tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post244704348741260750..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Darwinist Larry Moran: "[ENCODE] is going to make my life very complicated." mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-85283400265010150062012-11-07T02:18:05.415-05:002012-11-07T02:18:05.415-05:00The junk doesn't do that. That's why it...The junk doesn't do that. That's why it's junk.<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-91308774087034056362012-11-06T17:19:11.501-05:002012-11-06T17:19:11.501-05:00CrusadeRex,
I'm still waiting for a response ...CrusadeRex,<br /><br />I'm still waiting for a response from Michael. If you have an iPad, then you can look at the ENCODE app for yourself and make up your own mind.<br /><br />Criticism of evolution is a bit much, coming from a creationist. Intelligent Design could be anything. The ID film 'Darwin's Dilemma' (about the Cambrian 'explosion' - actually radiation - 540 MYA) was produced by Paul Nelson (a YEC - how's that for cognitive dissonance?) and Stephen Meyers.<br /><br />You're an idiot. Paley didn't propose an evolutionary theory. 'Natural Theology' was published in 1802. At that time, it was assumed that no species had gone extinct. Fossils of animals not known to exist in living form indicated that they were still alive in unexplored regions. For example, one of Clarke and Lewis' assignments was to look for living mastodons in the course of their explorations. It was all based on the erroneous idea that 'God wouldn't allow species he created to go extinct' (I'm actually quoting myself).<br /><br />And Darwinism is science. Evidence based.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33999165951312823672012-11-06T10:54:56.103-05:002012-11-06T10:54:56.103-05:00Bach,
You know as well as I that Paleyism and Dar...Bach, <br />You know as well as I that Paleyism and Darwinism are both evolutionary theories. They simply draw different conclusions in terms of WHY. Paleyism admits there must be a WHY (and validates inquiry) and Darwinism relies on purely random forces and proposes a scientific foundation for nihilism. It is a philosophical argument using historical data in scientific drag.<br />We both KNOW that, even if we don't both acknowledged it. <br /><b>Evolution is a term used by BOTH sides.</b> It is a latin based word meaning the unfolding. It was used in the medical field LONG before it was co-opted by the Darwinian sects. <br /><br />Any mention of Darwinism or the lack of meaning to the universe in your APP? <br />Maybe it was written by a new age advocate of galactic pan-spermia, for all we know? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-23013664321505716922012-11-06T10:43:58.467-05:002012-11-06T10:43:58.467-05:00Okay so I have read the paper.
What exactly was I...Okay so I have read the paper. <br />What exactly was I supposed to take away from it? <br />Here is what I got: If we assume the 'junk' DNA is what the author assumes it is (he is an expert, after all) then it is far more likely for the genome to degenerate (devolve) than it would be for it to mutate in a positive way thus creating a new species or whatever. <br />Further this argument seems to suggest that the 'junk' is important for 'doing nothing'. A kind of space holder for new genes that may be required by the teleological force of evolution. It KNOWS it needs more space, because it.... well because it does. <br />Fascinating stuff, but I wonder if the scientist's <i>déformation professionnelle</i> prevents him from seeing the implications of some of his assumptions? Or if he simply prefers to leave that to the philosophers? <br />I don't see any refutation of the ENCODE data, or anything that counters Dr Egnor's argument. <br />Perhaps I am missing something? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57844774512646623852012-11-06T10:35:37.382-05:002012-11-06T10:35:37.382-05:00Ah,
You're in a high orbit.Ah,<br />You're in a high orbit. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-30840432874336463522012-11-06T07:46:32.355-05:002012-11-06T07:46:32.355-05:00Boo,
The genome has the job of making a full orga...Boo,<br /><br />The genome has the job of making a full organism from a zygote. It would be a "miracle" if junk could do that!<br />Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-89206361068046163422012-11-06T07:19:43.232-05:002012-11-06T07:19:43.232-05:00I live 9000 km from Pyongyang. Try again.
LOLI live 9000 km from Pyongyang. Try again.<br />LOLcursadeSEXnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63918151242345726382012-11-05T19:54:21.981-05:002012-11-05T19:54:21.981-05:00Pepe- just saying all that doesn't actually ma...Pepe- just saying all that doesn't actually make it true. We already know what a lot of junk DNA is, and it is in fact junk. ERV fragments are junk. Psuedogenes are junk. The telomeres in the center of the human chromosome #2, leftover from when two seperate chromosomes fused in our primate ancestors, are junk. I'm sure people who know the science better than I do could come up with more examples.<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2343325851562734202012-11-05T19:01:45.197-05:002012-11-05T19:01:45.197-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39689605464991993092012-11-05T18:32:46.516-05:002012-11-05T18:32:46.516-05:00This is really funny stuff. We can now add junk D...This is really funny stuff. We can now add junk DNA to the long and ever-growing list of things that Egnor thinks he understands but doesn't: constitutional interpretation, quantum physics, separation of church and state, evolution, ...<br /><br />How did hel ever become a brain surgeon? I wouldn't trust him anywhere near me with a scalpel.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75667016170929105922012-11-05T17:22:28.407-05:002012-11-05T17:22:28.407-05:00Michael,
You still refuse to 'predict' th...Michael,<br /><br />You still refuse to 'predict' the maximum amount of non-functional DNA in the human genome that's consistent with your assertion that almost all of the human genome has a function.<br /><br />As an aside, there's an iPad app for ENCODE. Just go to the Apps store, and type encode nature into the search box. It includes a lot of discussion from the authors, and no, 'Paleyism' (sorry Intelligent Design) isn't mentioned at all, although 'evolution' is mentioned often.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51188845184121559022012-11-05T15:59:29.428-05:002012-11-05T15:59:29.428-05:00How is Pyongyang this time of year?
LOLHow is Pyongyang this time of year? <br />LOLAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84776133900577582812012-11-05T15:58:22.901-05:002012-11-05T15:58:22.901-05:00Pépé,
Well put, mate.
Let's hope that now the...Pépé,<br />Well put, mate. <br />Let's hope that now they have released the ENCODE data that some of the more open minded scientists can try to understand the function and relation of the 'junk'. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87407057556594863502012-11-05T15:56:01.894-05:002012-11-05T15:56:01.894-05:00I'm so happy I live in a country where nobody ...I'm so happy I live in a country where nobody cares about creationism (sorry, "intelligent design").Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43784012399332785392012-11-05T15:53:11.501-05:002012-11-05T15:53:11.501-05:00I will, no worries there.
I am having lunch right...I will, no worries there. <br />I am having lunch right now. I will get at it when I get home. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79779522793858845262012-11-05T15:47:33.884-05:002012-11-05T15:47:33.884-05:00The mapping of the human genome is similar to the ...The mapping of the human genome is similar to the memory dump of a computer program. Biologists, who are not trained in Information Technologies, could recognize some of the code, the portion that produces proteins, but the rest, because they could not see any usefulness to it, they labeled as junk.<br /><br />This is like looking at the memory dump of Microsoft's Words program. If you don't know any better, you will be able to recognize some letters and digits, the stuff you have typed and the program's help statements, but the rest will look like garbage to you and you will say it's junk. Evidently, you would be seriously mistaken.<br /><br />This is exactly what Darwinists have done with the human genome!<br />Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66701514702560181682012-11-05T15:42:21.551-05:002012-11-05T15:42:21.551-05:00Anon,
I will read the paper this afternoon when I...Anon, <br />I will read the paper this afternoon when I get a few minutes free. <br /><br />Troy, <br />Once something meaningful is posted, I will respond. <br />So far..... <br />Accusations of stupidity, dishonesty and invective? <br />Sorry, too busy today. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-3659739305378490582012-11-05T14:23:40.411-05:002012-11-05T14:23:40.411-05:00If you want a more detailed polemic from someone i...<i>If you want a more detailed polemic from someone in the field of hard sciences, simply reread the Doctor's post and his above response.</i><br /><br />So now Egnor is in the field of hard sciences, huh? <br /><br />Egnor may know a thing or two about hydrocephalus but he knows diddly squat about the fields he likes to criticize because they offend his childish beliefs in fairy tales: evolutionary biology and climate science. <br /><br />I bet he (and you for that matter) hasn't read a single one of the Encode papers, nor the Ohno paper. If you had, and if you understood them, you would realize that Moran's critique is spot on. The human genome is riddled with junk. <br /><br />If you understood something about transposons and different levels of selection, it would be easy to see why transposons can multiply and clutter genomes, especially in species with relatively small effective population sizes. See Michael Lynch' excellent book "The Origins of Genome Architecture" if you're really interested - but I know you aren't since you only read what you expect to reinforce your beliefs.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13458422661090142262012-11-05T13:30:38.422-05:002012-11-05T13:30:38.422-05:00CrusadeREX- Junk DNA that is transcribed is still ...CrusadeREX- Junk DNA that is transcribed is still junk. The prediction was not disproven. Sorry, I have nothing to cry about. Read the actual paper. I double dog dare you.<br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27758768543424496172012-11-05T11:54:47.508-05:002012-11-05T11:54:47.508-05:00Before spewing this nonsense, the two of you shoul...Before spewing this nonsense, the two of you should read Ohno's original paper, <a href="http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html" rel="nofollow">So much "junk" DNA in our genome</a>. <br /><br />And crus, ENCODE findings don't hint "at some sort of <b>essential</b> function." They found that DNA elements are transcribed, but most of them don't have any useful function. In fact, we know for certain that certain portions of the DNA are senseless repeats and also that a substantial portion of the DNA can be removed without causing any problems for the organisms. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55822425376448679112012-11-05T11:47:16.339-05:002012-11-05T11:47:16.339-05:00Anon,
We ALL now have a nagging feeling the arch ...Anon, <br />We ALL now have a nagging feeling the arch bishops of nihilism simply don't know what they're are talking about. <br />The prediction was junk DNA makes up most of our genome. They were incorrect. <br />The genetic 'archaeology' that is the ENCODE project has proved the Darwinian version incorrect - while hinting at some sort of essential function for this 'junk'. <br />Again, that does not prove anything, but it does DISPROVE something: Junk DNA was a lousy argument. <br />Further it proves the 'censors' (as Dr Egnor calls them) are more interested in preserving their intellectual dogma than looking for real answers.<br />That will have to suffice, as that is all there is! <br /><br />If you want a more detailed polemic from someone in the field of hard sciences, simply reread the Doctor's post and his above response. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75531085795872165212012-11-05T11:11:51.433-05:002012-11-05T11:11:51.433-05:00I agree with crus. The ENCODE data doesn't &qu...I agree with crus. The ENCODE data doesn't "disprove" or "prove" anything. We ID folks are more modest and responsible than that.<br /><br />What ENCODE does is three things:<br /><br />1) It debunks a major prediction of Darwinism-- junk DNA was used as evidence for Darwinism for decades. So sorry...<br /><br />2) It is evidence that many mainstream scientists are willing to defy Darwinian orthodoxy. The Darwinist censors are pissed about this (eg Moran). The ENCODE scientists-- the best in their field-- just gave the Darwinists the middle finger. They're not going to lie for them anymore.<br /><br />3) The junk DNA hypothesis impeded molecular genetic research for decades. Darwinism was a major science-stopper. megnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45001819166300289722012-11-05T10:56:55.201-05:002012-11-05T10:56:55.201-05:00crusader,
Could you be a little bit more specifi...crusader, <br /><br />Could you be a little bit more specific and state what exactly that "Darwinian prediction" was? I have a nagging feeling that you simply don't know what you are talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-47156062625422507522012-11-05T10:42:15.410-05:002012-11-05T10:42:15.410-05:00Boo,
You seem to miss the point, just as the oth...Boo, <br /><br />You seem to miss the point, just as the others have. This is not a proof of ID or any other theory / idea. Some would say ID predicted this, but that is hardly a proof in itself. <br />Rather, this is a blow to the people who have been attempting to prove their own historical science via the 'junk dna' hypothesis. <br />I do not see a proof, I see a DISPROOF. <br />This does not mean the ID people or creationists are proven correct, it just means that the mouthpieces of the Darwinian and Atheist movements have been grossly incorrect in their assumptions on the SCIENCE of the matter. <br />It means the ID prediction was closer than the Darwinian prediction. <br />Spin it all you want - 'thems the breaks'.<br />Boo hoo? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76810305396939149402012-11-05T10:19:47.962-05:002012-11-05T10:19:47.962-05:00Transcription is not what the ID movement means by...Transcription is not what the ID movement means by "functional." Once you understand that, you understand that junk DNA is still very much alive and well. <br /><br />And that's not even getting in to the fact that there is nothing in ID which predicts the lack of junk DNA. ID posits an unknown designer using unknown methods for unknown purposes. Junk DNA is perfectly compatible with the ID assertion. Junk DNA could be a byproduct of the designer's designs, or could be a way for the designer to amuse itself, or any number of other reasons. <br /><br />BooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com