I think demolishes is too generous a word.
Pulverizes or annihilates are better choices, imo.
Sylvia
Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism
by hooberus 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
IP_SEC
A tale of two patches:
A man was walking along and found two patches of earth. A red patch surrounding a brown patch.
The brown patch was scattered with debris... pine needles, bark, bits of trash etc.
The red patch was completely clean of any debris.
As he walked away he wondered who it was that so meticulously swept the debris from the red patch onto the brown.
Truth be told, had he looked closer he'd have realized the red patch was semi molten. The debris had burned off of the red patch. No intelligence was needed to provide such "complexity". Just a natural mechanism that looked like the hand of intelligence.
-
Deputy Dog
"there is nothing in that opinion piece that demolishes anything. If it did then it would be peer reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, it hasn't been because it not science and never will be."
Ah yes, that old cannon of atheism/naturalism. Where the Preists of Darwinism would bless it with their own brand of holy water.
-
Tuesday
This paper doesn't mention a single thing about androgenous retro-viruses. That is a vital part of "junk" DNA that they are supposedly proving is so active so as to negate Neo-Darwinism. Of course DNA serves a purpose, some DNA might actually be for extinct traits like you would see in the fetal stages. Regardless I don't see how this demolishes anything, the fact the writer went to so much detail explaining "junk" DNA and didn't mention androgenous retro-viruses tells me that either:
a.) He purposely left them out in order to lie to me
b.) He's ignorant of the subject
If B is the case, he has no right to even write this paper as it's a fundemental property of "junk" DNA. This is a sad proposition indeed as a best case scenario is admitting that the writer is unqualified to write on the subject he had already written about. The worst case scenario is he's purposely misleading people to draw to his conclusion.
Why did you even post this article?
-
Satanus
'androgenous retro-viruses.'
Immorality at the viral level. Is there no limit to satans depravity?
S
-
daniel-p
If you want to believe in God, you will do so regardless of other people's belief in evolution. So who gives a good god damn?
-
hooberus
This paper doesn't mention a single thing about androgenous retro-viruses. That is a vital part of "junk" DNA that they are supposedly proving is so active so as to negate Neo-Darwinism. Of course DNA serves a purpose, some DNA might actually be for extinct traits like you would see in the fetal stages. Regardless I don't see how this demolishes anything, the fact the writer went to so much detail explaining "junk" DNA and didn't mention androgenous retro-viruses tells me that either:
a.) He purposely left them out in order to lie to me
b.) He's ignorant of the subject
If B is the case, he has no right to even write this paper as it's a fundemental property of "junk" DNA. This is a sad proposition indeed as a best case scenario is admitting that the writer is unqualified to write on the subject he had already written about. The worst case scenario is he's purposely misleading people to draw to his conclusion.
Perhaps the paper never specifically discusses "androgenous [sic?] retro-viruses" because the (longer) principal referenced Nature "ENCODE" project paper itself didn't in its discussion of DNA. http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf
Or perhaps they to:
a.) Purposely left them out in order to lie to you
b.) Are ignorant of the subject
-
-
watson
Ok...there is a creator/god, now what?
-
Satanus
"Ok...there is a creator/god, now what?"
Since the native americans also believe in a creator god, it means that THEY have the RIGHT religion. We must all start believeing and acting like them. Sweat lodge, anyone? Sundance? Vision quest......
S, off to buy a teepee.