[_ Old Earth _] Genome Intelligently Designed

[Barbarian]

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

Which is not "specified complexity" and certainly not "intelligent design." In fact, as you saw, the researchers came to the opposite conclusion.

ICR Concluded:
Genome is intelligently designed.

But ENCODE did not, and it was egregiously dishonest of the ICR to say otherwise.

They were perfectly justified with their conclusion.

They can make whatever conclusions they like. But they are not justified in claiming others made them. That was entirely dishonest on their part.

 

[Barbarian]

What's to explain?

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

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

Take a look at the conversation. If I have it wrong, tell me how.

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

You wrote:

Comparing YEC to terrorists from Sept. 11th?

So what did you mean?

 

[Vaccine]

What's to explain?

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

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

Take a look at the conversation. If I have it wrong, tell me how.

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

You wrote:

Comparing YEC to terrorists from Sept. 11th?

So what did you mean?

How old are you?

 

[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.

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

From as far back as I can remember, when I needed to use a map to navigate my way around, not once was I skeptical of the map that I was holding. Not once did I ever observe anyone being skeptical of the map that they were holding.

Why? Because we trust the map experts. Most of us find life too precious to waste our time traveling and measuring to keep the map makers on the up and up, especially when we never had any reason to doubt them in the first place.

If you buy a phone that you have never toyed with before, you don't wonder, "Hmmm . . . I wonder if this will work. After all, it's just someone else's hypothesis."

No.

You expect it to work, because it comes from the Phone Experts.

If it doesn't, you are disappointed because of your expectations that are based on your automatic trust in the manufacturers and users.

I don't find your trust crazy. I share the same trust.


When I think of Evolution, that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, not only do I trust the experts, but when I think about the relation of it all, it all fits.

Often, when I am occupied with other fields of study, like map making, I don't bother to reason how things fit. I simply trust the map makers. Sure, if, during my navigation, I suspected that one of the map makers was wrong, I would make sure my skepticism was legit, and, I would never approach a map with the same confidence ever again.

But, me finding a professionally-done map wrong has never happened.

Me finding a flaw in the Theory of Evolution, once I accepted it, has never happened.

 

[Vaccine]

Actually, humans can do greater information density than DNA.

Wrong. They wrote exactly 1 bit of information to an atom which retained it for 180 microseconds.
While greater information density may be logically possible with this method at some time in the future, they did not actually store more information than DNA.

​

 

[Vaccine]

the evolution of a new digestive organ in some lizards has been documented.

Misinformation. A new novel“structure” was discovered. All the changes were the result of pre-existing genes. "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste". http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417112433.htm

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, this is false; we know of many beneficial mutations.

False.
“Mutations are either detrimental to inheritance or they are neutral to inheritance. In the 160 years since Darwin first proposed evolution, no one has ever found a mutation of any plant, bacteria, human being, or any other living organism on the planet that has added new useful information to that organism. Such new information would be called “a gain of function”. That is, the mutation if it is to be useful for natural selection to occur, must have added to the information content of the DNA molecule. This is what is required for evolution to occur.” Dr Daniel Moran,
http://blueprintsforliving.com/evidence-for-the-masters-blueprint-part-1/2/


The Milano mutation:
Produces an increase in the bad cholesterol and a decrease in the good cholesterol.
That population just happened to have a low prevalence of heart disease unrelated to the mutation.

“These observations should not be attributed to the presence of an apparently protective gene”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1684746/pdf/ajhg00162-0037.pdf

The Hbc mutation:
Provides protection from malaria but also sickle cell anemia. Hbc is a disease with health risks, maybe not as harmful as Hbs but it is not without effect. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/disease

Actually, Mendel's discovery rescued Darwin's theory.

Exact opposite.
“Mendel discovered the laws of heredity, debunking Darwinian evolution.” Dr Daniel Moran​

Dr Moran has a Ph D in molecular and cellular biology and a MS in microbiology.

”genetic similarity” proves nothing

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

Completely untrue. It is not known, only a hypothesis. There is no empirical evidence humans came from chimps. The only facts that matter are the ones published in the most distinguished scholarly journals.​

 

[VirginShallConceive]

But, me finding a professionally-done map wrong has never happened.

You must not use maps much, lol.
or Mapquest.
I have a mapbook in my truck right now that has errors in it.
Not many times are maps wrong, but they are sometimes
and Mapquest has been wrong for me so many times I almost wont use it anymore.

Perhaps you come from a chimp, but I don't, lol! :rolling

Thanks for clearing that up for me! Thanks to you, I can now see that Evolution is totally false![/sarcasm]

I am 41 years old. My observance of me and any other person that has ever used a map still stands.

Some people are so unlucky, they fatally get struck by lightning. In the world of map users, I view you as one of them(if your claim is true). Congratulations!

 

[VirginShallConceive]

. . . and Mapquest has been wrong for me so many times I almost wont use it anymore.

Sorry, but I think you are either lying or exaggerating.

Perhaps you come from a chimp, but I don't, lol! :rolling

This is hilarious.

An ape is typing to me.

He is denying that he is an ape.

He spent time in his mother's womb.

He sleeps one third of his life away.

He has ten fingers and ten toes.

He is psychologically molded by his surroundings.

He has canine teeth to bite.

He has fingernails to scratch.

He has eyes.

He has one jawbone.

He has a penis.

He looks like an ape.

Anyone who knows anything knows that he is an ape.

But, he refuses to believe this.

Too funny.

 

[Barbarian]

I have to admit that Mapquest is less reliable than Google maps. But I don't often find an error.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, humans can do greater information density than DNA.

Wrong.

No, it's true. One bit per atom is much higher density than DNA.

They wrote exactly 1 bit of information to an atom which retained it for 180 microseconds.

Yep. Notice that DNA has a much lower density.

https://sites.google.com/site/dielectricoil/single-atom_data_storage

While greater information density may be logically possible with this method at some time in the future, they did not actually store more information than DNA.

Yep, they did.

In 2012, IBM scientists announced the creation of the world's smallest magnetic memory bit, made of just 12 atoms. This breakthrough could transform computing by providing the world with devices that have access to unprecedented levels of data storage.

http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/madewithatoms.shtml

 

[Vaccine]

But, me finding a professionally-done map wrong has never happened.

You must not use maps much, lol.
or Mapquest.
I have a mapbook in my truck right now that has errors in it.
Not many times are maps wrong, but they are sometimes
and Mapquest has been wrong for me so many times I almost wont use it anymore.

Perhaps you come from a chimp, but I don't, lol! :rolling

I can attest to that, mapquest has given me wrong directions a few times. GPS is funny when it tries to take me down old logging roads, or cross a river where ther's no bridge. No chimps in my family tree either!

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Sorry, but I think you are either lying or exaggerating.

Yeah, that be it, I'm lying. :naughty

I've had trouble with my internet connection, but as far as the shape of countries, states, counties, cities, etc., I have never seen them displayed as inaccurate.


Have you?


And by the way, someone who is open for an honest discussion and is reading my posts will get the gist of what I am trying to say.


You, on the other hand, are toying around like a troll.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

But, me finding a professionally-done map wrong has never happened.

You must not use maps much, lol.
or Mapquest.
I have a mapbook in my truck right now that has errors in it.
Not many times are maps wrong, but they are sometimes
and Mapquest has been wrong for me so many times I almost wont use it anymore.

Perhaps you come from a chimp, but I don't, lol! :rolling

I can attest to that, mapquest has given me wrong directions a few times. GPS is funny when it tries to take me down old logging roads, or cross a river where ther's no bridge.

Do you get the gist of what I was saying, or are you grasping at anything that can sidetrack you from the overwhelming truth that is staring you in the face? Email me a shape of a country, state, county, city, etc. that is out of shape and isn't photoshopped. Otherwise, you look like an idiot.

Period.

No chimps in my family tree either!

Yes there are. I'm sorry to inform you of the overwhelmingly obvious truth. You and a Venus Fly Trap are related. You and HIV are related.

Yes. You. Are.


You wish that you weren't, but the truth says otherwise.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[Vaccine]

Do you get the gist of what I was saying, or are you grasping at anything that can sidetrack you from the overwhelming truth that is staring you in the face? Email me a shape of a country, state, county, city, etc. that is out of shape and isn't photoshopped. Otherwise, you look like an idiot.

Period.

Fallacous appeal to authority. Maps have nothing to do with the lack of empirical evidence that humans are related to chimps.
We speak and write language, wear clothes, make art, music, sing, among other things. The similarities you point out are good evidence for a common designer though.

No chimps in my family tree either!

Yes there are. I'm sorry to inform you of the overwhelmingly obvious truth. You and a Venus Fly Trap are related. You and HIV are related.

Yes. You. Are.


You wish that you weren't, but the truth says otherwise.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Where's your evidence? The only facts that matter are the ones in scientific journals.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Do you get the gist of what I was saying, or are you grasping at anything that can sidetrack you from the overwhelming truth that is staring you in the face? Email me a shape of a country, state, county, city, etc. that is out of shape and isn't photoshopped. Otherwise, you look like an idiot.

Period.

Fallacous appeal to authority. Maps have nothing to do with the lack of empirical evidence that humans are related to chimps.
We speak and write language, wear clothes, make art, music, sing, among other things. The similarities you point out are good evidence for a common designer though.

You keep denying, and Science keeps prospering.

He he he he he.

However, you will cry out to Science when you are in need of it.

No chimps in my family tree either!

Yes there are. I'm sorry to inform you of the overwhelmingly obvious truth. You and a Venus Fly Trap are related. You and HIV are related.

Yes. You. Are.


You wish that you weren't, but the truth says otherwise.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Where's your evidence? The only facts that matter are the ones in scientific journals.

http://www.scientificjournals.org/testimonials.htm

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, humans can do greater information density than DNA.

Wrong.

No, it's true. One bit per atom is much higher density than DNA.

They wrote exactly 1 bit of information to an atom which retained it for 180 microseconds.

Yep. Notice that DNA has a much lower density.

https://sites.google.com/site/dielectricoil/single-atom_data_storage

While greater information density may be logically possible with this method at some time in the future, they did not actually store more information than DNA.

Yep, they did.

In 2012, IBM scientists announced the creation of the world's smallest magnetic memory bit, made of just 12 atoms. This breakthrough could transform computing by providing the world with devices that have access to unprecedented levels of data storage.

http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/madewithatoms.shtml

You're confusing something which is logically possible with actual facts. Whith equipment the size of the room they are able to write 1bit.

 

[Barbarian]

In 2012, IBM scientists announced the creation of the world's smallest magnetic memory bit, made of just 12 atoms. This breakthrough could transform computing by providing the world with devices that have access to unprecedented levels of data storage.

http://www.research.ibm.com/articles...ithatoms.shtml

You're confusing something which is logically possible with actual facts.

The actual fact is, scientists produced something with much denser information storage than DNA. See above.

Whith equipment the size of the room they are able to write 1bit.

No, it's much, much smaller. Twelve atoms is very tiny, indeed.

The integrated circuits we use now are also produced with huge manufacturing machines. But they are much tinier than previous equipment.

The reason DNA isn't so efficient is, it doesn't have to be. It's already small enough for the tiniest cell, so there was no selective pressure for it to be smaller.

 

[Vaccine]

This breakthrough could transform computing

See, you're confusing something which is logically possible with actual facts.

The actual fact is...

..with equipment the size of the room they are able to write 1bit. [/QUOTE]

The reason DNA isn't so efficient is, it doesn't have to be. It's already small enough for the tiniest cell, so there was no selective pressure for it to be smaller.

Obsolete information. ENCODE made no mention of "natural selection". The genome was intelligently designed, not the product of natural selection, to say otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Barbarian]

See, you're confusing something which is logically possible with actual facts.

As you learned, it's a fact. They have built devices with information density much greater that of DNA


Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
The actual fact is scientists produced something with much denser information storage than DNA.

In 2012, IBM scientists announced the creation of the world's smallest magnetic memory bit, made of just 12 atoms. This breakthrough could transform computing by providing the world with devices that have access to unprecedented levels of data storage.

http://www.research.ibm.com/articles...ithatoms.shtml

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
The reason DNA isn't so efficient is, it doesn't have to be. It's already small enough for the tiniest cell, so there was no selective pressure for it to be smaller.

Obsolete information.

Nope. It's true. Something as information dense as the IBM device could probably evolve, but there was no need for it.

ENCODE made no mention of "natural selection".

Since it wasn't about evolution, that's not surprising. Nor is it surprising that no one in the ENCODE project said that the genome was made by intelligent design, or had "specified complexity."

The genome was intelligently designed, not the product of natural selection,

It's not dishonest to hold that opinion, if you actually believe it. It is egregiously dishonest to claim that the people in the ENCODE project made that claim. The ICR made a rather bad moral judgement in deciding to do so.

 

[Vaccine]

As you learned it's a fact. They have built devices with information density much greater that of DNA

Be careful how you use the term "fact". Turns out that isn't true. "That solved atheoretical problem of how few atoms it could take to store a bit; now comes the engineering challenge: how to make a mass storage device perform the same feat as scanning tunneling microscope."

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/01/12/206224/ibm-shrinks-bit-size-to-12-atoms

As I said, it is logically possible, but not actually accomplished yet.

Quote Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
The actual fact is scientists produced something with much denser information storage than DNA.

In 2012, IBM scientists announced the creation of the world's smallest magnetic memory bit, made of just 12 atoms. This breakthrough could transform computing by providing the world with devices that have access to unprecedented levels of data storage.

http://www.research.ibm.com/articles...ithatoms.shtml

Your own quote says "could" transform. They have not actually made it yet. I'm sure eventually they will make it, but all this only shows is what a marvel of engineering DNA really is.

now comes the engineering challenge: how to make a mass storage device perform the same feat as scanning tunneling microscope."

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/01/12/206224/ibm-shrinks-bit-size-to-12-atoms

Since it wasn't about evolution, that's not surprising. Nor is it surprising that no one in the ENCODE project said that the genome was made by intelligent design, or had "specified complexity."

Doesn't work that way. That's why it's called a theory.
ENCODE did the research and provided this data analysis:
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​

That's the difference between real science and pseudo science. Research is done, analysis are made, submitted for peer review, and conclusions are drawn. This is a process, many research papers don't mention "evolution" specifically yet that conclusion is drawn. It seems you are establishing a double standard, one that says it's ok for evolutionists to draw conclusions from a research paper, but it is dishonest for a creationist to draw a conclusion from a research paper?
Pseudo science is asserting a humans came from chimps or a common ancestor. It may be an educated guess based on other science, but it is not observable testable, or repeatable.

The genome was intelligently designed, not the product of natural selection,

It's not dishonest to hold that opinion, if you actually believe it. It is egregiously dishonest to claim that the people in the ENCODE project made that claim. The ICR made a rather bad moral judgement in deciding to do so.

I realize dishonest is a strong term here, but I think it applies if someone asserts natural selection made humans. Natural selection does not create life, it assumes life. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not asserting "natural selection" made humans though.
There is no empirical evidence "natural selection" made the human genome. There is empirical evidence of specified-complexity in the genome. That's why this research sets a new precident. This was the collaborative effort of 594 scientists, some of which I read were evolutionists, over several years of research. This is not 1 scientist with an agenda. This is very high profile research done by very qualified scientists. Science goes where the facts lead them. They observed specified-complexity in the genome. Which according to Intelligent design theory specified-complexity is the result of intelligence. It will remain a theory until that intelligent agent is observable, testable, repeatable.
I was going to say just as it will remain a theory we came from chimps, but I can't say that anymore, empirical evidence now says otherwise.

We know God can't be put in a test tube and it's wrong to try. We can however acknowledge his creation and give credit where it's due.