Monday, September 10, 2012

The Intelligent Design-Darwinism debate just changed, radically

[Dear readers: this post was written as the first post on the ENCODE story, with my post from yesterday as a follow-up. Yesterday's post went up prematurely. This post gives much of the background for the remarkable events playing out now in the ID-Darwinism debate]

By the early 1970's, it was evident that the vast majority of DNA-- as much as 99%-- did not code for proteins. This non-coding DNA was first called "junk DNA" in 1972 by Sasumu Ohno, a pioneer in molecular evolution and evolutionary biology. It soon became clear that there were portions of the genome that were did not code for proteins but which were still functional-- serving a regulatory or structural function. Yet most biologists believed that the functional portions of the genome-- coding and non-coding-- were only a tiny fraction of the total DNA.

Most of the DNA, according to the hypothesis, was non-functional junk. The junk DNA hypothesis was this: during evolution, portions of the genome became non-functional (or were never functional to begin with). Because these "junk" regions of DNA did not code for protein or have other functions, they did not affect the organism's phenotype and were not subject to natural selection. Because they were not subject to natural selection, this DNA "junk" was not removed by natural selection. It accumulated in the genome, a silent witness to eons of random mutation insulated from natural selection.

With haste Darwinists seized on junk DNA as powerful evidence for Darwin's theory. They argued that junk DNA was inconsistent with intelligent agency. An intelligent designer wouldn't pack the genome with non-functional DNA. Furthermore, Darwinists used "junk DNA" conserved across species as evidence for common descent. Why would a designer create different species with identical junk DNA?

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute quotes several of Darwinism's most rabid defenders:

Richard Dawkins in 1976:
"The amount of DNA in organisms is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the "purpose" of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true "purpose" of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger. (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)"
Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller in 1994:
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection. ("Life's Grand Design," Technology Review,February/March 1994)"
Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer in 2006:
"We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo­genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution. (Why Darwin Matters,pp. 74–75)"
University of Chicago geneticist Jerry A. Coyne in 2009:
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution." Based on neo-Darwinian theory, "we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed." These are called "pseudogenes." According to Coyne, "the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply." Indeed, "our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" (Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81)."
Biochemist Larry Moran in 2011 on the percentages of DNA in the genome that are "junk":
"I believe that 90% of the human genome consists of junk DNA (DNA with no known function)"
Total Essential/Functional (so far) = 8.7%
Total Junk (so far) = 65%
Unknown (probably mostly junk) = 26.3%

 Scientists who work from a design perspective knew better.

ID scientists have predicted for years that "junk DNA" is a myth-- that the genome is an elegantly designed biological system, and what we have traditionally understood as "junk" is merely DNA the function of which we have not yet uncovered. There is clear divergence between the scientific predictions of intelligent design-- junk DNA is DNA whose function we have yet to discover-- and the scientific predictions of Darwinism-- junk DNA functionless and is evidence for phenotypically silent random mutations that have accumulated over eons of evolution. This is a clear test of both theories, a test chosen by Darwinists, who have used "junk DNA" to advance Darwinism for four decades.

Here's Darwinophile Larry Moran excoriating Casey Luskin for Luskin's predictions that much of "junk DNA" would be shown to be functional:
Intelligent Design Creationists can't abide junk DNA. Its very existence refutes the idea that living things are designed by some intelligent being. This is why the IDiots go out of their way to make up stories "disproving" junk DNA. 
The latest attempt is by Casey Luskin [Nature Paper Shows "Junk-RNA" Going the Same Direction as "Junk-DNA"]. Having failed to explain why half of the human genome is composed of defective transposons, he now pins his hope on the idea that most of the genome is transcribed. Luskin seems particularly upset by my statement that most of these transcripts are junk [Junk RNA]... 
In other words, most of the transcripts are probably transcriptional noise, or junk, just as I said. This is the consensus opinion among informed molecular biologists. 
This is a point of view that creationists share with many scientists who haven't studied the subject. They assume that the only reason for labeling most of our DNA junk is because we don't know what it does. That's just not true. There's plenty of good evidence that most of our genome can't be functional. We know a lot about the part that consists of transposons and defective transposons, for example [Junk in Your Genome: SINES and Junk in your Genome: LINEs]. That's 44% of our genome.
Intelligent Design proponents have consistently predicted that "junk DNA" was really functional DNA whose function had not yet been discovered. ID scientist Jonathan Wells, in his 2011 book The Myth of Junk DNA, observed:
[ID proponent Richard Sternberg] argues that intelligent design suggests the following hypothesis: The organization of DNA strings along the genome is optimized for the establishment of multidimensional codes at all scales, and each species has a unique and elaborately ordered arrangement of chromosome regions that maximizes the information the genome can carry. The hypothesis is scientific, because it entails two predictions that can be empirically falsified: The first is that the genome of one species cannot be transformed into the genome of another species by random re-arrangements, since this would compromise the formatting, indexing, and punctuation of DNA files. The second is that any observed chromosome changes that result in normal fitness will be those that maintain genomic optimization...
Wells concludes:
Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth, and it's time to leave it behind—along with other discarded myths from the past.

As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper.
Not any more. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times.

Does "junk DNA" really have no function, vindicating the Darwinist prediction, or does it have function not yet completely understood, as predicted by scientists working from the design perspective?

The evidence is in, and in the September 6, 2012 issue of Nature and in two other leading biology journals, it is an avalanche. An avalanche for Intelligent Design, that is.

 From Uncommon Descent:
In a spectacular vindication of [the ID] hypothesis [that "junk DNA" is functional], six papers have been released in Nature, in addition to a further 24 papers in Genome Research and Genome Biology, plus six review articles inThe Journal of Biological Chemistry.
The lead publication of the finding (“An Integrated Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome“) was released in Nature. The abstract reports,
“The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease, and can thereby guide interpretation of this variation. Overall, the project provides new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome, and is an expansive resource of functional annotations for biomedical research.” [emphasis added]
They further report that, 
“[E]ven using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein- coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function. Many of the regulatory elements are not constrained across mammalian evolution, which so far has been one of the most reliable indications of an important biochemical event for the organism. Thus, our data provide orthologous indicators for suggesting possible functional elements.”
As this Nature press release states, 
“Collectively, the papers describe 1,640 data sets generated across 147 different cell types. Among the many important results there is one that stands out above them all: more than 80% of the human genome’s components have now been assigned at least one biochemical function.” [emphasis added]

The overview paper in Nature is here.

This is a catastrophe for Darwinism. C-a-t-a-s-t-r-o-p-h-e. Darwinists have been riding the "junk DNA" trolley for decades, confidently asserting that the presence in the genome of worthless non-functional DNA was incontrovertible evidence against design and for Darwin's theory of random mutation and natural selection. Junk DNA was tangible evidence for the "random" in "random mutation and natural selection". It has been a centerpiece of the Darwinist argument for decades.

It is now in dust. ID scientists were right all along. The inference to intelligent design in biology predicted what Darwinism denied: the most important revolution in molecular genetics since the discovery of the genetic code.

So the inference that "shit happened and survivors survived" has held back molecular genetics research in a very serious way-- why devote precious research money and time to "junk"-- and has impaired critical medical genetic research in such diseases as cancer and diabetes for decades.

Darwinism is worse than ideologically-motivated gibberish. It's not just worthless to science. It is actually an impediment to science. It stops science. By insisting on randomness as the origin of biological novelty, it leads researchers away from studying living systems as elegantly integrated systems replete with purpose-- which, as the Nature research shows so clearly, is the true perspective.  


  1. Michael,

    No - no - no - no ... Nothing you've published today is true. Many of the comments made in response to yesterday's thread applies to today's one too.

    The 80% functional is using a very liberal definition of 'function' to mean just being transcribed into RNA.

    The vastly varying size of the genome across species is strong evidence against DNA being intelligently designed. Humans have 3 billion base pairs. The marbled lungfish has 130 billion base pairs. Some ameba have even more.

    The sheer number of broken genes is also evidence against ID. Like all mammals, humans have around 1000 genes for olfactory receptors. About 1/2 are broken, non-functional, due to mutations, because humans depend more on vision than smell. Whales have the same 1000 olfactory receptor genes and they're all broken. Why would the intelligent designer put broken genes into the genome?

    The concept of 'junk' DNA didn't delay progress. It's only recently that we've had the technology to read the complete human genome, and the first time, it took several years, hundreds of scientists and around a billion dollars. If there was a conspiracy by 'Darwinists' to perpetuate the 'myth' of 'junk' DNA, why do you think that so many scientists in the Human Genome Project spend so much time and money in reading the genome and seeing if it has a function as in the ENCODE study?

    That said, the results of the latest research are provisional, like all science. It may be wrong. Even the brightest scientists can be wrong, such as the CERN physicists who reported faster-than-light neutrinos recently. Just turned out to be error due to a loose connection.

    Sternberg's prediction is just nonsense. It's like saying that if one species is represented by a pack of cards, with the suits arranged as spades - hearts - diamonds - clubs with the ranks in order, and with other species represented by a different order of suits, that you can't get from one species to another by randomly shuffling the deck. Not true. Extremely unlikely. But anyway, that's not the way evolution works. You can't make major reorgaizations of the genome in one go - its always a reduplication here, a deletion there, a reversal of the order of DNA in another place, with each alteration being under the control of natural selection.

    Evolutionary biology is still surviving strongly even without junk DNA. The convergence of evidence is still extremely strong. ID remains 'God did something somewhere somewhen for unknown reasons and by unknown mechanisms'. It's a non-theory going nowhere.

  2. Yawn. The usual creationist falsehoods and propaganda. You're embarrassing yourself once again, Egnor. There never has been and never will be a "debate" between ID pseudo-science and the reality-based community, no matter how often you repeat that lie.

    See here for a thorough debunking of the wildly inaccurate claims that there is no junk DNA in the human genome. In fact, the human genome has lots of junk DNA.

    1. Troy,

      That was the exact post I directed Egnor to yesterday. I didn't include the hyperlink because that seems to result in my posts getting relegated to the spam folder. Perhaps now that you have made it easier he will go take a look.


    2. He probably will, but don't expect him to admit he was wrong. Egnor simply has no integrity whatsoever and will parrot whatever the criminal leaders of his cult of child molesters command him to believe.

  3. I'm sorry but if anyone interested bothers to look at the Nature overview paper or the Nature blog entries by those who held a discussion with geneticists working for Encode ( and indeed then follow such interviews back to hear what the interviewee has to say for themselves ( it becomes fairly apparent that "80% functionality" is so broad and imprecise that it is an ideal figure for ID and creationist quote mining. Particularly when you place that number in the abstract, it gives you license to ignore the rest. Ewan Birney outright says that it was silly to do since it misleads the reader.

    It's clear to anyone who reads beyond the initial media free for all that a more conservative number and not conservative commentator should be embraced.

    I have noticed also from the incomplete post that Bach's question on the fruits of ID's labor has not been addressed other than to say that "Darwinism" (oy vey) "holds back" (mein gott) "real science" (who hey with the what now?). Is this not akin to blaming a use of liquid hydrogen and oxygen mixes in shuttle engines for holding back faster than light travel? Because one does not exist it is the fault of the working method? Very suspicious. Could you satisfy both our curiosities and give a few examples of tangible medical or scientific practices, drugs, whatever that have been linked to ID research or proponents. This may be off-topic but it has some relevance in the wider sense of vindicating ID surely. Better this than someone invoking Godwin's law a few more comments from now.

    First Time Caller (calling again)

    1. @FTC:

      Most molecular biologists use the design inference implicitly. The elucidation of the genetic code was obviously a design-driven project: codes are designed by their nature, and the inference to randomness as the ultimate source of biological structure obviously does not predict a code of any sort.

      Any inference to purpose in biology presupposes design of some sort, because randomness is the absence of purpose, by definition.

      Of course most scientists who do this work will not publicly admit the obvious-- that they use the design inference-- in part because many are materialists, and in part because those who are not would suffer significant professional problems.

      The design inference is the basis for modern science, especially molecular biology.

      The junk DNA fiasco is just an example of the damage that the denial of design causes to science.

    2. mregnor said

      "Any inference to purpose in biology presupposes design of some sort, because randomness is the absence of purpose, by definition."

      This speaks to the point of my comments on yesterdays post. In a 10 kbp random genetic string, what percentage of that string would you expect to show functionality as per the ENCODE definition?

      If you are equating function with purpose, and randomnesss has no purpose, then your answer should be 0%. Is that what you would predict?


    3. Michael,

      No - no - no ... again. There's no design in the genetic code. Nick Lane in 'Life Ascending' (published in 2009, the same year as Stephen Meyer's science pornography book 'Signature in the Cell') in chapter 2 on DNA noted that the genetic code isn't random. Each amino acid binds more strongly to the base triplets that turned out to be the eventual codes. All that was added was the DNA as the storage molecule (RNA is too unstable to have that function) and tRNA.

      Junk DNA is still a reasonable hypothesis. Look at Troy's 'See here' link for a complete(r) discussion. I liked the definition that 'junk' is something you keep, in case it later turns out to be useful, and 'garbage' is something you throw out. At least 50% of the human genome consists of transposons, viral elements, that have a 'function' in that they are transcribed into RNA, but largely not useful to the human host.

      Junk DNA isn't a fiasco. Denial of design has caused no harm to science. God giving DNA a nudge now and then doesn't allow any meaningful predictions.

      I'd thought that you'd previously stated that you don't believe in intelligent design (whatever that is), preferring 'hyelomorphic dualism + teleology' (whatever that is)?

    4. The elucidation of the genetic code was obviously a design-driven project: codes are designed by their nature

      Just like the elucidation of the periodic table was a design-driven project: tables are designed by their nature.

    5. The structuring of the periodic table was entirely a product of intelligent design. It's not a natural formation, we created it.

      We did not create the genetic code; it created us. The question is, what created it? Observation and experience (science) says an intelligence. Question begging and blind faith (dogma) says magical invisible natural processes.

      I'll stick with science, thank you very much.

    6. Jared,

      The periodic table is not the result of intelligent design, it's a graphical representation of physical properties. Something created could have been otherwise, the periodic table could not. Draw it any way you like, the properties of the elements will not change because of the efficiency of the way you display them.


    7. What about this code:

      High pressure --> good weather
      Low pressure --> bad weather

      Did we create that?

  4. The ENCODE results are a catastrophe for Intelligent Design. C-A-T-A-S-T-R-O-P-H-E.

    According to ENCODE project co-ordinator Ewan Birney, the actual % of the genome that is functional is about 9%.

    Egnor says it is 80%, so he is off by a factor of an order of magnitude. Granted, for a creationist that's an unusually small error.

    Here's Ewan Birney on his blog:

    "It’s clear that 80% of the genome has a specific biochemical activity – whatever that might be."

    80% biochemical activity-- not function. "Activity" means it can get transcribed into RNA, possibly at very low levels, like one RNA molecule per cell, so now IDers have a massive "Junk RNA" problem to deal with; OR the DNA can interact with any one of the 10^5's biological molecules in the cell.

    This super-broad definition of "activity"-- if you want to call that "function", then random DNA sequences can be functional.

    And that's C-A-T-A-S-T-R-O-P-H-E for intelligent design. If ID proponents now want to argue "activity" = "function", that random DNA sequences can be "functional" by their definition.

    And that, in turn, means that random DNA sequences can have Dembski's "specified complexity." Random DNA sequences are "complex" by Dembski's definition if they're long enough.

    And random DNA sequences are now "specified" by Dembski's definition too, because Dembski said in "No Free Lunch" that for biological things, function = specification.

    ID proponents now define "function = activity", so ID is destroyed. Dembski said "function = specification", and random DNA sequences have activity by this super-broad definition, so random DNA sequences have SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY.

    This means all natural processes can create unlimited amounts of specified complexity. For ID, it's C-A-T-A-S-T-R-O-P-H-E.

    As for how much real function (by the layman's definition) ENCODE found in the genome, Ewan Birney tells us that.

    Birney: "However, on the other end of the scale – using very strict, classical definitions of “functional” like bound motifs and DNaseI footprints; places where we are very confident that there is a specific DNA:protein contact, such as a transcription factor binding site to the actual bases – we see a cumulative occupation of 8% of the genome. With the exons (which most people would always classify as “functional” by intuition) that number goes up to 9%."

    Oh, but ID predicts "function" should be 100%! Buh-bye, witch doctors!

    Well...I think you can salvage your religion in one way. You can say you know the Designer's purpose... that she created humans as a vector to carry around our huge amounts of functionless broken transposons.

    How can you dispute that? I mean, without making your... metaphysical assumptions.

  5. Excellent post Dr Egnor.
    The desperation the part of the materialist responders is delicious. An army of straw men (the periodic table? LMAO only a matter of time before they march the pandas out :P!),but no response to the actual implications.
    Truly tasty stuff.
    If this were a field operation, I would give the order to send skirmishers in and finish them off - as the artillery has already done the job.

    PS Check out the latest Faustian, Mike. I think you'll get a charge out of it :P

    1. ID proponents said all DNA would be functional. ENCODE only found function in 9% of the human genome. Here's the co-ordinator, Ewan Birney, from his blog:

      "However, on the other end of the scale – using very strict, classical definitions of “functional” like bound motifs and DNaseI footprints; places where we are very confident that there is a specific DNA:protein contact, such as a transcription factor binding site to the actual bases – we see a cumulative occupation of 8% of the genome. With the exons (which most people would always classify as “functional” by intuition) that number goes up to 9%."

      So 100% minus 9% is what? Is that math too hard for a creationist?

    2. Straw man, apparently, Diogenes.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    3. crusaderex said: "The desperation the part of the materialist responders is delicious. An army of straw men (the periodic table? LMAO only a matter of time before they march the pandas out :P!),but no response to the actual implications."

      To wit there is a theme of four main respones to Egnor's view of these data:

      1) The ENCODE project uses a different definition of the word 'functional' than Egnor does.
      2) Ewan Birney, the director of the project, has said on his blog that in the real sense of functional, i.e. of necessity to an individual organism, only about 20% of the human genome is functional, not 80%.
      3) Comparing the percent funtionality of a genome to itself does not give us an anchor for comparison (i.e. compared to a random genetic sequence).
      4) Egnor has argued that the entire argument for 'junk' DNA is a negative argument even though there are positive arguments that large portions of the genome are in a real sense not necessary to the organism.

      So far Egnor has ignored the first three and limply tried to counter number four. I think many of the commenters here are perfectly willing to engage him in thoughtful discussion if he answers these objections.


    4. Diogenes?
      Have you been into the solvents?

      "So 100% minus 9% is what?"

      "Is that math too hard for a creationist?"
      Now atheists invented mathematics too? The materialist falling back on an immaterial abstraction. I love this stuff! LOL

      look Diogenes: Sometimes an offence is just an offence, and serves no function to defend. Your argument is a classic example of that. You open the door to an entire array of implications you are (apparently) utterly incapable of perceiving - while never addressing the core issue at hand: The MYTH of junk DNA.
      You quibble about what functions are understood to be immediately beneficial in some way to the INDIVIDUAL; and never consider for a moment what the function of the other matter could be for or WHEN it could be for or under what contingency it would be accessed.
      No... rather you are content to satisfy yourself that all that can be known is know - that the 'science is settled' like every positivist of every age before you has said of every field.

      Perhaps concepts like teleology, adaptive contingency, and (the BIGGY) humility are just too hard for reductionist simpletons?
      Would seem so.

      Nothing to do with my quoted words, but thanks for the repost.

    5. Oh, SIWOTI it all ...

      "You open the door to an entire array of implications you are (apparently) utterly incapable of perceiving -while never addressing the core issue at hand: The MYTH of junk DNA."

      This is what everyone here except Egnor is addressing. We've been doing nothing but address the core issue. Egnor is plugging his ears and answering the questions nobody is asking.

      "Nothing to do with my quoted words, but thanks for the repost."

      You said there was no response to the implications. I listed four responses to the very premise Egnor is using that almost all the genome is functional. This by extension is a response to the implication that science has been inhibited.

      Like I've said to you before crusader, I can't explain it any simpler.


    6. Don't use an adjective like "simpler" in your end remark, L. You only open yourself up to the standard opening ad hominem retort crusadeREX is known for here. Solvents this time, eh? I bet it was a tough choice between alcohol or drug abuse to go with. Now be a good boy and say everything's a straw man and end with an LOL and go back to your all your war games. I really do think the tone only gets lowered on this blog when the creationists chime in. Unless KW starts things off that is.

      Still none of them address the difference between 80% and 20%.

    7. L,
      "This is what everyone here except Egnor is addressing. We've been doing nothing but address the core issue."
      No. I am afraid not. You simply attempt to redefine functional to a 'safe' term for your dogma.

      "Egnor is plugging his ears and answering the questions nobody is asking."
      It is his blog, L.
      He makes the posts and asks the questions we comment and respond.
      It is HIS questions I am referring to.

      Let me be clear, L: At least you are addressing the SUBJECT in your comments, I just do not see their connection to my own, or the need to quote mine...

      "You only open yourself up to the standard opening ad hominem retort crusadeREX is known for here. "

      I don't suppose you even realized the absolutely recursive nature of your statement, do you Anon?
      Such glaring hypocrisy could only originate from a legal or political mind.

      "Solvents this time, eh? "
      Hey, if the shoe fits.

      "I bet it was a tough choice between alcohol or drug abuse to go with."
      Solvents are neither... and no it was not a hard choice. I have seen the effects of all the above, and solvents fits best.

      "Now be a good boy[...]"
      Boy? Are you trying to be a racist, Anon?

      "[...]and say everything's a straw man and end with an LOL"
      You mean like your unrelated and totally vapid comments intended to distract from the issues at hand?

      "[...]and go back to your all your war games."
      Yes sir, General, Sir.
      War games?
      FYI: My wars are/were not games. My role in the COTC (when I had one) was not anything to do with simulations or games.
      I have not been in a 'war game' in YEARS - since before I held a commission. They lose their lustre after the real thing, anyway.
      My recent role was (in theatre) commanding a field intelligence unit.
      When I returned I trained personnel for small unit command positions.
      Now I work for the Branch Services (analysis and control).
      But I do have to get back to reading through the latests lists and help arrange clearance and a flight to the circle for a bunch of NATO big wigs ... and I will get back to it all (been at it since 0400) just as soon as I am finished my coffee and toast.

    8. Diogenes says: "ID proponents said all DNA would be functional. ENCODE only found function in 9% of the human genome. Here's the co-ordinator, Ewan Birney, from his blog:"
      Stop the misrepresentations. There was never a claim that it would all be functional. It might all have started off functional but some of it would have been rendered non-functional with a deleterious effect over time.

      It's really ironic that you Darwinists will choose to go with the narrowest definition of function while accusing the creationists of going with the broadest definition. But even 9%+ dispels the myth of "junk" dna and shows that the Creationist way of thinking is of more value than the Darwinian that impedes scientific progress.

  6. Egnor is so cute when he pretends he understands evolution and molecular biology. Its like seeing a three year old dress up in his father's clothes to pretend he's going to work.