Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[buffalo]

That is incorrect. While it may contain biomarkers or other informational features, non-coding DNA is not involved in the creation of proteins other than telling the transcription enzyme that the relevant code is finished. As a result, mutations inside this non-coding DNA don’t influence cell function.

New functions are being found for “junk DNA” all the time. They don’t all code for proteins. They regualte gene expression, whether they are turned on or off. Some of them provide INSTRUCTIONS for RNA. They are involved in telomeres. So yes, defects in the DNA do affect much more.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Some of what we call junk DNA has functions, yes. Most of it, though, is functionally inert.

What fraction of the human genome is functional? - PMC

“Evolutionary models and experimental findings now indicate that a surprisingly large portion of the human genome (approximately 10%–15%) might be functional.”

So no, most of our genome is truly non-functional and exists for some unknown purpose.

 

[buffalo]

“Evolutionary models and experimental findings now indicate that a surprisingly large portion of the human genome (approximately 10%–15%) might be functional.”

So no, most of our genome is truly non-functional and exists for some unknown purpose.

The obvious trend line for anyone looking at this honesty is whatever we think the actual percentage is today, tomorrow it will increase.

"Over a decade after sequencing the human genome, it has now become clear that the genome is not mostly ‘junk’ as previously thought. In fact, the ENCODE project consortium of dozens of labs and petabytes of data have determined that these ‘noncoding’ regions house everything from disease trait loci to important regulatory signals, all the way through to new types of RNA-based genes. "

Transposable elements reveal a stem cell specific class of long noncoding RNAs | ScienceDaily

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Funny that you mention ENCODE. That study got panned by scientists because of its vague definitions and lack of nuance between “biological function” and “biochemical activity.”

Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE - PMC

Junk DNA is still junk. Even if the percentage increases tomorrow, we still don’t know that today. Science doesn’t make conclusions off of information we may have. It makes conclusions based on information we do have. Unless you can prove that, here and now, we know all of our DNA has some function, we have to assume it doesn’t based on the things we know.

 

[buffalo]

Junk DNA is still junk. Even if the percentage increases tomorrow, we still don’t know that today. Science doesn’t make conclusions off of information we may have. It makes conclusions based on information we do have. Unless you can prove that, here and now, we know all of our DNA has some function, we have to assume it doesn’t based on the things we know.

Predictions are very important in empirical science.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Predictions are then tested and compared with evidence gathered through testing. You cannot test the idea that tomorrow we will discover something. It’s just not possible.

 

[buffalo]

Predictions are then tested and compared with evidence gathered through testing. You cannot test the idea that tomorrow we will discover something. It’s just not possible.

Theories make predictions. Also, it makes them falsifiable.

The trend line is that more functions will be found. That is a high % prediction.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

No. You cannot scientifically predict that we will discover something tomorrow. Every day is different and cannot be repeated, and there is an unknown cap on how much something can grow. There’s simply no way to make a testable prediction about scientific discovery.

If you continue to insist that there is, I will stop reacting to it. I have no qualms about abandoning this line of reasoning which has already been debunked.

 

[Buzzard3]

When discussing evolution, that is not the case. There are plenty of facts supporting the theory of evolution.

Sure there is. But as for evidence that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of mutations and natural selection … not so much. But as an atheist you have to belief that fairy tale coz you see no other possibility.

 

[Buzzard3]

I love this little tidbit. The claim has been consistent from your side that science is on the side of creationism. Why, then, is there no theory of creationism? You can’t just say one theory sucks and not replace it with another. That’s not how science works.

… except a “theory of creation” isn’t science, so what would be the point? Furthermore, the history of life on earth is the result of a miracle - there can be no “theory” for a miracle.

If you think something falls short, it’s your duty to explain how things really happen

“duty”??? Says who? You seem to be conflating truth and science.

The best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth (Darwinian) is obviously a failure. In this regard. science is out of its depth.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

But as an atheist you have to belief that fairy tale coz you see no other possibility.

Rossum is not an atheist. Please do not disregard their religious beliefs.

except a “theory of creation” isn’t science, so what would be the point? Furthermore, the history of life on earth is the result of a miracle - there can be no “theory” for a miracle.

Thank you for admitting that your viewpoint is unscientific.

“duty”??? Says who? You seem to be conflating truth and science.

Science is the means by which truth of nature is uncovered. If you reject a scientific explanation on scientific grounds, you must replace it with another scientific theory.

 

[Freddy]

I’m constantly bemused how these discussion just drag on and on. Surely it’s simple enough to say: ‘I read Genesis literally, the earth is only a few thousand years old, therefore abiogenesis and evolution cannot be true from a scriptural position’.

What else would there be to say after that except ‘thanks for your opinion’. Why do so many people try to use a denial of science to support a theological position?

 

[PickyPicky]

If I remember aright, @Buzzard3 is not a YEC. Just thinks humanity cannot have spent many thousands of years not discovering America, not inventing writing, etc.

 

[Freddy]

If I remember aright, @Buzzard3 is not a YEC. Just thinks humanity cannot have spent many thousands of years not discovering America, not inventing writing, etc.

In his case, yeah. He seems to think that the day that Homo sapien emerged (I think he really thinks something along those lines), then we all sat around deciding who was going to work on all the usefull inventions.

‘Dave, you take three guys and start looking at metalurgy. Chris, you and two others start looking at building something that floats which we can sit in - call them…I dunno…boats. The rest of you start work on wheels. And Pete, you can devise some sort of writing system so we can at least keep notes. Let’s go guys!’

 

[rossum]

Theories make predictions. Also, it makes them falsifiable.

So, what are the falsifiable predictions of ID theory? What, if found, would show that ID theory was incorrect.

A Cambrian rabbit will falsify evolution. What would falsify ID?

 

[Freddy]

buffalo:

Theories make predictions. Also, it makes them falsifiable.

A Cambrian rabbit will falsify evolution. What would falsify ID?

Buffalo does a great job.

 

[PickyPicky]

‘Dave, you take three guys and start looking at metalurgy. Chris, you and two others start looking at building something that floats which we can sit in - call them…I dunno…boats. The rest of you start work on wheels. And Pete, you can devise some sort of writing system so we can at least keep notes. Let’s go guys!’

And when Pete’s finished inventing writing he can come up with a map showing where America is, so we have somewhere to go in our boat-things.

 

[o_mlly]

There is more than one definition. They include:

• Allopatric speciation occurs when an animal population is forced to be split between two geographical areas as a result of geographical change. As a result, there are mutations that occur in the split populations which affect the ability of the two groups to reproduce if and when they are reintroduced.
• Peripatric speciation occurs when new species arise in isolation. As in allopatric speciation, the new species is unable to reproduce with others in the original population.
• Parapatric speciation occurs when populations are only partially separated and therefore do sometimes make contact. In this situation, the reproduction is based on selection of the best traits within the group.
• Sympatric speciation is differentiated from the other three because it occurs in one geographic location. Some scientists would call this type of speciation controversial and there are some who do not believe it exists. The cause of sympatric speciation is not known but could be based on varied food sources or traits that spontaneously develop.

Thank you.

Dropping the 4 adjectives that qualify the kinds of speciation, what is the core definition of “species”?

In 1905 de Vries found … Tragopogon micelius was found …

If a thing is new to the mind of man does not also mean that it is new to nature.

primula floribunda were crossbred … Karphchenko to cross a radish with a cabbage … created by the hybridization …

These examples, it seems to me, all involve human (intelligent) intervention of some kind and cannot be considered speciation by random mutation and natural selection.

 

[o_mlly]

How do you know? How can you check my answers if you do not have a validated design detector? Do you have a paper showing the results of a double blind test of various design detection methods? If ID is science then it needs scientific research and evidence to support its claims.

How do you know? How can you check my answers if you do not have a validated design species detector? Do you have a paper showing the results of a double blind test of various design species detection methods? If ID EV is science then it needs scientific research and evidence to support its claims.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

‘Dave, you take three guys and start looking at metalurgy. Chris, you and two others start looking at building something that floats which we can sit in - call them…I dunno…boats. The rest of you start work on wheels. And Pete, you can devise some sort of writing system so we can at least keep notes. Let’s go guys!’

And when Pete’s finished inventing writing he can come up with a map showing where America is, so we have somewhere to go in our boat-things.

Do you sometimes feel guilty about being involved in these threads? There’s an Aussie phrase that I can’t use here which suggests that one is taking advantage of others for the benefit of oneself. That one is doing it purely for enjoyment. To ‘have a laugh’.

Heaven forbid that anyone should actually do it. But do you think that happens?