>>Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says,"
>>Joey said: You're still obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7, I see.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You believe God made man in his image?"
>>Joey said: "Yes.
And not in the image of apes? I am surprised.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "I am surprised. I though you believed in apes-to-man evolution."
>>Joey said: "That is the scientific explanation. I believe that whatever science may say, God was in charge of creation.
My rule of thumb is, there is a lot of bad science out there. It is better to acknowledge the Lord in all thy ways, than to trust in the craftiness of mere men.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You are delusional, Joe. I have quoted Graur from time to time, but I have not agreed with him on anything since I learned the truth about evolutionism."
>>Joey said: So now you've forgotten your own lies? Do I have to go back & look it up for you? You used Graur to claim ENCODE disproved evolution!
You are lying again, Alinsky Joe. Dan Graur has repeatedly and vehemently denied that ENCODE disproved evolution. Why would I claim he did not?
*****************
>>Joey said: "Then you trashed both Graur and ENCODE in favor of a Swiss Institute of Bioinfomatics study which you say claimed 95% of DNA is "influenced" by... what... what was it influenced by? Yes, that's right, by evolution, you say! So already you've forgotten?
Either you are lying, or you don't understand what you read. I have never trashed ENCODE. They were the pioneers that led to the Swiss research conclusion, 6 years later. The scientific research went something like this:
- 1) ENCODE, according to their 2012 report, found about 80% functionality among what was previously touted by evolutionists as "Junk DNA."
- 2) Over the next six years more functionality was found by various researchers.
- 3) The 2018 Swiss team determined the fnctionality had risen to about 95%.
- 4) Conclusion: an additional 15% functionality was discovered between 2012 and 2018.
Perhaps you would be better off debating something other than science, Alinsky Joe. May I suggest political science, or cooking?
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe? You posted a picture of one of Graur's books... "
>>Joey said: "I never heard of Graur until you introduced him here. I simply assume from your outrageous attacks on him that he's probably an honorable & reasonable person.
Why did you take my statement out of context, Alinsky Joe? This is my full statement:
"Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe? You posted a picture of one of Graur's books, he was the one of the primary interviewee of the 2017 New Scientist article you linked, and you have mentioned him on more than one occasion? In post #260 there was this exchange:
[Me] "I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium.”
[You] "Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur’s remarks."
You are exceptionally dishonest, Alinsky Joe. You can get away with those stunts with the unwashed masses, but not with me.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You are dishonestly substituting the number based on the old myth for the new data. ENCODE's number is 80% and counting."
>>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."
You are thoroughly confused, Alinsky Joe. I am not even sure how to unpack that mess you wrote.
For everyone else, Joey is trapped in the past, when evolutionists could get away with speculating that 98.5% of the Human and Chimp genomes were similar by claiming most of the DNA was Junk, and could be ignored. Even Francis Collins, who was chosen to head the human genome project, was caught up in the rhetoric:
"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. 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. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.” [Collins, Francis, “The Language of God.” 2007, Gen 1:12, p.136]
Collins' statement was in harmony with the ENCODE pilot project report of 2007; but by 2015 (and based on the 2012 Encode report,) Collins had changed his tune, as quoted in this 2015 NYT article:
"In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome—as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’” [Carl Zimmer, “Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?” New York Times, 2015]
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Alinsky is experiencing the problem all habitual liars eventually face: they cannot remember all of their lies... DNA research (and the fossil record) has shown Darwin to be a wild extrapolator of observable data into the mythical."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #1 & #6.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata quoting Thompkins 2015: "Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7%"
>>Joey said: "Your quote uses the term "similarity" when it's clearly referring to the kind of identical DNA found among humans. Similarity is a looser standard and it's how other researchers arrived at the ~98% similar number.
That is a really dumb of you, Alinsky Joe. The 98% number is the old, fabricated number, when evolutionists were promoting the Junk DNA myth.
*****************
>>Kalamata on ancient material dating techniques: "Prove it. Show us the data."
>>Joey said: "This site has a listing of both relative (22) and absolute (25) dating techniques.
Your first link, Wikipedia, explains that ancient dating methods require "previously established chronology." Where does that come from, other than from wild guesses?
We know that secular archaeologists cling vehemently to the fake timeline of Shoshenq = Biblical Shishak that was erroneously proposed by Champollion about 2 centuries ago. Using that timeline, they can claim that the excavated city of Jericho, which exists today exactly like the biblical narrative predicts, cannot possibly be the biblical Jericho because it doesn't match the Shoshenq=Shishak timeline. In other words, archeologists use a circular argument of a known biblical date (the ransacking of Jerusalem by Shishak) to "disprove" all previous dates. Slick, huh?
*****************
>>Joey said: "It does not even mention tree rings or ice cores, but this site does."
Barely. Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is an inexact science. Besides, the oldest living tree, the Bristlecone Pine, is post-flood, so it is not much help to Bible deniers. Ice cores have also proven useless for dating, since the discovery of rapid deposition and non-annual layering.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Let me rephrase my statement: you are a habitual liar."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You are a habitual liar, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "Those are your quotes, go back & read them yourself. Show us where ENCODE claims more than 5% to 10% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.
The 2012 ENCODE report stated 80% is functional, which means 80% is constrained.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "The data agrees me. Consensus is the "refuge of scoundrels" (Crichton, 2003)."
>>Joey said: "You don't agree with your own data from ENCODE.
Of course my statements agree with ENCODE. I quote them directly to make certain there is no misunderstanding among scientists. If you were a scientist you would know that.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "No, you equivocated, or you simply do not know what you are talking about. I am leaning toward the latter."
>>Joey said: "You are leaning, as always, toward Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Funtional DNA is constrained:... Therefore in 2012, at least 80% was constrained:... That number is now about 95%. In other words, Human evolution is a myth."
>>Joey said: "None of your quotes from ENCODE say 80% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.
If it is functional, it is constrained.
*****************
>>Joey said: "This is your own quote, post #239:
>>Kalamata: "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 mutationh little effect.” [Wallis & Rhiannon, “Junk DNA, Bunk.” Synthetic Duo, Jan 24, 2016]"
That was a quote from an article that resorted to Graur's chicanery as "evidence", and only to point to a possible source of a phrase that Tomkins used (e.g. restrained vs. constrained). Why did you take my words out of context? Habit?
This is the full context:
-------
>>Joe the Denier says, “First of all, the word is “constrained”, not “restrained”.
>>Kalamata: "Jeffrey Tomkins used that phrase in his article (above), but added quotes. It is possible he took the phrase from this blog post that was based on the work of Dan Graur, Alexander F. Palazzo and T. Ryan Gregory, in which the authors state that human genome is under “selective restraint”:
>>Kalamata: "The relevance of this to junk DNA is that most of the human genome (~90%) accumulates mutations in this way and that the effective historic size of the human population is small, close to 10’000 which means much of the genome changes unnoticed by natural selection, including viral insertions and other indels. These change the size of the human genome, usually by making it larger than it needs to be. Other research on genome conservation has largely confirmed the predictions of neutral theory. 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.” [Wallis & Rhiannon, “Junk DNA, Bunk.” Synthetic Duo, Jan 24, 2016]
>>Kalamata: "https://syntheticduo.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/junk-dna-bunk/comment-page-1/
>>Kalamata: "I have seen the phase in other papers.
-------
Why do you continue to obsfuscate, Alinsky Joe? You have already been exposed as scientifically-challenged?
*****************
>>Joey said: "So who is it that found 95%?
>>Joey quoted my quote: "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. These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation.” [”A Genome Under Influence: The faulty yardstick in genomics studies and how to cope with it.” Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, October 9, 2018]"
>>Joey said: Note again what the Swiss (not ENCODE) are saying: 95% of DNA is "influenced" by "functional sites" which themselves are only 10% to 15% of DNA.
LOL! Think of the two as your arm and fingers, Joey. Your functional arm muscles influence your fingers. Are your fingers functional, or non-functional? Can your fingers be functional without your arm? No. Can your arm be functional without your fingers? Maybe.
*****************
>>Joey said: "Nowhere in your quotes do the Swiss, or ENCODE, or Collins or Graur claim that more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution. This is your quote from Thompkins:
>>Joey quoted my quote: "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!…" [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]"
>>Joey said: "First of all, we need to notice that Thompkins here, like Kalamata, is trying to tell us that since supposedly 95% of DNA is "subject to..." evolution, that somehow proves there is no evolution! Second, your quote from Pouyet does not say 95% is "constrained" by evolution, only that it is "influenced" by functional DNA. No quote I've seen claims more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.
Functional means constrained, or conserved, or restrained. Non-functional means it is free to evolve. Pouyet found that only 5% can randomly evolve. Doing the math, we find that 100% - 5% = 95% that cannot evolve = 95% is constrained.
Did you miss the Fay & Wu article I quoted?
"Functional DNA sequences should be conserved over time and shared among closely related species, whereas nonfunctional or neutral sequences are free to change. This approach has been particularly useful for identifying protein coding sequences within a genome and will hopefully be as useful in identifying functional noncoding sequences." [Fay & Wu, "Sequence divergence, functional constraint and selection in protein evolution." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Vol.4; September, 2003, pp.213-214]
You really should stick to politics, Joey, or perhaps cooking.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Deplorables are not Science Deniers, Alinsky Joe. Maybe you can grab the coattails of the holocaust deniers."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.
Child.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "To set the record straight, I have agreed with ENCODE's data since I first read about it. I disagree with Graur on everything he says about ENCODE."
>>Joey said: "To set the record straight: Kalamata agrees with Graur when Graur said: for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be wrong.
You are obfuscationing, Alinsky Joe. I quoted the article in which Graur made that statement, or was quoted as saying it, and I agreed only on part of his statement when taken out of his context:
"We read the paper, and looked over Graur’s accompanying PowerPoint. We’re not impressed by theoretical population genetics because it is based on neo-Darwinian assumptions rather than biological realities. Basically, he is using that circular science to add a quantitative gloss to his fundamental position, namely that if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right.” [”Dan Graur, Anti-ENCODE Crusader, Is Back.” Evolution News & Science Today, July 28, 2017]”
As any normal person can see, I agree 100% that ENCODE is right and evolution is wrong, but that is not Graur's context. Graur believes ENCODE is wrong, therefore I am not in agreement with him; and anyone claiming I agree with Graur on that point is lying (hint, Alinsky Joe.)
For the record, evolution is 100% false, with our without the ENCODE data.
*****************
>>Joey said: "To set the record straight: no quote from Kalamata shows ENCODE agreeing with claims that 80% or 95% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.
LOL! You are a hopeless case, Joey.
*****************
>>Kalamata: "You have been hanging around with the wrong crowd, Alinsky Joe. Evolutionism is a dead religion, propped up only by the deceptions of the high priesthood."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.
Child.
*****************
>>"Kalamata: "This may be a difficult concept for you, Alinsky Joe, but the Bible merely confirms the data."
>>Joey said: "The Bible does not even confirm Kalamata's theology, much less natural science. What the Bible intends to show is God's creation of and mastery over the natural realm.
Joe's theology is similar to that of the constitutional usurpers Jefferson warned us about:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [Letter to William Johnson, from Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Appleby & Ball, "Thomas Jefferson: Political Writings." Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.455]
Joey's version of science must be squeezed out of the biblical text, or invented against it. The actual words of the Bible, themselves, are meaningless, to Joey.
*****************
>>"Kalamata: "Where is the cryptologist when you need him?"
>>Joey said: "I'll need another rule for that response, Rule #11: when your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance. That makes "Declare Victory" rule #12.
Child.
*****************
>>"Kalamata: "Are you admitting that you believe the absence of evidence is evidence, or are you admitting you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about?"
>>Joey said: "Neither.
No, both! LOL!
*****************
>>"Kalamata: "Now, if we can only get Alinsky Joe to admit that he is scientifically-challenged, we can put this hoax of his to rest."
>>Joey said: "That is Denier Rules #5, #6 & now #12 (Declare Victory).
Child.
Mr. Kalamata
Danny Denier:
"The 2012 ENCODE report stated 80% is functional, which means 80% is constrained." Says Danny Denier, but not ENCODE.
According to your own quotes, ENCODE says no more than ~10% of human DNA is "constrained" by... by... by... what?
By evolution.
And Danny Denier tells us this is proof positive there is no evolution.
Danny Denier: "Of course my statements agree with ENCODE.
I quote them directly to make certain there is no misunderstanding among scientists.
If you were a scientist you would know that."
And yet you've never posted quotes from ENCODE agreeing with you that 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by... by... right, by evolution!
Danny Denier: "If it is functional, it is constrained."
A claim not supported by any quote from Danny Denier.
Danny Denier: "Why do you continue to obsfuscate, Alinsky Joe?
You have already been exposed as scientifically-challenged?"
Why do you continue to lie, Danny Denier?
You have already been exposed as truth-challenged.
Danny Denier: "LOL! Think of the two as your arm and fingers, Joey. "
I'll have to add your response here as yet another Denier Rule, Danny's 3 D's: divert, distract & dissemble.
Danny Denier: "Functional means constrained, or conserved, or restrained.
Non-functional means it is free to evolve.
Pouyet found that only 5% can randomly evolve.
Doing the math, we find that 100% - 5% = 95% that cannot evolve = 95% is constrained."
Nowhere does any Denier quote necessarily equate "functional" and "constrained", they are two separate issues.
Further the claim of 95% "functional" is totally bogus because the quote actually says 95% in some way "influenced by" "functional" DNA which itself is circa 10%.
Danny quoting Swiss Institute's Pouyet: "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"
No Danny Denier quote has claimed 95% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved"
by evolution, or that this would somehow make evolution impossible.
Danny Denier: "Did you miss the Fay & Wu article I quoted?
"Functional DNA sequences should be conserved over time..."
First, "should be" means theoretically, not what's actually been observed.
Second, that quote does not say 95% of DNA is either "functional" or "conserved" by evolution and Danny's failure, after all this time, to post such a quote suggests you are drawing conclusions far beyond what the data allows.
Further, we now have a whole menagerie of Danny-terms which may, or may not apply to the same physical conditions:
- "evolutionary constraint"
- "selective restraint"
- "highly conserved"
- "conserved in a lineage dependent manner"
- "influenced"
- "non-neutral"
- "background selection"
- "biased gene conversion"
- "bias demographic inferences"
Nowhere in Danny's quotes are such terms defined or necessarily equated.
Danny Denier: "As any normal person can see, I agree 100% that ENCODE is right and evolution is wrong, but that is not Graur's context.
Graur believes ENCODE is wrong, therefore I am not in agreement with him; and anyone claiming I agree with Graur on that point is lying (hint, Alinsky Joe.)"
Nonsense, your dissembling here notwithstanding, you agree 100% with Graur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution is wrong.
But you also claim ENCODE said 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by evolution, though no quote you've posted supports that directly.
Then Pouyet's Swiss Institute report found that 95% of DNA is "influenced" by what... by evolution?
No, not by evolution, they said, but rather by other functional DNA, which itself makes up circa 10%.
Seriously, Danny boy, for all I know you may well have legitimate quotes which say exactly what you claim here.
But so far I haven't seen them.
Danny Denier: "For the record, evolution is 100% false, with our without the ENCODE data."
Right, for the record, Danny boy agrees with Graur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be false, but disagrees with ENCODE that evolution is right.
Got that?
Danny Denier: "LOL! You are a hopeless case, Joey."
That is DD's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
Danny Denier: "Joe's theology is similar to that of the constitutional usurpers Jefferson warned us about::"
That's nothing more than DD's use of Denier Rule: divert, distract & dissemble.
Danny Denier: "Joey's version of science must be squeezed out of the biblical text, or invented against it.
The actual words of the Bible, themselves, are meaningless, to Joey."
Just more of DD's use of Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7. ![]()