Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

by QC 371 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cofty

  I prefer listening to smart folks. - QC

  So why are you listening to Meyer?

  His expertise is the history of science and yet he has the audacity to write about molecular biology and paleontology.

  It's like asking your dentist to write a book about rocket science.

  Molecular biologists and paleontologists all say he is talking out his backside and yet you prefer to listen to him. Some of them have made the effort to respond to his theological rambling in detail, and we have posted links to their expert responses in this thread, and yet you refuse to even acknowledge them.

  Go on wallowing in your superstitious fantasies QC. This is what happens when theists can't tell science from superstition.
• 

  QC

  Let's get a read on a sampling of a typical cofty post (2/2/2013) :

  1.5% codes for proteins

  4% is regulatory DNA

  10% is structural DNA - centromeres and telomers which compensate for a substandard copying mechanism

  All of the above 15.5% is essential.

  However......

  21% are LINEs Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)

  13% are SINEs Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)

  8% are ERVs Endogenous RetroViruses (parasitic)

  3% are DNA Transposons (jumping genes, also parasitic)

  All of this 45% of our genome arose in our ancestors through various types of copying errors....So is it OK to call this 45% junk?....The remaining 40% is currently unknown.

  This "45% junk DNA [ parasitic, etc] and 40% unknown" distortion of reality is typical cofty drive-by snark verbal bullying seen in the JWN neighborhood. It’s offensive and a gross mischaracterization.

  A consortium of SCIENTIST experts used on the ENCODE Project published a report (a comprehensive update of the genome and DNA complexity, Published on Sep 6, 2012). This report disagrees with cofty's characterization.

  Cofty is aware that EXPERT scientists don't agree with his assessment. But cofty doesn't care, he persists.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3V2thsJ1Wc (4 MIN)

  Here are excerpts from the lead scientist Ewan Birney of the ENCODE consortium:

  · “The whole genome is alive with switches, you can’t move for switches. There’s switches everywhere, there’s not a single place in the genome that doesn’t have something that you might think could be controlling something else.” — Ewan Birney, ENCODE Project lead scientist

  · “ENCODE has only just begun to deliver, which will take decades to complete....There’s 2,000 binding proteins in the genome. ENCODE looked at 100-116 of those, so there is a long ways to go yet, a lot more of these guys to study.” —Ewan Birney, ENCODE Project lead scientist

  · “If we use the phrase 'biochemical activity'… we find that the different parts of the genome, 80% have some specific biochemical event…. I was often asked whether that 80% goes to 100%, and that’s what I believe it will do…. That number is much more about the coverage of what we’ve assayed over the entire genome.” —BBC interview with Ewan Birney, lead ENCODE Project scientist, April 1st, 2013

  So, the genome is alive with switches everywhere; something is controlling something else; ENCODE "has only begun to deliver, which will take decades to complete;" and, it's likely 80% genome "biochemical activity" will become 100% as this vast complexity gets sorted out, they've only scratched the surface of activity.

  

  Bottom line: The new genome and DNA evidence does not support Evolution. There's no such thing as "junk DNA" (evolution debris) in the genome. Just like there's no such thing as a common ancestry tree fossil record.

  And, there’s no time for millions and millions of mutation graduations (in pair minimums, one woud be a dysfunctional reject by Evolution's "survival of the fittest" standard) to produce all living things. The probability of time for this would be staggering, way beyond Earth’s current existence time.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBDtpnBeya0 (26 MIN)

  cofty: So why are you listening to Meyer?

  Everthing Meyer says checks out. He is the first to explain how DNA ATCG digital code software can only come by way of intelligence. Bingo!

  Cofty and Dawkins believe in fraud. JW GB believe in fraud. Why would any x-dub buy into more fraud? Very odd.

  I accept Meyer's work because it's correct. Even though we disagree on 4 th century Christian theology. Just like I accept algebra without Muslim theology.
• 

  cofty

  the genome is alive with switches everywhere

  The role of genetic switches is a fascinating aspect of evolution.

  One of the leaders in the field is Sean B. Carroll. Unlike Meyer who has never done any actual scientific work in his entire life, Carroll and his team are at the cutting edge of genetic research.

  In his book "The Making of the Fittest" he describes the role of genetic switches in detail and how they account for the diversity of body plans we observe in nature. He identifies specific ancient genes that pre-date the so-called Cambrian explosion.

  On page 81 he writes, "Some of this non-coding DNA functions in the control of how genes are used, but a lot of it is what we call junk. This junk accumulates by various mechanisms and often contains long repetitive tracts with no informational content; it is not purged unless it has adverse effects".

  This is from a man who is instrumental in discovering and describing the function of genetic switches in evolutionary developmental biology.

  In his book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" he says on p112 "Most dark matter contains no instructions and is just space-filling junk accumulated over the course of evolution. In humans, only about 2 to 3 percent of our dark matter contains genetic switches that control how genes are used."

  We know precisely how non-coding DNA got into our genome and that of other species. It has no function.

  21% are LINEs Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)

  13% are SINEs Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements (parasitic)

  8% are ERVs Endogenous RetroViruses (parasitic)

  3% are DNA Transposons (jumping genes, also parasitic)

  Would you like me to tell you about the specific tool-kit genes that we now know were present in pre-cambrian ancestors?

  There would seem to be little point as you obviously never read anything that challenges your superstitions.
• 

  bohm

  QC: Everthing Meyer says checks out. He is the first to explain how DNA ATCG digital code software can only come by way of intelligence. Bingo!

  oh really? I will ask you again, in your own words, what is the argument?

  What Meyers propose is trivially flawed. I have yet to meet a person who understands the argument and the related science and at the same time believe it is true. I suppose you fall in the category of "dont understand the argument"?

  Regarding ENCODE, the problem is you do not understand the relevant science and, accordingly, you just repeat what Discovery institute has told you to believe. The following section on wikipedia sum it up quite well:

  The Nature editors and ENCODE authors "... collaborated over many months to make the biggest splash possible and capture the attention of not only the research community but also of the public at large." [24] The ENCODE project's claim that 80% of the human genome has biochemical function [9] was rapidly picked up by the popular press who described the results of the project as leading to the death of junk DNA. [25] [26]

  However the conclusion that most of the genome is functional was severely criticized on the grounds that ENCODE project used a far too liberal definition of functional, namely anything that is transcribed must be functional. This conclusions was arrived at despite the widely accepted view that many DNA elements such as pseudogenes that are transcribed are nevertheless non-functional. Furthermore the ENCODE project has emphasized sensitivity over specificity leading to the detection of many false positives. [27] [28] [29] Lack of appropriate control experiment was another major criticism of ENCODE. Random DNA mimics ENCODE-like 'functional' behavior. [30]

  The project also has been criticized for it high cost ($400 million) and favoring "Soviet-style" big science which takes money away from highly productive investigator-initiated research. [31]
• 

  QC

  (cofty bohm)

  Hey Guys,

  This is quite a lineup. We've got the ENCODE consortium, Steve Meyer, Sean B. Carroll and Wikipedia.

  Which is the more trustworthy ?

  Time will tell.

  Perfect!

  Thanks for sharing a great marker.
• 

  cofty

  QC - Let's imagine for a moment that it were to turn out that every one of the 3 billion base pairs in the human genome is an essential part of the code. It won't, but let's pretend.

  So what?

  That would not be any sort of challenge for evolution.

  Genetic switches open up a whole new field of discovery for evolutionary developmental biology.

  Darwin's "black box" has now been opened and we can begin to understand in depth how the genetic code produces an embryo. We can see how body plans are shaped by hox genes and body parts are turned on and off by tool-kit genes.

  Evolution has never been so exciting and full of promise of new discoveries.

  How can you bear to be so dull?
• 

  QC

  Why didn't god create the universe the day before he did? Or the day before that?

  (I digress a bit)

  God is outside of our universe. He is not impacted by our 4th dimension of time. It's similar to photons traveling at the speed of light, time stops. Whenever they arrive (at any destination) it’s in zero (0) time. So photons never age, they operate outside of the time dimension. Similarly God is timeless, he operates outside of time.

  God observes the time array in our material universe. He is INSTANTLY aware of all incidents past, present and future (including trends) in their sequence and significance. He has control of our time.

  So God’s doesn’t have “wait times”; He’s on time, anytime, like photons.

  We might think otherwise, that's a mistake (e.g. JW leadership).
• 

  cantleave

  QC thank you for making me laugh out loud by spouting such ludicrous superstition. What you have written above is simply non-sensical rubbish, much like everything else you have written on this thread. At first I thought you were being serious about Meyer's book redefining our our understanding of evolution, I now realise that this is all satire.
• 

  bohm

  QC: Read the book yet?

  If you had a sence of humor, you would come back in a week and say: "read the book, wasnt very good after all. tty".
• 

  QC

  (cant bohm)

  I love the contrast you guys provide.

  Thanks