Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

[The Barbarian]

https://kgov.com/journal-nature-junk-dna-not-junk-bob-enyart-vs-eugenie-scott

From my earlier post:

And removal of huge amounts of genome in mice is tolerated well

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.
Nóbrega MA1, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.

Abstract

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

Because you don't understand any of this, you're constantly blindsided by the data. Even though much of non-coding DNA is functional, huge areas of it are not.

No point in denying the reality, is there?

 

[JudgeRightly]

From my earlier post:

It's apparent you didn't bother to read.

Read please.

From the following link:

https://kgov.com/journal-nature-junk-dna-not-junk-bob-enyart-vs-eugenie-scott

We read a few excerpts:

...audio from 1998 when leading evolutionist Eugenie Scott tells Bob that genetic scientists were "over the hump" and affirmatively knew that the pseudogenes had no function and that such junk DNA was therefore evidence against the existence of a Designer. Hear the fundamentalist Bible teacher disagree with the degreed scientist, and guess who science has vindicated?

* Famed Molecular Evolutionist in a Tough Spot: Please pray for Dan Graur. To a young-earth creationist who has been vindicated by ENCODE (and now through 2019 with mountains of consistent data continuously rising up), Dan Graur's angst is our celebration... "If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong." * 2019 Worm Update: Worm "junk DNA" turns out to control their ability to regenerate, says Harvard's Evolutionary Biology department. So, even with the worms Dr. Graur, it wasn't junk after all.

* JUNK DNA: Eugenie Flubs Genetics Prediction, Creationist Hits the Bull's-eye. The negative evidence that Eugenie did offer was Junk DNA. This scientist, from her Darwinist worldview, therefore didn't offer scientific evidence but made this philosophical argument about what a Creator would or would not do; namely, that He wouldn't fill our genome with so much non-protein-coding DNA. While some simple worms have 20,000 genes, it is typically a small portion of DNA that actually codes for proteins. A human has only 20,500 genes, which fills only 2% of our genome. Yet the widespread evolutionary claim for decades (including through the last two decades, and for many, still held today) was that the rest of the genome was left-over evolutionary garbage. Debating this physical anthropologist, Bob Enyart was just a Christian fundamentalist talk show host who spoke from his biblical worldview. Bob argued that our knowledge of genetics was in its infancy, and that it was too early to make the determination that all those non-coding segments of DNA had no function. After this 1998 debate, the next decade of explosive genetic discoveries overwhelmingly validated this creationist perspective, so much so that aside from coding for 20,500 proteins, it is estimated that the remainder of the genome has approximately four million other functional regulatory segments of DNA. So much for junk. Fulfilled predictions, as the world saw with Einstein's 1919 eclipse prediction, go toward scientific credibility. However, Dr. Scott strongly rejected this creationist prediction making an extraordinary claim, which Bob immediately offered her to retract, that scientists currently knew everything they would ever need to know about genetics to conclusively state that all those regions were useless junk. Bob would love a rematch. But Eugenie Scott, (Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology, leading anti-creationist, and director of the National Center for Science Education), who had just debated evolution on a nationwide PBS television program, ended this one-hour program with Bob stating, "Well, I don’t debate."

And on and on and on it goes...

In other words, evolutionists still to this day claim that "junk DNA" exists, whereas Christian Creationists typically do not accept its existence.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's apparent you didn't bother to read.

Read please.

From the following link:

(Creationist website, with no scientific content,and much obfuscation)

And on and on and on it goes...

What's more convincing, is the discovery that huge amounts of genome removed from mice,still resulted in viable mice:

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.
Nóbrega MA1, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.

Abstract

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

In other words, scientists distinguish non-coding DNA from "junk DNA" like the GULO gene that demonstrably exists, whereas creationists typically deny its existence.

And there's this:

When researchers first worked out how DNA encodes the instructions for making proteins in the 1950s, they assumed that almost all DNA codes for proteins. However, by the 1970s, it was becoming clear that only a tiny proportion of a genome encodes functional proteins – about 1 per cent in the case of us humans.

Biologists realised that some of the non-coding DNA might still have an important role, such as regulating the activity of the protein-coding genes. But around 90 per cent of our genome is still junk DNA, they suggested – a term that first appeared in print in a 1972 article in New Scientist.

But throughout the 2000s, a number of studies purported to show that junk DNA was nothing of the sort, based on demonstrating that some tiny bits of non-coding DNA had some use or other. These claims proved popular with creationists, who were struggling to explain why an intelligently designed genome would consist mostly of rubbish.

The grandest claim came in 2012, when a consortium of genomics researchers called ENCODE declared that, according to their project, a huge 80 per cent of the DNA in the human genome has a function. “They had spent $400 million, they wanted something big to say,” says Dan Graur of the University of Houston.

Graur is one of many researchers who didn’t believe ENCODE’s claim. The heart of the issue is how you define functional. ENCODE defined DNA as such if it showed any “biochemical activity”, for instance, if it was copied into RNA. But Graur doesn’t think a bit of activity like this is enough to prove DNA has a meaningful use. Instead, he argues that a sequence can only be described as functional if it has evolved to do something useful, and if a mutation disrupting it would have a harmful effect.

...

Mutations to DNA happen at random for several reasons, such as UV radiation or mistakes made when DNA replicates during cell division. These mutations change one base of DNA into another – an A to a T, for example – and when they occur in a gene are more likely to be harmful than beneficial.

When we reproduce, our children inherit a shuffled bag of mutations, and those with a collection of particularly bad ones are more likely to die before having children of their own. This is how evolution stops bad mutations building up to dangerously high levels in a species.

Following Graur’s logic, if most of our DNA is functional, we would accumulate a large proportion of harmful mutations in important sequences. But if most of our DNA is junk, the majority of mutations would have no effect.

Graur’s team have now calculated how many children a couple would need to conceive so evolution could weed out enough bad mutations from our genomes as fast as they arise. If the entire genome was functional, couples would need to have around 100 million children, and almost all would have to die. Even if just a quarter of the genome is functional, each couple would still have to have nearly four children on average, with only two surviving to adulthood, to prevent harmful mutations building up to dangerous levels.

Taking into account estimates of the mutation rate and average prehistorical reproduction rate, Graur’s team calculated that only around 8 to 14 per cent of our DNA is likely to have a function.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ally-is-useless-junk-after-all/#ixzz5wA3aqg9s

Not that facts are going to have any effect on creationists, for which creationism is a religious belief. But reality has the virtue of being true.

 

[Guyver]

There, now you see? That is a brilliant post. Nicely done Barbarian! That has truth plus real science! I couldn’t have done it better myself. Congratulations, that’s like hitting your two iron off the deck 290 yards.

Here’s the only thing. Just a bit earlier I was accusing another poster of spamming because of the ridiculous statements he made about your rationality. Yet, because you embrace real truth and accept facts over religion or superstition, you are actually rational. It’s just such a thing to consider you irrational.

Yet, that is cognitive bias and religious indoctrination expressly manifest. But, who am I to judge, for I once had it. But I will tell you about that on the next post.

 

[Guyver]

Barbarian, I was never a YEC because I accepted the Gap Theory when I was a Christian. But, I was in a fellowship (Calvary Chapel) that I really believed in....except I could not accept YEC. I finally had to walk out of a bible study/presentation on the topic because I could no longer endure the affront to truth.

Anyway...I guess that’s about it.

 

[ok doser]

Get a room

 

[Guyver]

Get a room

hahaha....that was good. You’re funny.

 

[6days]

...even Dr. Crow admits the data does fit evolutionary theory.

I'm not the only one who noticed you have not read the article.

Jeff Tomkins "The Genesis account of creation, the global flood, and the dispersion of people groups at Babel are fully supported by hard scientific data.... Jeffrey is merely chanting slogans.

The more frustrated you get, the more dishonest you become. It is your pattern.

It was YOU who mentioned Tomkins suggesting he didn't deny evolution. We know why you didn't include the whole quote.
Tomkins "The Genesis account of creation, the global flood, and the dispersion of people groups at Babel are fully supported by hard scientific data. I quickly realized that evolutionary ideas (including eons of deep time) are part of a failed paradigm that exists only in the minds of deceived men, not scientific reality."
https://creation.com/geneticist-praises-creator

If you didn't want me to mention what scientists learned in the 60s

You have mentioned it... Science has moved on.

Actually, I have enough history courses for a major. I was, in the AF stationed where the two primary diversions were drinking and taking college courses.

Good for you serving your country.

...at least, you're likely just confused, not dishonest.(re.6days Pointing out how you argue both for and against junk DNA)

[MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] and [MENTION=20423]ffreeloader[/MENTION]@JudgeRightly and others have already mocked your inconsistencies.

Because creationists call all of it "junk DNA", they usually don't realize that much of it does have other functions, even while there certainly is junk DNA.

Read your link. YOUR link.

The GULO gene, for example

GULO is just another of the many failed arguments by evolutionists.

In one case it was recently noted that CRISPR editing often removes big chunks of DNA

Oh my... All the faulty assumptions that you make
.

And removal of huge amounts of genome in mice is tolerated well

Tolerated? You still fall for the same flawed logic and arguments of the past. (Read ALL that link)
Barbarian..... Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. Unlike you, we do not need to propose hypothetical unrealistic rescue device solutions. The Data is consistent with a perfect genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of mutations. And, we do not need to explain away Scripture which tells us "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them".

 

[Stripe]

As you learned just now, dancing and crowing about who believes what is not evidence.

You just can't understand the scientific method.

The Biblical account is certainly consistent with hard scientific data.

Observed speciation and common descent.

Nope. Evolution is just a theory.

It's not consistent with YE creationism, unless one trashes the "life ex nihilo" doctrine.

It's "creation" ex nihilo, not "life." The universe was created "from nothing" by God, Who was — get this — alive at the time.

:chuckle:

Reality bites hard sometimes, huh?

Moreover, it's standard Catholic doctrine.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/creation-ex-nihilo
https://www.catholicstand.com/creatio-ex-nihilo-why-we-believe/

You're a Catholic, right?

You're just saying things to hide your embarrassment, right?

Instead of showing any data, you're merely chanting slogans. Notice the difference between reality and the nonsense you spout.

Barbarian observes:

It's a pity he won't show even a smidgen of humility.

I don't even have enough genetics to have a minor in the subject.

And it shows.

Guess how we know you never spent any time thinking sensibly about genetics?

You changed the subject. Numerous times. Atheists like to call it a "Gish gallop," but it is the Darwinists most often caught spewing nonsense to hide their embarrassment.

If you didn't want us to mention what scientists believed in the 1960s, you shouldn't have brought it up. We see you deleted that from your last post to make it look better for you. You're not smart enough to get away with something like that.

And then you changed the subject and pretended I did. Do you think no one notices you doing that?

This time, like every time, you're likely confused and dishonest.

Because creationists call all of it "junk DNA", they usually don't realize that much of it does have other functions, even while there certainly is junk DNA.

As you learned, it was Darwinists who appealed to "junk DNA" for a place to hide the many problems they noticed with their religion.

Because you don't understand any of this, you're constantly blindsided by the data.

And as you now realize, subsequent research has confirmed it.

New genetic discoveries continue to erode Darwinist doctrines and dispel many of the false beliefs of the past.

When I was first learning biology, creationists were denying speciation, increased fitness by natural selection and common descent of any taxa. Now, they admit all of that, even limited common descent.

Nope. You got lied to, which isn't a huge problem. The real problem is that you repeated the lie.

We expect further retreats.

No point in denying reality, is there?

(Creationist website, with no scientific content,and much obfuscation)

Darwinists will do anything to avoid a challenge.

Not that facts are going to have any effect on Darwinists, to whom evolution is a religion. However, reality has the virtue of being true.

There, now you see? That is a brilliant post. Nicely done Barbarian.

Sock.

Anyway...I guess that’s about it.

Bye. :wave2:

 

[6days]

I accepted the Gap Theory...

Christian parents, and grand parents should take note. When young people such as Guyver are taught to compromise in Genesis, it often leads to a rejection of the Gospel.

Don't depend on the church, or others to teach your children. We need teach our youth what we believe and why. We also need teach them about common ancestry, and why we reject that belief. Unlike the secular school system, we should teach our kids how to think and not what to think.

 

[Gary K]

Christian parents, and grand parents should take note. When young people such as Guyver are taught to compromise in Genesis, it often leads to a rejection of the Gospel.

Don't depend on the church, or others to teach your children. We need teach our youth what we believe and why. We also need teach them about common ancestry, and why we reject that belief. Unlike the secular school system, we should teach our kids how to think and not what to think.

You are absolutely correct. It is the multi-generational failure of many Christian parents to spend the amount of time required to teach their children. Way too many plop them in front of the idiot box and go do something else. I was guilty of that with my step kids and I know a lot of people my age who made the same mistake.

 

[Guyver]

Christian parents, and grand parents should take note. When young people such as Guyver are taught to compromise in Genesis, it often leads to a rejection of the Gospel.

Don't depend on the church, or others to teach your children. We need teach our youth what we believe and why. We also need teach them about common ancestry, and why we reject that belief. Unlike the secular school system, we should teach our kids how to think and not what to think.

If you don’t even understand the periodic table of elements, you have no right to criticize the Gap Theory.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If you don’t even understand the periodic table of elements, you have no right to criticize the Gap Theory.

The gap theory doesn't work for various reasons, none of which have anything to do with the periodic table.

 

[ok doser]

If you don’t even understand the periodic table of elements, you have no right to criticize the Gap Theory.

What makes you think he doesn't understand the periodic table?

 

[Stripe]

If you don’t even understand the periodic table of elements, you have no right to criticize the Gap Theory.

I thought you were leaving?

 

[Stripe]

The gap theory doesn't work for various reasons, none of which have anything to do with the periodic table.

The gap theory was named for what is between adherents' ears.

 

[Gary K]

What makes you think he doesn't understand the periodic table?

The person who buys into naturalism(evolution) creates the fallacy in his mind that only his position is "scientific". Thus in their mind no creationist can understand anything related to science. Yet that position all by itself says his reasoning is fallacious for in real science all options related to life must be investigated. The evolutionist rejects, out of hand, anything to do with creation, and that choice on his part makes his claim to be "scientific" a lie. That attitude makes his position on the question concerning the origins of life philosophical/religious in nature, yet he denies that anything related to religion can be true. Thus the evolutionist violates the law of non-contradiction and his position is thus an irrational position.

The evolutionist doesn't investigate creation. He avoids it.

 

[Guyver]

The evolutionist doesn't investigate creation. He avoids it.

Odd how religion blinds people. The “evolutionist” doesn’t avoid creation...he or she studies it and considers it carefully. Everyone (mostly) has some innate desire to understand where we came from and why we’re here and YEC doesn’t cut mustard.

 

[Gary K]

Odd how religion blinds people. The “evolutionist” doesn’t avoid creation...he or she studies it and considers it carefully. Everyone (mostly) has some innate desire to understand where we came from and why we’re here and YEC doesn’t cut mustard.

Nope. If you actually viewed the evidence from both positions you could be said to be scientific. But you do not. You refuse to consider the creationist's position and his view of the evidence. In other words, you reject out of hand any argument a creationist makes and you do it by claiming it has no basis in science. The problem with that claim is that it presupposes the idea that only your side can possibly use/understand science.

Remember what you said about walking out on a meeting when creationism was being upheld? That demonstrates your inability to even listen to the opposing arguments, let alone test them for truth. You also claim the creationists are biased, but evolutionists are not. That once again demonstrates the use of a logical fallacy to support your thinking. Why? Everyone has a bias. We can't even think about a subject without having a starting point of how we as an individual are going to consider that subject. And yet you deny even that and claim to be utterly without bias. You must have a bias for you have a starting point which you use to view the creation/evolution debate.

Just as an aside, do you know how many evolutionist scientists who have studied the fossil record say there is zero support in the fossil record for evolution? Have you even considered that they may very well be correct? It's what they do for a living. They are professionals on the subject. They knew they would face a huge backlash from their fellow evolutionists yet made the conclusions anyway. They knew it would hurt their careers to publish their findings yet had the integrity to say what they believed as a result of their studies.

 

[Guyver]

Nope. If you actually viewed the evidence from both positions you could be said to be scientific. But you do not. You refuse to consider the creationist's position and his view of the evidence. In other words, you reject out of hand any argument a creationist makes and you do it by claiming it has no basis in science. The problem with that claim is that it presupposes the idea that only your side can possibly use/understand science.

I must inform you that you are mistaken. I actually have studied the issue from both sides, and don’t reject anything except that which I consider false. Ironically, I am actually a Creationist myself....so you’re really not even understanding me, but you’re falsely accusing me. And the weird thing about that is it seems to be your contribution to this discussion. You like to talk about people instead of issue, ideas, and facts. Your recent post about The Barbarian proves this.

I believe that God created everything by allowing it to exist by whatever method he chose. That makes me a Creationist, and an honest one because I’m willing to admit that I don’t know how or why he did it. But, since I am convinced that God has presented me with evidence of his existence, I choose to believe.

Maybe you should consider being a little less judgy and a little more open minded.