believes that it ought to have some discernible effect.Mung
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
@ REX Or this: "I would never, ever, try to misrepresent science in order to strengthen the argument against creationism" Larry Moran Yet that is exactly what he seems to be doing. And: "I will fight that by continuing to present evidence that junk DNA exists and that our genome is mostly junk." Larry Moran Double WOW!wateron1
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
From the above-linked Sandwalk post: "Nothing has changed. The ENCODE consortium scientists were wrong in 2007 and they are still wrong—all of them." Larry Moran WOW!! is rightRexTugwell
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
More to add to the collection > http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/encodejunk-dna-fiasco-idiots-dont-like.html WOW!!wateron1
September 12, 2012
September
09
Sep
12
12
2012
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
But the problems are much deeper than that, as listed previously the new study found:
Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8
Thus these new studies strongly suggest that nobody really has a clue what the fundamental unit of inheritance is anymore. If Larry and you pretend like this is no big surprise to the entire Darwinian framework all I can say is dream on buddy, that is devastating!!! But actually this 'overthrow of the gene as the fundamental unit of inheritance' has been building for some time now:
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4187488 “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888340
As well, as was pointed out to Dr. Moran by the ENCODE researcher who goes by the handle 'rule_30', ENCODE has revealed a 'hierarchy of information' in the genome that goes far beyond mere genetic text. A good glimpse of that hierarchy is here:
Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905048
as to the 'pervasive overlapping transcription' mentioned in the ENCODE studies, well that presents its own unique set of problems for neo-Darwinism that are insurmountable:
Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ
further note:
Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/
bornagain77
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
wd400 said:
You’re quoting news reports.
and ignored that I listed this paper:
Concluding statement of the ENCODE study 2007 on page 20: “we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome.” https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4-lEzTYXwNEJ:archive-ouverte.unige.ch/vital/access/services/Download/unige:9143/ATTACHMENT01+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESga9Xv_vCtMcV76qmnEUkoQF9cLrp8qApPeJHS_Zt3_XwqtGkThaBMnSO8gGqtL7xKEJEzXV0K5JEAVaO0t_Di6XVecqQsbZI7ueq5b1Uor6OfGAdA-hFLD2ExSuHBVv2Lvdozh&sig=AHIEtbT4mW8FXJXQvXsM0eJyVU4bug_bOQ
bornagain77
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
CR @38: You have a valid question and perhaps I can provide my perspective in the following terms. I have stated elsewhere on this forum, and will repeat now, that both materialistic evolution and design can admit to some amount of functional and some amount of non-functional DNA. Thus, the issue is not one of absolute "all functional" or "all non-functional," and no deductive proof can result from whatever percentage the evidence ultimately supports. However, it is not the case that we are just talking about a minor quibble over a couple of percentage points. Evolutionists have loudly and publicly proclaimed for years that the vast majority of DNA is nonfunctional (historically stated as something around 90%+; now some are backpedaling to maybe 80% or even two-thirds). In direct contrast, several prominent IDists have stated publicly that they expect much and perhaps the majority of DNA to be functional. Again, this is not driven by deduction from the principles of the theories; but it highlights very starkly the near opposite expectations arising from the two theories. We are now beginning to glimpse a bit more clearly which theory provided the most accurate expectations for understanding DNA. Having some occasional exposure to computer systems design, I have publicly stated on this forum that I do not expect more than 10% to be non-functional (note this is essentially diametrically opposed to the figure typically put forward by evolutionists). Other ID proponents may not be so bold and might hedge for a higher percentage of non-functionality, but as a group will typically still expect a much higher percentage of functionality than their materialist-minded friends. I have outlined my reasons in some detail previously and won't bore you with the details again, but in short it has to do with our understanding of how highly-integrated functional systems operate. Additionally, there are a couple of reasons the discussion merits attention: (i) prominent evolutionists have long proclaimed (and several notable personalities continue to proclaim) in the most juvenile and disparaging way possible that the existence of large amounts of junk DNA is proof against design (which it isn't, but it is used as a bully pulpit to disparage design and attempt to take the rhetorical advantage); (ii) design theorists have proposed that a much larger percentage of DNA will ultimately prove to be functional than was claimed by the evolutionists. So finding a bit more functional DNA here and there is not definitive proof against materialistic evolution or proof of design. No particular piece of DNA is going to settle the question. But the overall trajectory of the evidence is quite telling and it is important because (i) it demonstrates the inadequacy of the evolutionary expectation proclaimed by many notable evolutionary personalities; (ii) it puts the lie to their silly "proof" against design; and (iii) it demonstrates that a design perspective can yield insights and expectations that have long been missing in a paradigm that refuses to consider any possibility of intelligent involvement in the history of life. Is it a knock-down, deductive proof? Of course not. It is the overall trajectory of the evidence that supports the design perspective and should make thoughtful observers sit up and take notice.Eric Anderson
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
You touch the pretty little letters on a keyboard and giggle when those same letters magically appear on the screen?
Stretches credulity, doesn't it? I bet the concept of bioinformatics is completely foreign as well. I wonder where Dr. Moran's results get published, and how and why? I'm sure he thinks that's just as magical. And then I wonder how it is that what Dr. Moran publishes becomes available to other scientists to access and use.
In the 1980's my lab cloned and sequenced several members of the HSP70 multigene family from Drosophila, mouse and yeast cells. We have combined these sequences with hundreds of other HSP70 sequences to create an HSP70 Sequence Database. By aligning these sequences we are able to construct phylogenetic trees that reveal the deepest relationships of all living species.
There's no recorded information in that there database!Mung
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
BA, You're quoting news reports. News reports almost always over play the novelty of "new results". It appears to be a particular problem in molecualr biology/biochemesitry because those fields seems to have very little respect for their on history (though Larry may have more to say on that)wd400
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
I’m still unclear why this ID makes this particular prediction or why it relevant either way.
We agree on something. However the point is that some evos were using the existence of junk DNA as evidence against ID and it ain't.Joe
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
I'm still unclear why this ID makes this particular prediction or why it relevant either way. Surely, you're not suggesting an abstract designer with no defined limitations couldn't make nonfunctional DNA? Are you? Having no defined limitations, it wouldn't need to make all genes functional. And, we as designers, do not make everything functional either. Furthermore, observations are neutral until you have an explanatory theory by which to extrapolate them. OPERA's "observations" of faster than light neutrinos are just one such example. So, what we're looking for is an *explanatory theory* as to why the genome is the way it is. It's unclear how "abstract designer with no defined limitations must have wanted it that way" is a good explanation, for reasons I've pointed out.critical rationalist
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
as to:
The idea of pervasive transcription itself is a surprise for the evolutionary story.
to which Dr. Moran states:
That’s an untrue statement, otherwise known as a lie.
and yet:
A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle: - 2007 "The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/?page=1 Encyclopedia Of DNA: New Findings Challenge Established Views On Human Genome: The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613131932.htm Concluding statement of the ENCODE study 2007: "we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more 'neutral' view of many of the functions conferred by the genome." http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams Excerpt: Not only has the ENCODE project elevated UTRs out of the ‘junk’ category, but it now appears that they are far more active than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf
Larry you state:
It’s not nice to lie no matter who you do it for.
And please tell me exactly where you have derived this moral virtue from???:
Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPc At Emory University, Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality - Richard Weikart - May 10, 2012 Excerpt: If Emory University (biology) professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this). However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against "benighted" anti-evolutionists, but against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/at_emory_univer_1059491.html Hitler & Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-30T15_33_04-08_00 The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes - video http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/Impact_Of_Darwinism_On_Society.html
bornagain77
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Larry Moran, 09/11/2012: “It’s not nice to lie no matter who you do it for.” Larry Moran, 10/16/2011:
Yes, in a sense I am “afraid” to debate the issue raised by Upright BiPed. When he/she/it said …
These observations establish that the entailed objects (and dynamic relationships) exist the same in the translation of genetic information as they do in any other type of recorded information (in every example from human language, to computer and machine code, to a bee’s dance).
… that goes well outside of my area of expertise. I don’t know anything about how the word “information” is used in human language and in computer code. I know that most IDiots are expects in almost everything so they are completely fearless about plunging into debates on all kinds of topics. Scientists like me, however, are much less intelligent. We tend to be experts on only a few things and we try to avoid pretending otherwise. I guess that means I’m a coward.
You "don’t know anything about" how the word “information” is used in human language? You touch the pretty little letters on a keyboard and giggle when those same letters magically appear on the screen? Bullshit…er…lie.Upright BiPed
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply