Replies

>>Danny Denier: “ Either you are lying, or you don’t understand what you read. I have never trashed ENCODE. “
>>Delusional Joey said: “You agreed with Graur’s attack on ENCODE.”

That is two posts in a row in which you made that same false claim, Delusional Joey.

Joey reminds me of those Seminar Callers that began to frequent Rush’s radio show in the 1990’s. Their entire life centers around being a nuisance.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: “You also claimed that ENCODE agrees that 80% or 95% of DNA is somehow “constrained” or “restrained” or “influenced” by evolution”

Wrong, again. In their 2012 report, ENCODE claimed that 80% of the DNA is constrained, which means it is not selectable, and cannot evolve. A later 2018 paper by a Swiss team pushed that number up to 95%.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: “And this, you claimed, proves there’s no evolution.”

You misquoted me, Joey. This is where I got the information that the myth of human evolution has been exposed:

“According to the popular neutral model of evolutionary theory, much of the human genome is nothing but randomly evolving junk. All of this so-called neutral DNA that is allegedly not under any’selective restraint’ only serves as fodder for functional new genes and traits to somehow magically arise and thus provide the engine of evolution... Global data among diverse people groups for DNA sequence variability across the human genome was inputted into a statistical model of neutral evolution. It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’’ Oops, so much for human evolution!... This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions.” [Tomkins, Jeffrey P., “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]

The last sentence is most revealing.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: “The fact is you’ve posted nothing from ENCODE suggesting more than ~10% of DNA is “constrained” by evolution.

No, Joey. ENCODE claimed in their 2012 report that 80% was contrained. The Swiss team, quoted above by Dr. Tomkins, claimed in 2018 that over 95% was constrained, which means less than 5% can evolve.

Mr. Kalamata

Danny Denier post #408: "That is two posts in a row in which you made that same false claim, Delusional Joey."

Sorry, but my post was 100% true -- you agreed with Graur, you said you agreed, in trashing ENCODE's report on evolution.
You agreed that ENCODE's report made evolution wrong.

Of course when I called you out on it you immediately began back-tracking, finally now claiming, no, no, no you really disagree with Graur's meaning even though you do agree with his words.

Believe me, I "get" it -- you didn't at first think it through and now you are stuck ridiculously claiming to disagree with what Graur meant even though you agree with what he said!

I think, if I were you, I'd just drop it and move on to another topic.
But apparently you somehow know these people and really, really don't want to be caught with your pants down on the wrong side of the tracks.
I can sympathize with that... ;-)

Danny Denier "Wrong, again.
In their 2012 report, ENCODE claimed that 80% of the DNA is constrained, which means it is not selectable, and cannot evolve.
A later 2018 paper by a Swiss team pushed that number up to 95%."

Sure, I "get" that is what you think, or imagine.
But no quote you've posted here confirms such numbers or interpretations.
Nor can I google up such a quote, for example here.

I'm not saying you don't have quotes to back you up, I'm just saying I haven't seen them yet, and I have been looking for them.

Danny Denier: "You misquoted me, Joey.
This is where I got the information that the myth of human evolution has been exposed:"

"[Tomkins, Jeffrey P., “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]"

I saw that the first time, your post #239.
Since then I've come to understand that there are tons & tons of ambiguity hiding behind such words as "constrained", "restrained", "conserved", "influenced", etc.
For example, you have frequently quoted Fanny Pouyet saying:

"This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome..."

Does that really mean 95% of human DNA can't evolve, as the ICR report claims?
I don't think so, for one reason because nowhere does any quote other than ICR make such a claim.

Danny Denier: "No, Joey.
ENCODE claimed in their 2012 report that 80% was contrained.
The Swiss team, quoted above by Dr. Tomkins, claimed in 2018 that over 95% was constrained, which means less than 5% can evolve."

Possibly, but no quote you've posted here said that.