Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Did I ping you to #614. Good stuff there re: “junk” DNA, and the mind-boggling complexity of our genome. It just keeps getting worse and worse for neo-Darwinism...and at an accelerating rate!
Twin Strands Of DNA Seek Each Other Out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961038/posts
Looks like DNA likes to be stable and resistant to change.
Have scientists thoroughly analyzed the entire genome and determined the function or non function of each gene and bit of DNA that the cells contain that they are able to make that determination?
Or are they just assuming that there's no function because they haven't determined what it is yet?
You have proposed a couple of things: that some plasticity is front loaded into the genomes of created types — enough to allow some range of adaptation, but not not, as Wallace suggested, “indefinite” adaptation.
That would have been in the initial created kinds. There will be no front loaded genes in species which exist today. Many characteristics would have been lost with the kinds isolation from each other so the genomes are no longer loaded.
Science isn't the final word on everything. Just because science proposes the best it can doesn't mean that it's right, it simply means that it's the best they have.
We are not obligated to accept what science has to offer as correct simply because there's no better explanation they can propose.
Science is working on woefully incomplete data and knowledge. Granted we're learning more by the day, but the more we learn only goes to show how much more we don't know. But to make determinations based on such limited data and knowledge of what we're working with and what happened in the past is not possible. Guesses is about the best science can offer.
And that's not good enough.
I may have missed it. An example of “junk”.
“Quote: “In a region of DNA long considered a genetic wasteland, HMS researchers have discovered a new class of gene.”... “The researchers have evidence that the new gene, SRG1, works by physically blocking transcription of the adjacent gene, SER3. They found that transcription of SRG1 prevents the binding of a critical piece of SER3’s transcriptional machinery.” Source: “Junk DNA Yields New Kind of Gene”, Focus, Harvard Medical School, June 4 2004.”
You had to go an say something......
You had to go an say something......
You know....
When you mention something good it goes away, when you mention something bad it happens.
Yep, that’s the kind of stuff they are finding out about so-called “junk” DNA. With more junk like that, who needs the good stuff :o)
OK, so who was The Bat Man a retread for?
[[The information about your future purchase controls where you put the holes, but it doesn’t cause the holes. Your drill causes the holes. That’s why it’s not an example of inverse causality for you to drill the holes today for something you’re going to buy later.]]
I think this scenario breaks down because you- the driller- know in advance, and can plan and prepare with intelligence whereas blind assemblies of info at htel ower level have no such predictive power- it just is what it is- and it would be happy go lucky coincidences IF it somehow managed to amount to highly complex metainfo that was then able to ‘intelligently prepare for’ future such ‘projects’- (Not- this might break down under scrutiny- but it’s a;; I can htink of for them oment)
[[But despite Williams’ claims, it doesn’t violate the Law of Causality.]]
It might still- IF what I said is correct- You, the driller, are acting with ‘metainfo’ already inplace
[[You obviously have no evidence at all and want to move on. I can agree with that : ) Bye ]]
I provided some, as well as pointed you in the right direction- if you don’t want to put hte work in objectively, that’s your descisions- Via condios
[[I understand. No offense and in all kindness, but it’s considered bad form to discuss a fellow forum member and not give him a ping.]]
no offense taken- Coyoteman has repeatedly told me he will not read my posts (apparently becuase he finds evidneces rebuttaling his opinion icky) and has said not to ping him- He won’t read for instance that I think he’s crosseyed, has bad breath, and walks liek a duck, so I’m safe writign what I liek about him without pinging him without Him feeling left out or anything- Oh and I heard he breaks wind and blames it on the dog too
The secret WHERE exaclty????
Please define sentience, and how it arises spontaneously from organic and inorganic compounds, RNA, cellular structure, and neuronal constructs while locally violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I'm just askin'.
I can't think of any other way this is possible to explain sceintifically except through some intelligent designer if you're referring to consciousness and the superiornatural apects of higher thinking, cognitive thought etc. in higher animal forms.
The beauty of it all is it can not be separated from nature by anything other than a very human subjective construct and an arbitrary subjective rule, not science. The fact is, humans ARE emotive, sentient conscious beings, and science may or may not ever be able to explain sentience away, but we know it ("sentience") "IS" nevertheless.
The best scientific theory supporting this experience and indespensable facet of science itself btw, is an intelligent designer.
The fact is, without sentience, there'd BE no science as we know it, much less theories to argue about.
There are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it. — Philosopher / Physicist P.W. Bridgman
LOT's of people have been just sayin' apparently! :)
[[If GGG hasn’t any complaints, then by all means, tell me what you think is wrong with the scientific method]]
there’s nothign wrong with hte method- the method is fine- and I’ve championed the idea that we should return to it- fully- and objectively.
[[and exactly how you want it changed or what you want it replaced with]]
No need to change anythign regardign hte method- or replace it with anything- ID works fully within the parameters of the method
I don't see how the big bang theory, or the string theory or multverse theory as "currently accepted and practiced" are necessarily naturalistic, not at all.
When hot air cult apostles are out purposefully placing thermometers too close to jet engine exhausts at airports to collect data to support manmade global warming, it's plainly evident to see that scientific conclusions are not somehow immune to politics, ideology and somehow are always ultimately objective, via the so-called "peer review" process.
Holy disappearing act batman, where’d you go????
Dear Dr. drive-by, are you sure you’re not a lawyer named Micahel Newdow?
[[When hot air cult apostles are out purposefully placing thermometers too close to jet engine exhausts at airports to collect data to support manmade global warming, it’s plainly evident to see that scientific conclusions are not somehow immune to politics, ideology and somehow are always ultimately objective, via the so-called “peer review” process.]]
I did a report on that very topic on my website- Seems they also place the temp probes in paved parking lots, on rooftops next to airconditioner motors etc- Some dude caught them in the act all over the US and took pictures too- I even sent the info to Senator Inhoffe who heads up the anti ‘man-caused’ global warming website for use in congress-
I think he has been permanently retired to the bat cave.
I think he has been permanently retired to the bat cave.
What did he do? Must have gotten caught, cause I didn’t see but one of his posts and that seemed benign. tsk tsk
If I’ve offended you, I apologize. Please understand, I’ve been hearing this same line of drivel for nigh unto sixty years. And I’m told it had been going on another sixty years before that. Not the efficacy of science, or the convincing evidence supporting evolution, but the smokescreen that Marxist/Socialists retreat behind whenever their actual agenda is exposed and criticized.
In the Fifties it was the crying and moaning over the tremendous odds that had to be overcome (the loathsome “rigged” debates of that day) against those awful Nazis (political opponents, in other words), just to get a little bit of food into the mouths of the wretched poor, and to deliver the most meagre of assistance to widows and orphans (sound familiar?). The Christians were largely left alone because they weren’t very politically aware or active at that time, although there were a few critics who seemed to be intensely incensed at the mere thought that anyone could believe there was a god, much less a god superior to the ideal Marxist state.
Then came the glorious revolution of the sixties, when all the hippies were sure that their wonderful Worker’s Paradise was just around the corner, presaged by the massive family wreaking social programs of LBJ (I don’t know why they call it a “worker’s paradise” when the last thing on any of their minds is work). But, a funny thing happened on the way to the ideal Marxist state; Nixon. While it’s true that his Vietnam War policy diverted the attention of the radical Leftists and took them off track on their push for a Marxist state, I’ve never understood the Lift’s hatred for Nixon. He established more big government programs than anyone since FDR, and certainly LBJ. Nixon signed into law the EPA, the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the National Railroad Corporation, the DEA, the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI), the EEOC, OSHA, the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the first significant federal affirmative action program (the Philadelphia Plan), and he entirely did away with the gold standard. All actions that had to be pleasing to every Marxist zealot in the country. So, why the hostility? Nixon was a Liberal. Marxist/Socialists dote on Liberal Republicans.
Since you’re probably up on more modern events, I’ll leave off here, save to note a few things about that walking cluster-klutz Jimmy Carter (now we learn that even his habitat homes are flops). He created the Ed Dept (rejoice NEA and all you Marxist/Socialists!), brought about a huge increase in the SS payroll tax, took away 103 million acres from Alaska with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and nearly destroyed the US economy with his monetary and fiscal ineptness.
Now, the point of all this is that every time any of the above programs, or others of their ilk, were opposed, there arose such a howl of anguish and outrage as to rattle the very rafters of heaven itself. Rush describes the howls succinctly (“sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot” – and, for good measure, throw in xenophobe and Nazi). I’ll cite a recent example of the same insane behavior: For seven of the last eight years Bush has attempted to bring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae under some kind of control in an effort to prevent a credit crunch, but Lollipop Frank and Chris Dodd (among others) each time raised such a kicking, screaming howl that nothing was done. Now that the brown ‘stuff’ has hit the rotating oscillator, Frank and Dodd (and their coconspirators) are acting the complete surprised innocents, totally in the dark as to how this disaster could have happened.
Lay down the heavy, heavy burden of that crucifix you’re bearing (it’s been done – and by a better man than any of us) and drop that ‘poor little ol me’ routine. Do a brief study of my posting history and then explain to me what the purity and integrity of the scientific method and of evolution theory have to do with the objections I raise. Howls of anguish have nothing more to do with what I’ve posted than any of the instances mentioned above. I’ve had document dumps thrown at me (and by what is reputedly the best that the Science Community on this forum can offer), but mercifully I am usually met with briefer, albeit irrelevant, replies or by silence. Presently I await two replies; one of four day’s duration, the other a week. Both delays, I presume, for good reason.
I don’t expect your agreement, but I hope you have some better understanding of my opinion. I admit that I sometimes come up short on Christian forbearance (I’ll turn the other check, but often I don’t keep it turned long enough). Thanks for your willingness to at least engage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.