Posted on 12/03/2009 8:35:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science
--snip--
Today, the Darwinian scientific consensus persists within almost every large university and governmental institution. But around the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged and has since become increasingly established. Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned earlier in this article were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
==The vast majority of the genome has not proven to be functional at all. Still no known function.
So you think the genome is 90%+ active, but only 1.5-3.0% functional...you really crack me up...LOL!
==Creationists in no way shape or form predicted that all species were related by common descent; all the “tree” or “shrub” talk is predicated on the same idea of common descent.
Creationists predicted a ‘forest’ or ‘orchard’ of life with each tree or kind being separate and distinct from every other tree/kind. Take away the evos hypothetical horizontal gene transfer rescuing device and what do you have? PRECISELY WHAT THE CREATIONISTS HAVE BEEN PREDICTING ALL ALONG!
==Creationists know nothing of DNA, they don’t work with DNA, they don’t understand DNA, they don’t perform research on DNA.
That means a lot coming from a pencil pushing Ph.D. dropout like yourself. Almost every creationist I post is more qualified than you are. And most of them are extremely qualified and accomplished in their respective fields, to include DNA research. And as mentioned above, unlike you, none of them pussed out of their respective Ph.D. programs.
==run away with your hands over your ears in mortal fear that you might actually learn something about the subject
There is nothing I can learn from you except how evos who are way, way behind the cutting edge of the origins debate misrepresent science.
The percentage of creationists goes down the more educated the group you are talking about is, especially if the education is in science.
Ha Ha Ha.
fixed.
You are off by an order of magnitude. The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little C-14 remains after almost 9 half-lives that it may be hard to detect and obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample.
Science does not rely exclusively on Carbon 14 dating, though. Potassium-Argon dating is the most viable technique for dating very old archaeological materials. Geologists have used this method to date rocks as much as 4 billion years old. It is based on the fact that some of the radioactive isotope of Potassium, Potassium-40 (K-40, decays to the gas Argon as Argon-40 (Ar-40). By comparing the proportion of K-40 to Ar-40 in a sample of volcanic rock, and knowing the decay rate of K-40, the date that the rock formed can be determined.
Other reliable methods include OHD (Obsidian Hydration Dating), Paleomagnetic and Archaeomagnetic Dating, Thermo-Luminescence Dating, Uranium Series dating, and various fission-track dating methods. When used in combination these methods provide a suitable time span and an acceptable accuracy level.
If the creationist prediction was that different branches of life were separate and distinct; that was contradicted by the “tree” and even MORE SO by a “shrub”. It is contradicted by the evidence of common descent told so eloquently in the pattern of similarity and divergence of shared ERV’s, and many other ways. If the creationists predicted distinct, it is even MORE contradicted by the overwhelming pattern of shared genes and shared sequences.
Thanks for again reminding people that I have a M.S. in Molecular Biology, while you have no knowledge of the subject that you blather on about ignorantly day after day.
I got out early to start making money, and it has worked out quite well for me; I got two awards from scientists I worked for that I redeemed for over a thousand dollars in gift cards to shop for Christmas. That was just the gravy. I run a department for a major company. I am a professional success. Thanks for asking!
” And as mentioned above, unlike you, none of them pussed out of their respective Ph.D. programs.”
I suppose Brian Thomas MS* never even tried.
New keyword: BTMSpussout.
Still no known function for the majority of the genome.
Not saying one won't be found, but a hypothesis of “junk” that might be beneficial to be kept around, and might be of use some day - is still a reasonable hypothesis. One which is strengthened by findings like the envelope protein of an ERV being used by placental mammals - not weakened by it.
They can be quite selective. ;)
Why don't you tell all of us what your academic qualifications are to pass judgment on all of the little people....
ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009) — Scientists have called it “junk DNA.” They have long been perplexed by these extensive strands of genetic material that dominate the genome but seem to lack specific functions. Why would nature force the genome to carry so much excess baggage?”
The article goes on to discuss the answer to its own question.
The real cure for cancer is to remove the original cause, which in the preponderance of cases is a spiritual issue. (bitternewss, hatred, unforgiveness, blaming God, or any other form of 'toxic' thought)
This is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever seen someone post on the internet.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520140408.htm
Instead, scientists sometimes refer to these regions as “selfish DNA” if they make no specific contribution to the reproductive success of the host organism. Like a computer virus that copies itself ad nauseum, selfish DNA replicates and passes from parent to offspring for the sole benefit of the DNA itself. The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.
(i.e. they have no function, but are good at getting themselves copied into the genome)
Just keep following these types of threads. Some of the comments will make you wonder what asylum was emptied out.
“They have discovered that DNA sequences from regions of what had been viewed as the “dispensable genome” are actually performing functions that are central for the organism.”
As the portion you quote adds:
“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome”
That was the conclusion of the study not this:
“Instead, scientists sometimes refer to these regions as “selfish DNA” if they make no specific contribution to the reproductive success of the host organism. Like a computer virus that copies itself ad nauseum, selfish DNA replicates and passes from parent to offspring for the sole benefit of the DNA itself.”
No, we don’t wonder. It was Darwin Central.
You found the gene that links all these creationistas together...abject anencephaly.
Ping to me
Almost two months ago. Is that the best you can do?
...yeah, that’s like 5000 years ago to a creationist...
The new finding that launched the discussion, the part that YOU are quoting from is about a rather peculiar organism ....
“Genes called transposons in the single-celled pond-dwelling organism Oxytricha produce cell proteins known as transposases. During development, the transposons appear to first influence hundreds of thousands of DNA pieces to regroup. Then, when no longer needed, the organism cleverly erases the transposases from its genetic material, paring its genome to a slim 5 percent of its original load.”
Do you think MOST organisms go through this process? Do you think what THIS organisms did is typical? Do you think humans are about to par down their genome to a slim 5% of its orignial load? If it can get by with 5% of its original genome; just how functional was the other 95% in doing anything other than assembling the useful 5%?
I reiterate, there is STILL NO KNOWN FUNCTION FOR MOST OF THE GENOME.
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.