had you bothered to read the ‘Christian site’ you would have seen that several of the papers did not focus simply on the non coding areas or the ‘redundant’ areas, and that they actually went into great detail discussing how dissimilar the coding regions that were thrown out because they didn’t fit the agenda really were-
Pots shouldn’t call kettles black- you speak of ‘real science’ yet show a distinct unwillingness to engage in honest discussions when it comes to evidences that call into question your preferred belief- dismissing with a wave of the hand any such evidences, and attacking the messenger- all things that ‘real scientists’ don’t engage in- a ‘real scientists woudl take the facts, in this case, the claims made by such websites as i listed, and refute the points instead of attacking the author- if your position is strong enough your evidences should be strong enough to withstand such challenges- but when you accuse the author of things like ‘cherry picking’ and ‘deceit’ when your side does the very same thing- it simply shows a lack of strength on your own arguments-
[[*Most* non-coding regions are filler.]]
*MOST* as in? As in some are not simply filler? Again- the question is put to you- how much of the ‘filler’ is being included, and is there the chance that species specific filler might be important to that particular kind?
I’m willing to have a discussion based on your comments and the facts you present, and not your character- it would be nice if you could return the favor without resorting ot the tired out mantra of Christian bashing- I pointed you to that site because it challenges the things you were claiming- waving the site away simply because it is a ‘Christian site’ and implying that nothing o n the site could possibly be of any scientific value because it’s all ‘not real science’ isn’t very scientific of you-
[[Let’s say that full expression of a gene leads to a cell containing 5% of a specific protein. But the cell does not want to consist of 5% of that protein, so the regulatory elements of DNA decrease the level of expression to the level that the cell needs, which could be 0.1% or zero except when the cell senses changes in its environment.]]
Are you describing bacteria utilizing ‘nylon digestion capabilities’ shoudl the environment ‘change’? Would that be such a case?
Either provide an example of my engaging in Christian bashing, or refrain from making that claim. Accusing someone of doing something which they do not do is an act of bearing false witness--which is mentioned as a big "no-no" several places in the Bible.
had you bothered to read the ‘Christian site’ you would have seen that several of the papers did not focus simply on the non coding areas or the ‘redundant’ areas [yada, yada, yada]
Has it occurred to you that I've actually looked at a sufficient number of anti-science websites to form an understanding of the basic tactics that they all use? They use lies of omission, where they only pick out one or two facts that can be twisted to fit their agenda--aka "cherry-picking data." They then go on to misinterpret the meaning of the few cherry-picked facts that they present, often deriving pages and pages of "interpretation" which is nothing but a false narrative centered on the couple of actual facts they presented. Whether the pseudo-science is focused on promoting creationism, medical quackery, "natural" or "organic" foods, any unnatural eating habits (vegetarianism, veganism), alien visitation, or pick your favorite flavor of pseudoscience to embrace, the methodology is identical.
As I said, I do not need to refute every single untruth promoted by anti-science advocates in order to recognize and reject the pseudoscience. Lies are infinite, but methodology is not.