Danny the-projector
Kalamata:
"Joe the Denier says..." Projecting your own evolution denial.
Danny the-projector Kalamata: "The page was a VLS propaganda piece promoting the Evolutionism Party line.
There is no science to be found in it."
It's a news report on the current status of DNA research.
Kalamata: "So, who do we believe: Francis Collins and the highly professional ENCODE staff, or those of the ilk that gave us Haeckel, Piltdown, Peppered Moth, Vestigial Organs, fake radiometric dating, fake horse and whale evolution, and, of course, Junk DNA?"
Your suggestion that ENCODE researchers were somehow anti-evolution is totally bogus.
From what I can see of Collins' views, they are the same as mine.
Kalamata: "Again, who do you trust: the professional ENCODE scientists, or a few rabid ideologues of a dead theory propped up by lies, inneundo, suppression of opposing ideas, and downright fraud?"
Even ENCODE reported that only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution.
Kalamata: "The dirty little secret is the evolutionism cult made up the Junk DNA myth out of thin air, like every other “proof” they trumpet or have trumpeted.
They can’t let this one go because there is nothing left to cling to — there is not a shred of observable evidence in any field that supports evolutionism."
Total nonsense.
"Junk" originally referred to the 98% on non-coding DNA.
As certain functions were found, the term "junk" is reduced to some smaller percent, but even ENCODE tells us only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution.
That makes the rest... well... ah... "junk".
Kalamata: "It is true that every scientist on the project was probably an evolutionist, including Collins.
So, if anything, they were biased toward evolutionism."
Exactly, it's just scientists doing their science thing, sometimes disagreeing, but none trying to disprove or deny evolution theory.
Kalamata: "How did anyone confirm DNA was millions of years old, as the Wisegeek bunch claimed? (This I have to see.)"
Evolution theory predicts and observations confirm that descent from common ancestors will leave large sections of DNA similar across closely related species, less similar across more distantly related species.
The fossil record shows evolution's timescales to be in the many millions of years.
Kalamata on reading Graur's new book: "Not that one.
I have Graur & Li, “Fundamentals of molecular evolution”, 1st & 2nd editions.
Of course, I have many other books on the subject, for reference."
And yet you continue to lie blatantly about them -- amazing!
Kalamata quoting ENCODE: "However, we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons.
This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome.” "
I'd say those words "lacking evolutionary constraint" are a long-winded expression for "junk".
So, sure, they want to be "neutral", but even ENCODE admits that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution.
Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: "Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since."
So let's notice first that Collins is here talking about, yes, evolution.
Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: "Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as”junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance."
Kalamata: "So, Collins was in harmony with the pilot project report.
However, in 2015, Collins had changed his tune, as previously quoted from the 2015 Zimmer article:"
From what I can see of Collins' views, they are the same as mine.
Kalamata quoting Francis Collins: " 'Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’ "
Sure, but even Collins doesn't claim that "stuff" is important enough to be constrained (or restrained) by evolution.
Kalamata quoting Graur: "A recent slew of ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional.
This claim flies in the face of current estimates according towhich the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is less than 10%."
Right, 80% is said to be "functional but unconstrained", meaning what?
In effect: "junk".
Kalamata: "Yes, I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium."
Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur's remarks.
Kalamata quoting: " 'What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’ ', says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. '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”, she concludes."
We're still talking about alleged "functional but unconstrained".
And as of today almost none of those alleged functions have been identified.
Kalamata quoting: "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.’ "
So, it seems, to summarize: the old results showed that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution and a new test shows that only 5% is not constrained -- or did they just change definitions?
Going from 5% yes to 5% no looks like a huge difference and should send a lot of researchers back to their labs to carefully reexamine just what, exactly, they meant by their terms.
Are they using the same word to describe two different phenomena?
Kalamata: "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.” "
Right!
It's just a case of scientists doing what science does.
One group of scientists studied data from a different source and came to a new conclusion.
When they finish hashing it all out they may well arrive at a new model for evolution.
Kalamata: "If I understand that correctly, the only human ancestors are other humans."
And, depending on your definitions, pre-humans.
Kalamata quoting: " ‘It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,’ says Birney.
‘We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA.
This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.’ "
A key to the idea of "junk" is that mutations there cause no harm to the individual and so get passed down over generations thus providing a window into our ancestors' origins & lives.
It's said these "harmless" mutations average about 100 per individual and that if they were indeed harmful, they'd quickly lead to the extinction of the species.
So far, nothing has been presented to explain that.
Kalamata quoting: "Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint, with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner.
The rest can be assaulted by random mutation with little effect."
So, you win the point that "constrained" = "restrained" = "constrained" = "restrained".
But, by your own quote I still win the larger point that only 5% plus maybe another 4% of DNA is restrained = constrained by evolution.
Danny the-projector Kalamata: "You do not know it is junk.
Your imagination is running wild."
You do not know what functions alleged "junk" has.
Your imagination is running wild.
Danny the-projector Kalamata: "You really should consider dropping the 5% nonsense."
But 5% seems to be the magic number -- either 5% is constrained or 5% is not constrained, those are the test results.
We are not told what either number truly represents, or if they are even necessarily inconsistent -- depending on word definitions, they might conceivably both be true.
So I'd expect an effort to clarify & explain what's going on.
Kalamata: "Pouyet F et al.
Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences. eLife 2018;7:e36317 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36317"
Again, we're talking definitions of words -- is "biased gene conversion" and "demographic inferences" really the same things as "evolutionary constraint" or "selective restraint"?
Kalamata the denier: "It take more faith to be an evolutionist, since all of its so-called evidence is extrapolated and/or imagined.
I know; I used to be an evolutionist."
So, you used to be an honest man?
Kalamata the denier on evolution theory: "It is not falsifiable."
Of course it is, which if you had any serious education, you'd know. ![]()
>>Joe the God Denier says, “It’s a news report on the current status of DNA research.”
Quit lying. The (not so) “Wise Geek” report is fake news, based on old inferences.
*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Your suggestion that ENCODE researchers were somehow anti-evolution is totally bogus. From what I can see of Collins’ views, they are the same as mine.
Quit lying. I never suggested the ENCODE researchers were anti-evolution. To the contrary. It was your buddy, the sociopath Dan Graur, who suggested they were anti-evolution.
*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Even ENCODE reported that only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution... “Junk” originally referred to the 98% on non-coding DNA. As certain functions were found, the term “junk” is reduced to some smaller percent, but even ENCODE tells us only 5% of DNA is constrained by evolution. That makes the rest... well... ah... “junk”.
Quit lying. The 5% number was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report. The later 2012 report, which released Dan Graur’s rage against ENCODE, was 80% and counting.
*******************
>>Kalamata: “It is true that every scientist on the [ENCODE] project was probably an evolutionist, including Collins. So, if anything, they were biased toward evolutionism.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Exactly, it’s just scientists doing their science thing, sometimes disagreeing, but none trying to disprove or deny evolution theory.
Earlier you falsely claimed that I said the ENCODE researchers were “anti-evolution”. Do you lie so much you can’t keep track of all of your lies?
*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Evolution theory predicts and observations confirm that descent from common ancestors will leave large sections of DNA similar across closely related species, less similar across more distantly related species. The fossil record shows evolution’s timescales to be in the many millions of years.
You are being deceptive about DNA. Darwin knew nothing about DNA. Modern evolutionism theory is based on lies, such as the human and chimpanzee having 98.5% similar DNA. You are lying about the fossil record, which shows nothing but a bunch of minealized dead things, none of which have a time stamp.
*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “And yet you continue to lie blatantly about [Graur and Li] — amazing!
You are lying. I have never misquoted Graur, nor Li. Besides, my books are old — 1991 and 2000 — years before ENCODE exposed Junk DNA as a myth.
*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “I’d say those words “lacking evolutionary constraint” are a long-winded expression for “junk”. So, sure, they want to be “neutral”, but even ENCODE admits that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution.”
You are lying. That quote, and the 5% number, was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report, not the 2012 report.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: “Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, So let’s notice first that Collins is here talking about, yes, evolution.
You are being deceitful. Collins has always been a evolutionist, as far as I know, and I have never disputed it. I was an evolutionist for most of my long life, so there is still hope for him.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Francis Collins on ancient alleles: “Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as”junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance.” Kalamata: “So, Collins [in 2007] was in harmony with the [2007] pilot project report. However, in 2015, Collins had changed his tune, as previously quoted from the 2015 Zimmer article:”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “From what I can see of Collins’ views, they are the same as mine.
Perhaps you are simply scientifically-challenged, or you cannot read. Or perhaps you believe your own lies.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Francis Collins: “ ‘Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’ “
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Sure, but even Collins doesn’t claim that “stuff” is important enough to be constrained (or restrained) by evolution.
You are being deceitful. That statement was from a New York Times article about Collins and ENCODE.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting Graur: “A recent slew of ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according towhich the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is less than 10%.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Right, 80% is said to be “functional but unconstrained”, meaning what? In effect: “junk”.
You are being deceitful. No where in the ENCODE report does it say anything like that.
*******************
>>Kalamata: “Yes, I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur’s remarks.
How do you respond to a nut who believes that, if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right?
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “ ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’ ‘, says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. ‘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”, she concludes.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “We’re still talking about alleged “functional but unconstrained”. And as of today almost none of those alleged functions have been identified.
Perhaps I should re-label you, “Joe the Science Denier”.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “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.’ “
>>Joe the God Denier says, “So, it seems, to summarize: the old results showed that only 5% of human DNA is constrained by evolution and a new test shows that only 5% is not constrained — or did they just change definitions? Going from 5% yes to 5% no looks like a huge difference and should send a lot of researchers back to their labs to carefully reexamine just what, exactly, they meant by their terms. Are they using the same word to describe two different phenomena?
The definitions haven’t changed. Human evolution is a myth, and has always been a myth.
The latter number was from a report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on a research paper by a Swiss team.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/siob-agu100918.php
*******************
>>Joe the God Denier says, “It’s just a case of scientists doing what science does. One group of scientists studied data from a different source and came to a new conclusion. When they finish hashing it all out they may well arrive at a new model for evolution.
Whenever evolution is falsified, it is a simple matter to repackage it using brand-new imaginary “proofs”, and call it . . . [drum roll] . . . “EVOLUTION!” In other words, it cannot be falsified. The orthodoxy will not let it be falsified.
*******************
>>Kalamata: “If I understand that correctly, the only human ancestors are other humans.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “And, depending on your definitions, pre-humans.
If you want to define evolutionists as “pre-human”, don’t let me stop you.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “ ‘It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,’ says Birney. ‘We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.’ “
>>Joe the God Denier says, “A key to the idea of “junk” is that mutations there cause no harm to the individual and so get passed down over generations thus providing a window into our ancestors’ origins & lives. It’s said these “harmless” mutations average about 100 per individual and that if they were indeed harmful, they’d quickly lead to the extinction of the species. So far, nothing has been presented to explain that.
Much has already been “presented”; but nothing will be accepted by the orthodoxy unless the presenter kisses the ring of Charlie Darwin.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint, with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner. The rest can be assaulted by random mutation with little effect.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “So, you win the point that “constrained” = “restrained” = “constrained” = “restrained”. But, by your own quote I still win the larger point that only 5% plus maybe another 4% of DNA is restrained = constrained by evolution.
You are being deceptive, again! That blog post was based in part on “research” by the sociopath, Dan Graur.
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “You do not know it is junk. Your imagination is running wild.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “You do not know what functions alleged “junk” has.Your imagination is running wild.
I see you are still pushing the deception that, “the absence of evidence IS evidence” (for “evolution”, that is).
*******************
>>Kalamata quoting: “You really should consider dropping the 5% nonsense.”
>>Joe the God Denier says, “But 5% seems to be the magic number — either 5% is constrained or 5% is not constrained, those are the test results. We are not told what either number truly represents, or if they are even necessarily inconsistent — depending on word definitions, they might conceivably both be true. So I’d expect an effort to clarify & explain what’s going on.
If you are not lying or being deceptive, you are sleeping. Frankly, I really believe you are a “Science Denier”.
*******************
>>Kalamata: “Pouyet F et al. Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences. eLife 2018;7:e36317 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36317”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Again, we’re talking definitions of words — is “biased gene conversion” and “demographic inferences” really the same things as “evolutionary constraint” or “selective restraint”?
What difference does that make to a Science Denier like you?
*******************
>>Kalamata the denier: “It take more faith to be an evolutionist, since all of its so-called evidence is extrapolated and/or imagined. I know; I used to be an evolutionist.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “So, you used to be an honest man?
Not according to YOUR definition of “honesty”, which is, “it is okay to lie to defend the religion of evolutionism”.
*******************
>>Kalamata the denier on evolution theory: “It is not falsifiable.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Of course it is, which if you had any serious education, you’d know.
Says the liar and deceiver, but I repeat myself.
Mr. Kalamata