Joey I have been responding to one silly post of yours after another, all afternoon. You must be desperate to keep your friends from finding out you are a fraud.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "You are thoroughly confused, Alinsky Joe. I am not even sure how to unpack that mess you wrote. "
>>Delusional Joey said: "No, I'm not in the least confused, am simply quoting back your own posts to you. Somehow that drives Kalamata into paroxysms of angry accusations."
You are confused, little Joey. This was your quote that I responded to:
>>Joey said: "I'm just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted? None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution. ENCODE's numbers were 5% to 10% "constrained" by evolution. Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is "constrained" by evolution. Those are your posts, not mine."
Those statements have no basis in reality, Joey. Perhaps you were tired.
*****************
>>Joey said: "So I'll give you some clues, I'm going to help you out, FRiend. You can clear up all your own confusion, you can defeat my argument and win a very rare "attaboy" from yours truly, if you'll just do this: Find quotes from Graur or from ENCODE or Collins where they agree with Kalamata that 80% or 95% of human DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or "influenced" by evolution. Then quote where they agree that makes evolution impossible. No denier rules are necessary, just produce the quotes.
Forget Graur: he is your useless source. The following are 3 of my sources on ENCODE from way back in #126:
"This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. “I don’t think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance,” says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes. These results are going “to change the way a lot of [genomics] concepts are written about and presented in textbooks,” Stamatoyannopoulos predicts.” [Elizabeth Pennisi, “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA.” Science, Vol. 337, Iss. 6099, Sept 7, 2012, p.1159]
"The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation.” [Durham et al, “An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome.” Nature, 489, September 6, 2012, p.57]
"A major problem with this type of selective analysis is that nearly all of the entire genome is now believed to be functional, as stated in the recent ENCODE project consortium reports (2012). The non-coding regions have been shown to provide many critical control features and nucleotide templates (Dunham, et al., 2012; Wells, 2011; Bergman, 2001). Biochemical functions have been determined for at least 80% of the human genome and most of the rest is also predicted to be functional (Dunham, et al., 2012) to at least some degree. This research is significant for chimp-human comparisons because often only protein-coding sequences were compared under the widely accepted, but now debunked assumption that 95 percent of the genome is junk.” [Bergman & Tomkins, “The Chasm Between the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes: A Review of the Evolutionary Literature.” Institute for Creation Research, 2013]
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=126#126
As you can see, Science, Nature and ICR all reported that ENCODE claimed 80% of the DNA is constrained.
You must suffer from selective memory loss, Joey.
Mr. Kalamata
Danny Denier post #410:
"Joey I have been responding to one silly post of yours after another, all afternoon.
You must be desperate to keep your friends from finding out you are a fraud." Nah, I'm just trying to keep up with your nonsense.
Danny Denier quoting BJK post #328: "I'm just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted?
None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.
ENCODE's numbers were 5% to 10% "constrained" by evolution.
Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is "constrained" by evolution.
Those are your posts, not mine."
Danny Denier "Those statements have no basis in reality, Joey.
Perhaps you were tired."
That covers Denier Rules #1, #5 & #9.
In fact, my statements you quoted are 100% accurate, at least so far as I've seen.
I'm still hoping you'll somehow produce quotes which prove me wrong.
But hope is fading fast.
Danny Denier: "Forget Graur: he is your useless source. "
No, Danny denier boy, Graur is your source, I never heard of him.
You introduced him here saying you agree (or disagree?) with his trashing of ENCODE.
Danny Denier quoting Science 2012: "A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking."
Sure, I "got that" the first time -- 80% has some function, but what percent is "constrained" by evolution?
Danny Denier quoting Nature 2012: "Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification.
These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome..."
Right, "got it" again -- 80% has some sort of function.
But what percent is "constrained" by evolution?
Danny Denier quoting I.C.R. 2013: "Biochemical functions have been determined for at least 80% of the human genome and most of the rest is also predicted to be functional (Dunham, et al., 2012) to at least some degree."
Right, still "got it", 80% functional but what percent is "constrained" by evolution?
Danny Denier "As you can see, Science, Nature and ICR all reported that ENCODE claimed 80% of the DNA is constrained.
You must suffer from selective memory loss, Joey."
Danny, Danny, Danny, boy, boy, little fellow, your mother was supposed to wash your mouth out with soap for lying, and she failed!
So you keep lying & lying, I blame her in part, and your Dad too, for not strapping you near enough.
Or, who knows, maybe you were just born devious.
But when your lies are so obvious anybody can see them, how "devious" is that?
Do I have to point out the obvious?
Not one of your quotes said anything about any DNA being "constrained" or "restrained" by evolution. ![]()