tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3721914796293624176..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: More Functions For “Junk” DNAUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46301454867834211432013-08-10T09:23:52.339-07:002013-08-10T09:23:52.339-07:00rjop
(crawls out from under rock)
(tosses some m...<i>rjop<br /><br />(crawls out from under rock)<br /><br />(tosses some mud)<br /><br />(scuttles quickly back into the shadows)</i><br /><br />Exactly as predicted.<br /><br />Here's the thing you Fundies never get - your continual egregious lying about scientists and their work is every bit as insulting to the scientists as any <i>ad hom</i> you may toss. You you idiots think insulting honest scientists is perfectly OK as long as you use <i>polite flowery language</i> to do it.<br /><br />Pity you guys don't follow a book that teaches "Thou shalt not lie".Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21483504027321486152013-08-10T03:12:05.055-07:002013-08-10T03:12:05.055-07:00*in the mirror.. (comment section needs edit featu...*in the mirror.. (comment section needs edit feature ;) rjophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15067510053393810705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90683400317809510672013-08-10T03:10:04.511-07:002013-08-10T03:10:04.511-07:00@ Thorton,
I really see no difference in occasion...@ Thorton,<br /><br />I really see no difference in occasionally tossing mud in comparison to those who do it on an hourly, daily and yearly basis. The only difference is the later would suggest Psychosis. Perhaps you should also consider your limitations, or shall I say hypocrisy, and take a hard look the in mirror..rjophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15067510053393810705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89778432523658003602013-08-10T03:05:49.955-07:002013-08-10T03:05:49.955-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15433378203412593342013-08-08T16:35:26.585-07:002013-08-08T16:35:26.585-07:00I'm not following you.
Are you saying all th...I'm not following you. <br /><br />Are you saying all the papers being published by scientists on DNA are not the result of scientist studying DNA? <br /><br />If not, then what exactly are you saying?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45611491821539327582013-08-05T10:41:11.400-07:002013-08-05T10:41:11.400-07:00"This graph gives a general overview of the g..."This graph gives a general overview of the genome sizes of different groups of organisms. "<br /><br />I don't suppose any one noticed that the organism types that have the narrowest bands were on the ark, and those with the wider bands had to make their way through the flood on their own.awstarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13442617812001833866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9812327860174502232013-08-04T12:41:12.801-07:002013-08-04T12:41:12.801-07:00rjop
The only whining would be coming from you he...<i>rjop<br /><br />The only whining would be coming from you here day after day. </i><br /><br />LOL! I see, you're another one of those brave Creationists who only crawls out from under his rock just long enough to toss some mud, then scuttles quickly back into the shadows.<br /><br />At least you know your limitations.<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13682018788895460322013-08-04T10:56:38.551-07:002013-08-04T10:56:38.551-07:00@ Thorton,
The only whining would be coming from ...@ Thorton,<br /><br />The only whining would be coming from you here day after day. <br /><br />@ Elijah2012. I have read the comments, I posted the link.(under different handle). Yes, quite amusing at Moran's blog, same thing happened with Shapiro and Birney when ENCODE was first announced.rjophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15067510053393810705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83929038037757829892013-08-04T09:06:47.649-07:002013-08-04T09:06:47.649-07:00"It was apparently only about 3% which doesn&..."It was apparently only about 3% which doesn't sound like much but if it's all functional as EID proponents believe then deleting it should have made a difference."<br /><br />Weak....The paper itself admits that it did not test for enough functions to rule out any function whatsoever.Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62268556150771173392013-08-04T08:10:36.542-07:002013-08-04T08:10:36.542-07:00rjop,
To be honest the whole Ball State thing doe...rjop,<br /><br />To be honest the whole Ball State thing doesn't interest me much. Its not like similar universities haven't had the same positions but less public. The way that "junk" DNA research is going situations like that may well be taken care of by the science. IF the ENCODE scientists (and others as well) prove to be right it will change forever the effectiveness of the Darwinian rhetoric as far as the public is concerned. In fact the way the die hard atheistic community is trying to rag on ENCODE scientists its creating a split that will allow a lot more honesty to come out of the debate.<br /><br />Moran's blog comments are particularly amusing because if you read them you can see them trying the same tactics of claiming a well known respected scientists doesn't know anything about the science (a couple people had to reign that silliness in).<br /><br />This is a GAME CHANGER where Ball State is just another ruckus. Atheistic Darwinists are going all in with defending Junk DNA and IF ENCODE wins out it will have sweeping repercussions all of which would benefit ID.Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17578794701143275242013-08-04T07:37:16.600-07:002013-08-04T07:37:16.600-07:00rjop
Lee Bowman is making a strong argument here ...<i>rjop<br /><br />Lee Bowman is making a strong argument here with Dr. Hurd > http://chronicle.com/article/Ball-State-U-Bars-Teaching-of/140777/</i><br /><br />LOL! Hardly. Bowman is just regurgitating the same old tired ID talking points - ID isn't about religion blah blah blah, whining about the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, etc. Dr. Hurd is both a competent scientists and qualified as an expert scientific witness in legal cases. He's mopping the floor with Bowman's blustering rhetoric.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37295280266453312322013-08-04T06:40:20.546-07:002013-08-04T06:40:20.546-07:00What an IDIOTIC comment. Who knows how a hypotheti...<b>What an IDIOTIC comment. Who knows how a hypothetical designer would have constructed the genome. </b><br /><br />Good point, who could know? <br /><br /><b>What a lame argument. You should know better than that. But knowing the philosophy your mind is so entrenched in, I can understand why you would ask such a dipshit question</b><br /><br />It was a question, not an argument. I just assumed you were capable of curiosity. Apologies. <br /><br />I doubt you understand anything about me, bg, but I am interested in hearing your theory if you can string a couple of complete thoughts together.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20893909021678530382013-08-04T01:27:28.274-07:002013-08-04T01:27:28.274-07:00@ Elijah2012
I have my bag of popcorn in hand als...@ Elijah2012<br /><br />I have my bag of popcorn in hand also. :) Lee Bowman is making a strong argument here with Dr. Hurd > http://chronicle.com/article/Ball-State-U-Bars-Teaching-of/140777/<br /><br />Keep hitting 'load more comments' toward end of comment thread.rjophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15067510053393810705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78348295207226964942013-08-03T23:57:44.871-07:002013-08-03T23:57:44.871-07:00Oh my they are ready to rip him a new one for thi...Oh my they are ready to rip him a new one for this as Moran summarizes -<br /><br />"The last two references are to Michael Behe's paper about functional pseudogenes and to Jonathan Wells' book The Myth of Junk DNA. I don't think I've ever see a legitimate scientific paper that references that book by Jonathan Wells. <br /><br /> Mattick also uses IDiot terminology when he says that, "...the argument posits that the presence of non-protein-coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises >90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution." As you should all know by now, the accumulation of junk DNA is the antithesis of "Darwinian evolution." You should also note that it's mostly IDiots who get confused about the difference between junk DNA and "non-protein-coding" DNA.<br /><br /> I find that very troubling."<br /><br />I bet you do Moran Not because its an endorsement but because <br /><br />A) Someone was willing to say a major argument against ID is less than devastating and likely is terribly wrong.<br />B) Someone was honest enough to admit the bias.Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30956249941276300282013-08-03T23:41:44.416-07:002013-08-03T23:41:44.416-07:00"Larry Moran and crowd seem very concerned &g..."Larry Moran and crowd seem very concerned > http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-junk-dna-controversy-john-mattick.html"<br /><br />LOL. I got my popcorn out. These are great days to watch the darwinists do exactly what they accuse IDist of - fighting against the evidence. They placed too much weight on the Junk DNA argument to the public and its spinning around to bite them in the rear.<br /><br />funny stuff....need another bucket of popcorn. Moran's head is about to spin off :)Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39326829510213264772013-08-03T21:32:18.937-07:002013-08-03T21:32:18.937-07:00Drunk and angry teenage Fundy spotted.Drunk and angry teenage Fundy spotted.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63268490214469035912013-08-03T21:24:52.246-07:002013-08-03T21:24:52.246-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52957292952751751182013-08-03T21:17:09.320-07:002013-08-03T21:17:09.320-07:00"Au contraire mon IDiot, lots of scientists (..."Au contraire mon IDiot, lots of scientists (most or all of which you would call "evolutionists") are studying all aspects of DNA."<br /><br /><br />Au contraire you clown. Those who you claim are "lots of scientists" are so concerned about their jobs and pensions that they absolutely do not want to upset the STATUS QUO because they want to be comfortable until they die. The majority of them will turn their heads to any kind of real evidence that, even if they really agree with, will put their comfort in jeopardy. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE! bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81657047968463873822013-08-03T21:10:52.579-07:002013-08-03T21:10:52.579-07:00bpragmatic,
So the F what? Just show how nde was a...<b>bpragmatic,<br />So the F what? Just show how nde was able to construct the basis for what you call genomic variability. You simpleton.</b><br /><br />Very persuasive argument . How did the designer construct the genome?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31027705294155977362013-08-03T21:04:00.996-07:002013-08-03T21:04:00.996-07:00DrHunter,
Which is unexpected on evolutionary theo...<b>DrHunter,<br />Which is unexpected on evolutionary theory</b><br /><br />The unexpected is normal, but it sort of deflates everything is purposeful conjecture, though junk DNA or no Junk DNA are both equally possible with a designer, so the existence or non existence of junk" DNA is no evidence for design, correct?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60740867102362747182013-08-03T21:03:51.469-07:002013-08-03T21:03:51.469-07:00Cornelius Hunter
ShadiZ1: "you see great var...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />ShadiZ1: "you see great variability in the genome size of closely related species."<br /><br />Which is unexpected on evolutionary theory.</i><br /><br />It's also not precluded by evolutionary theory.<br /><br />What is Intelligent Design Creationism's explanation for the observed great variability in genome size of closely related species?<br /><br />Anyone?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83057411785958914012013-08-03T20:56:48.341-07:002013-08-03T20:56:48.341-07:00"I'll add to what velikovskys said and me..."I'll add to what velikovskys said and mention that the great variability in genome size exists in many living organisms other than onions."<br /><br />So the F what? Just show how nde was able to construct the basis for what you call genomic variability. You simpleton. bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36929641985563455932013-08-03T20:48:03.795-07:002013-08-03T20:48:03.795-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87988068094163735762013-08-03T20:47:37.349-07:002013-08-03T20:47:37.349-07:00Cornelius Hunter
I made no such claim of universa...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />I made no such claim of universal function for non-coding DNA.</i><br /><br />We know CH. Weasel wording and plausible deniability are among the most useful skills of a Creationist professional propagandist.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74457543630968415432013-08-03T20:35:50.888-07:002013-08-03T20:35:50.888-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.com