[_ Old Earth _] Genome Intelligently Designed

[Barbarian]

Statement falsely attributed to ENCODE:

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.1 From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.”

If you didn't actually read this, where did you get the story? BTW, I was an undergraduate in the 60s, and even then, scientists knew that some "junk DNA" had functions in the genome. So, I'm pretty sure the guys who sold you that story, aren't very up on genetics.

Edit:
Found the story. Not from ENCODE. It came from the ICR, a creationist organization. And they just made up the blurb you copied. No one at ENCODE supported those conclusions.

This is pure nonsense barbarian.

It's a fact. None of those idea were endorsed by ENCODE.

The ENCODE paper said:

"The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type. Much of the genome lies close to a regulatory event: 95% of the genome lies within 8 kilobases (kb) of a DNA–protein interaction (as assayed by bound ChIP-seq motifs or DNase I footprints), and 99% is within 1.7 kb of at least one of the biochemical events measured by ENCODE."

Nothing about specified complexity, nothing about intelligent design. That's all you have?

Those figures entirely justify the ICR comments

C'mon. Everyone can see that it doesn't do that at all.

, and show that the 'junk DNA' idea is completely nonsensical.

As I noted, scientists were aware that non-coding DNA had functions back in the 1960s. Would you like to see that again? However, most of it has not yet been shown to be functional.

I note that ICR does not say that they are 'quoting' or 'citing' the ENCODE paper.

"Misrepresenting" is a better word. Here's what they claimed:

Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed.

Turns out, it was a lie, as you can see from the site.

They are merely making use of the facts ENCODE discovered

No. They said the papers "proclaimed" that the the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. As you see, that's a lie. The papers did not say that. It would not have been dishonest to say "scientists did not conclude intelligent design, but we think these finding support it." It was a blatant dishonesty to claim the scientists said something that they did not.

and your remarks about ICR are entirely unjustifiable.

They are spot on. Do right and fear no man.

Let me add my twopennyworth here with this citation:

"We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs).

Cool, but as you learned, some of that was already known in the mid-60s. The notion that mutation could, over time, convert various non-coding sequences into something useful, is quite old. See your next snip, below.

Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale."

(Andrew B. Conley, Jittima Piriyapongsa and I. King Jordan, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics, Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008).)

Notice that these researchers readily admit that they are converted retroviral fragments.

So the 'junk DNA' idea is now shown to be total nonsense

Actually, we still don't know how much of it, if any, is junk. The word scientists normally use is "non-coding." But notice this:

Mice born without large portions of their 'junk DNA' seem to survive normally. The result contradicts the beliefs of many scientists who have sought to uncover the function of these parts of the genome.
20 October 2004 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news041018-7

junk in fact - and you'd do well to trash that nonsense.

See above. About 1% of the genomes of these mice is gone. And yet no one can find any changes in 98% of those mice. None at all. So the question is still open. But we've learned a lot more than we knew in the 60s, when we only knew about some of the non-coding DNA having functions.

One is continually amused that creationists think this is news.

So bang goes a big prop of the 'apes and mankind share a 'common ancestor' ' theory.

Nope. In fact, recent work no the chimp genome has shown that humans and chimps have more in common genetically than previously thought. Would you like to learn about that? Emperor's new clothes anybody?

Nice thing about science. It moves on, and kicks tripe in the behind sooner or later.

Yep. And the ICR just took a hit to the hip pocket. Lying is always a bad idea, but in science, it's close to suicidal.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Jonathan Wells continues:

Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a horsefly, much less a horse.

​

1 Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006, p.34
2 Ibid., p. 36

Yeah, and Jonathan Wells will also tell you that Sun Myung Moon is the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Barbarian]

Just found this, guys: http://harunyahya.com/en/works/15117/"

Oh good, another Muslim site about evolution. Have you forgotten to cite the Moonies as well?

But the theory of evolution is based on fictitious mutations that produce “new†living things and work miracles.

It's always funny that fundamentalists think science is about "miracles."

Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations.

Directly observed. The fact that new species, genera, and families evolved is now admitted by many creationists. And the evolution of a new digestive organ in some lizards has been documented. Want to see that, again?

This claim, a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is put forward by Darwinist scientists who know that mutations always harm an organism.

As you learned, this is false; we know of many beneficial mutations. I gave you a list earlier. Would you like to see it again?

Moreover, although Darwinists are well aware of these harmful effects of mutations they still point to a mutant, four-winged fruit fly subjected to mutations in the laboratory in support of their claims.

As you know, Darwinists predicted that the ancestors of dipterans (flies) had four wings. As research now shows, that is correct. The genes are still there. The wings are now highly-modified structures called "halteres" which are necessary for balance in the modern fly.

Darwinists portrayed the extra pair of wings produced in a fruit fly as a result of carefully performed mutations as the greatest evidence that mutations could lead to evolution.

Classic stupidity. Darwin never new about mutations; he didn't know about genes, and he didn't see the four-winged flies which were very recent.

Jonathan Wells

And we have moonies.

Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution.

It confirms the predictions by scientists that dipterans evolved from 4-winged insects. And it trashes the idea of "design"; what kind of designer would make genes for wings, and then render them defective, and make the insect so that even if the wings were functional, the fly wouldn't survive?

It's an insult to God to even suggest He couldn't do any better than this.

 

[Barbarian]

Yeah, and Jonathan Wells will also tell you that Sun Myung Moon is the Second Coming of Christ.

Actually, he believes that Moon is an improvement on Christ, here to fix up what Christ failed to do. Is it any surprise, he's a follower of "intelligent design?" (intelligent design is an official doctrine of the Unification Church)

 

[VirginShallConceive]

But as time goes on the idea humans came from apes will fade away. I was hoping to win you guys over.

Humans are apes.

You are entitled to your opinions but the scientific community says otherwise.

The scientific community says otherwise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

 

[Barbarian]

I hate to have to tell you this but that information is obsolete.

You've been had on that one.

ICR redid the comparison with the new research from ENCODE and found we share 70% with chimps.

They measured the similarities a different way. Instead of measuring genes, they measured sequences, and any gene that wasn't identical went out.

But the kick is this; if you apply that to all apes, humans and chimps are still more closely related to each other than either is to other apes. Surprise.

Thats not all:

A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.
Interestingly, the authors also searched the DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees for sections that were “flipped†in their orientation, called inversions. Large inversions, once they occur in a species and if they are tolerated, will stop recombination. However, the researchers found that inverted sequences accounted for very few differences in the regions they examined.
These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!
More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not!

http://www.icr.org/article/7526/

Show us the "evolutionary reasoning." (checkable source) I don't think your guy realized the implications of what he was reading. It seems to further confirm the close relationship between chimps and humans. Let us know what you find. The authors of the cited study came up with the opposite conclusion the ICR put on it:

In fact, rearranged chromosomes presented significantly lower recombination rates than chromosomes that have been maintained since the ancestor of great apes, and this was related with the lineage in which they become fixed. Importantly, inverted regions had lower recombination rates than collinear and noninverted regions, independently of the effect of centromeres. Our observations have implications for the chromosomal speciation theory, providing new evidences for the contribution of inversions in suppressing recombination in mammals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603309/

 

[Vaccine]

The truth is there is empirical evidence for specified complexity. I presented the truth, you may accept it or reject it.

 

[Asyncritus]

For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA,[2] while only about 2% of a typical bacterial genome is noncoding DNA. Initially, a large proportion of noncoding DNA had no known biological function and was therefore sometimes referred to as "junk DNA", particularly in the lay press. Some sequences may have no biological function for the organism, such as endogenous retroviruses. However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have important biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences.

I'm happy to hear that you accept the growing realisation that 'junk DNA' is a complete nonsense.

At one time they thought that the 98% of non-coding DNA was junk. It is now painfully apparent that it is not.

Your report of the removal of DNA in the mice is a red herring. Those researchers should try excising 90% of their own DNA from any egg they fertilise and see what happens to their child.

A single additional chromosome produces down's syndrome in humans. I wonder, if all this DNA is junk, what would happen if they excised a similar percentage of their own DNA.

But if it is not junk, then all this hullabaloo about ape-human similarity, is also down the pan, and rightly so.

But here are some interesting figures, and their potential consequences:

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)
Question: Are you 96-98% chimp? Or is a chimp 96-98% human?

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

Question: Are you 90% cat? And is a cat 90% human?

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

Question: Are you 80% cow? Or is a cow 80% human?

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

Hey look! A mouse is 99% human analogue - are you man or mouse?

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)

Hey look! A fruitfly is a chicken! Or is a chicken a fruit fly?


Can't you see all this 'genetic similarity' proves absolutely nothing?

It reminds me of the antiserum tests done long ago, by Nuttall, which showed that some men are more closely related to anthropoid apes that they are to their fellow men!

They also showed that "...some of the men whose serum was used are more nearly related to some monkeys and to whales than to their fellow men, and are as nearly related to carnivores, rodents and ungulates as to their own kind!" Man: A Special Creation by Douglas Dewar. p89

The equally crass foolishness was even more clearly demonstrated when the tests found that the anti serum of the ungulates showed that they are the nearest relatives of the cetacea , but the anti serum of the cetacea showed that they are most closely related to the bats!

The same sort of nonsense is going on here. The 'molecular genetics analyses' done by computers and simulations, are done with no references to reality. You should therefore learn from the past and beware of these 'undisputed' conclusions of which you are so fond.

Incidentally, a cladogram, such as you posted above, is not concerned with ancestry, but with taxonomic similarities and differences.

Yep. And the ICR just took a hit to the hip pocket. Lying is always a bad idea, but in science, it's close to suicidal.

Well, you should know.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Oh good, another Muslim site about evolution. Have you forgotten to cite the Moonies as well?

Are you a religious bigot as well as an evolutionist?

I just notice you tend to look for your truth among some rather unorthodox beliefs.

What a combination!

Moonies, Islamist fundamentalists, and YE creationists. Birds of a feather, I suppose.

Barbarian observes:
It's always funny that fundamentalists think science is about "miracles."

But evolution is about miracles!

Nope. Just change in allele frequencies over time.

A reptile turning into a bird! That's a miracle!

Nope. As you learned, dinosaurs had feathers, wings, avian lungs, and and the motions used in flight long before there were birds. Not much of a change, after all.

And a fish growing legs and lungs, and walking out on land?

Nope. Think back. Remember, you learned that fish had lungs and functioning legs long before anything walked on land? Not much was required to make a land animal from a fish with lungs and legs. Want me to show you again?

Remember the chicken suit?

Yeah, it was cute that you thought a guy in a chicken suit was a sufficient argument against the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Directly observed. The fact that new species, genera, and families evolved is now admitted by many creationists. And the evolution of a new digestive organ in some lizards has been documented. Want to see that, again?

I have debunked most of these that you had the effrontery to bring up.

You cut and ran when I showed you the evidence. As you know a cecal valve evolved in a few decades in some Adriatic island lizards. Not just that, but a larger head, with stronger bite and a number of other new characters. And of course you learned that the Institute for Creation Research endorsed John Woodmorappe's claim that (for example) all the different genera and species of dogs evolved from two "dog kind" on the Ark, or that all the families, genera, and species of cats evolved from two "cat kind."

If you'll not bail out of the discussion, again, it might be more productive.

This claim, a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is put forward by Darwinist scientists who know that mutations always harm an organism.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, this is false; we know of many beneficial mutations. I gave you a list earlier. Would you like to see it again?

Only if you want them debunked again. Go right ahead. Your examples are always so monumentally significant when measured against the Cambrian Explosion!

So you want a single mutation to compare to the Cambrian explosion? As you learned, there were many, many mutations involved. Why not just admit that there are many favorable mutations? Many honest creationists do that.

Moreover, although Darwinists are well aware of these harmful effects of mutations they still point to a mutant, four-winged fruit fly subjected to mutations in the laboratory in support of their claims.

Barbarian obeserves:
As you know, Darwinists predicted that the ancestors of dipterans (flies) had four wings. As research now shows, that is correct. The genes are still there. The wings are now highly-modified structures called "halteres" which are necessary for balance in the modern fly.

What utter nonsense.

It's a fact.

The formation of halteres during dependends on the homeotic gene Ultrabithorax. Knocking out this gene produces a fully-developed wing. The gene for those wings is still present.
Klowden, M. J. (2007). Physiological systems in insects. Elsevier/Academic Press. pp. 497-499.

What were they using as balancing organs before that

Same thing other, less agile fliers were using. Their bodies as a whole. The reduction of one pair of wings, making a new balancing system (uses the same muscles and motions as the old wings) permitted a more agile movement than many other insects.

and was the change gradual or sudden?

Notice that a simple change in one homeotic gene produces a radically different (but in this case, advantageous) mutation.

(Careful here - 'sudden' means created that way!)

Of course. He just did it in a way of which you disapprove.

And what happened while this 'evolution' was taking place? Flying upside down?

Still flying, but not as agile.

And this is amazing:

Darwinists portrayed the extra pair of wings produced in a fruit fly as a result of carefully performed mutations as the greatest evidence that mutations could lead to evolution.

Barbarian chuckles:
Classic stupidity. Darwin never knew about mutations; he didn't know about genes, and he didn't see the four-winged flies which were very recent.

They said DARWINISTS, meaning you and your like, not Darwin himself.

You've confused Darwinists, with those who formed the Modern Synthesis, in which random mutations and natural selection were the mechanism of evolution.

And yes, he didn't know about mutations, or genes, or he'd have kept his mouth shut. His wife had more sense than he did.

Actually, Mendel's discovery rescued Darwin's theory. You see, everyone (including Darwin) assumed heredity was in the blood, and was like mixing paint. So Darwin was unable to explain how a new trait could persist and spread in a population; it would be like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white. Gone in a generation. Mendel showed that heredity was particulate; more like counting beads than mixing paint. And so a great difficulty for the theory was cleared up. Surprise.

Jonathan Wells

Barbarian chuckles:
And we have moonies.

More bigotry?

They think Myung Moon is a new Messiah, here to fix what Jesus didn't get right the first time. Maybe that doesn't seem odd to you, but it does to me.

Barbarian chuckles:
It confirms the predictions by scientists that dipterans evolved from 4-winged insects. And it trashes the idea of "design"; what kind of designer would make genes for wings, and then render them defective, and make the insect so that even if the wings were functional, the fly wouldn't survive?

I don't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You brought it up. What kind of "designer" plans that kind of thing? C'mon.

I worry about you barbarian. I do really.

In the same way creationists worry about evidence. For good reason.

Barbarian explains:
Initially, a large proportion of noncoding DNA had no known biological function and was therefore sometimes referred to as "junk DNA", particularly in the lay press.

Some sequences may have no biological function for the organism, such as endogenous retroviruses. However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have important biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences.

I'm happy to hear that you accept the growing realisation that 'junk DNA' is a complete nonsense.

Not at all. I just showed you that much of it has function. You were just suckered into thinking that scientists didn't realize it. Fifty years ago, scientists were already figuring this out. They didn't tell you the truth, for the obvious reason. Would you like me to show you, again?

At one time they thought that the 98% of non-coding DNA was junk.

Some might have. I'd be open to your evidence that it was the consensus. In 1965, they already knew better than 98%.

Your report of the removal of DNA in the mice is a red herring.

They took a huge stretch of DNA out of those mice, and almost all of them had no noticable differences at all. So that's a huge blow to the notion that all non-coding DNA is functional.

Those researchers should try excising 90% of their own DNA from any egg they fertilise and see what happens to their child.

The scientists definitely risked harming those mice, and of course no scientist with any sense of decency would do it to a human. But as you learned, a lot of mouse DNA can be removed with no detectable effect.

A single additional chromosome produces down's syndrome in humans.

Chromosomal re-arrangements often have severe effects, even though no genes are lost in the process. You're confusing genes with how they are distributed on chromosomes.

I wonder, if all this DNA is junk, what would happen if they excised a similar percentage of their own DNA.

If they're like mice, not much of anything.

But if it is not junk, then all this hullabaloo about ape-human similarity, is also down the pan, and rightly so.

Nope. The similarities are there in coding and non-coding DNA.

But here are some interesting figures, and their potential consequences:

-

Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)
Question: Are you 96-98% chimp? Or is a chimp 96-98% human?

Neither. Both humans and chimps have evolved from the last common ancestor.

Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

Question: Are you 90% cat? And is a cat 90% human?

Here's a DNA phylogeny based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA:

Here's the phylogeny in the report you cited:

Pretty much the same results, even though different data.

You've been a bit misled about the differences between humans and other things. If we are 60% different than two other things, it does not mean those things are identical. If you thought about it for a bit, I think you could figure out why.

Can't you see all this 'genetic similarity' proves absolutely nothing?

We can check it with organisms of known descent, so we know it works.

 

[Barbarian]

Vaccine writes:

The truth is there is empirical evidence for specified complexity. I presented the truth, you may accept it or reject it.

As you learned, the people doing the research did not come to that conclusion. It the ICR had said, "we differ with the researchers, and think this is evidence for ID or for specified complexity", that would not have been dishonest. Claiming that the ENCODE researchers had reported that the genome was the result of intelligent design, that was egregiously dishonest.

No way to sugar coat that one.

I am not blaming you for the behavior of the ICR, in case you were wondering.

 

[Vaccine]

Hello Vaccine. I don't pretend to know a lot about this type of thing but the thread got me looking anyway. So I looked up some things, here's one that I did http://creation.com/junk-dna-evolutionary-discards-or-gods-tools
Hello Edward too. From what I have read, they believe that DNA is the densest info storage mechanism known. That it can hold, one pinheads worth of DNA, the equal of 2 million 2 TB hard-drives of info.
And all that came out of no-where. We make computers that only contain a fraction of that, and they are made by intelligence. But something that leaves that for dead supposedly did not have an intelligent designer according to evolution!

Thanks for the links! Good stuff!
The origin of that information is the question of the ages isn't it? Scripture says we are fearfully and wonderfully made!

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, humans can do greater information density than DNA.

A data memory can hardly be any smaller: researchers working with Gerhard Rempe at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have stored quantum information in a single atom. The researchers wrote the quantum state of single photons, i.e. particles of light, into a rubidium atom and read it out again after a certain storage time. This technique can be used in principle to design powerful quantum computers and to network them with each other across large distances.
http://www.mpg.de/4290741/Single_Atom?print=yes

So why didn't a better system evolve in living things? Cells have plenty of room for DNA, even the smallest. The size of cells is determined more by other factors, so there was never any selective pressure to find a better system.

 

[Vaccine]

Moonies, Islamist fundamentalists, and YE creationists. Birds of a feather, I suppose.

Comparing YEC to terrorists from Sept. 11th?
I believe we are called to be an "ambassador" for Christ, not a "barbarian" for Christ.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

The truth is there is empirical evidence for specified complexity. I presented the truth, you may accept it or reject it.

Does the "truth" that you present go against the Theory of Evolution? I am asking because all fields of science are overwhelmingly crowded with apt researchers who decipher otherwise!


When I was born, I still had one living great-grandparent. It was my great-grandmother. I saw her with my own eyes.

Obviously, I have never seen my two great-grandfathers or my other great-grandmother.

But I know, as much as I know anything, who the other three are.

But remember . . . I never actually saw those three. I am trusting sources that have provided me with this information.

Do I trust every single source that "provides me with information"?

No!

In my brain, I weigh out the credibility of claims based on experience and logic.

Period.

I am 41 years old.

I know, as much as I know anything, that humans and other apes have a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, that lemons, oranges, and limes share a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, that lions, tigers, and leopards share a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, that peaches, plums, and cherries, share a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, who my other 3 great-grandparents are-- without ever having laid eyes on them.

 

[Barbarian]

Comparing YEC to terrorists from Sept. 11th?

Barbarian observes:
Moonies, Islamist fundamentalists, and YE creationists. Birds of a feather, I suppose.

Comparing YEC to terrorists from Sept. 11th?

Nope. Are you equating all Islamic fundamentalists to terrorists?

I believe we are called to be an "ambassador" for Christ, not a "barbarian" for Christ.

Indeed. So can you explain yourself here?

 

[Vaccine]

Comparing YEC to terrorists from Sept. 11th?

Barbarian observes:
Moonies, Islamist fundamentalists, and YE creationists. Birds of a feather, I suppose.

Comparing YEC to terrorists from Sept. 11th?

Nope. Are you equating all Islamic fundamentalists to terrorists?

I believe we are called to be an "ambassador" for Christ, not a "barbarian" for Christ.

Indeed. So can you explain yourself here?

What's to explain, I asked for clarification and said we shouldn't be crude.

 

[Vaccine]

The truth is there is empirical evidence for specified complexity. I presented the truth, you may accept it or reject it.

Does the "truth" that you present go against the Theory of Evolution? I am asking because all fields of science are overwhelmingly crowded with apt researchers who decipher otherwise!


When I was born, I still had one living great-grandparent. It was my great-grandmother. I saw her with my own eyes.

Obviously, I have never seen my two great-grandfathers or my other great-grandmother.

But I know, as much as I know anything, who the other three are.

But remember . . . I never actually saw those three. I am trusting sources that have provided me with this information.

Do I trust every single source that "provides me with information"?

No!

In my brain, I weigh out the credibility of claims based on experience and logic.

Period.

I am 41 years old.

I know, as much as I know anything, that humans and other apes have a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, that lemons, oranges, and limes share a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, that lions, tigers, and leopards share a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, that peaches, plums, and cherries, share a common ancestor.

I know, as much as I know anything, who my other 3 great-grandparents are-- without ever having laid eyes on them.

There's no empirical evidence humans came from chimps. Only a hypothesis.

 

[Vaccine]

Vaccine writes:

The truth is there is empirical evidence for specified complexity. I presented the truth, you may accept it or reject it.

As you learned, the people doing the research did not come to that conclusion.

Lies. This is the conclusion from the ENCODE research paper (see post 4):

These analyses portray a COMPLEX landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes. Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue SPECIFICITY for gene-element connectivity.​

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11247.html​

It the ICR had said, "we differ with the researchers, and think this is evidence for ID or for specified complexity", that would not have been dishonest. Claiming that the ENCODE researchers had reported that the genome was the result of intelligent design, that was egregiously dishonest.

ENCODE Observed:
COMPLEX landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity
SPECIFICITY for gene-element connectivity.

ICR Concluded:
Genome is intelligently designed.


They were perfectly justified with their conclusion.

 

[Barbarian]

What's to explain,

Why you're equating Islamic fundamentalists with terrorists. What's that about?

 

[Vaccine]

What's to explain,

Why you're equating Islamic fundamentalists with terrorists. What's that about?

Just keep trolling...........