Good news for creationists - and evolutionists

[cathy]

Ah scientists confusing us all with unecessary facts when all we need is godidit.

Anyway if this truly were good news for creationists then surely that well known worldwide conspiracy - millions of scientists from every discipline over the last 150 years - would have held firm and kept it secret? Like it has the major doubts its supposed to be harbouring in secret about radioactivity, transition fossils, evolution in general, atoms, gravity, rocks and anything else necessary for their primary atheist (including all the christian ones) scientific goal of killing God and subjugating christians. Or did the plucky unamed, unumbered band of terrified scientists known only to sobbing sylv's fevered imagination sneak it out and bigged up the headlines?

As Marc has reappeared can I ask again what order things were created? Can he please tell me, from the plain literal reading of genesis, which infallible, inerrant word of God is right and which infallible inerrant word of God is wrong? Story one or story two. Maybe his pastor can answer with his fondness for literal scripture as promoted by lying Ken.

That problem surely must be the basis of creation 'science' as it involves just simple ordering of species appearance.

Anyway who bets that this story will feature in its tabloidish headline, fact poor form in Marcs October talk for carrying the creation torch? Rather than the more fact rich full version? I'm betting a tenner but bet the odds are crap.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpres ... t-to-date/
"...the likes of P.Z. Myers, Nick Matzke, Jerry Coyne, Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins advocate junk DNA very heavily!"
That's funny, I couldn't spot mention of 'junk DNA' in 'The Greatest Show on Earth', even in the section on claimed bad design eg the laryngeal nerve...
'Michael's' research would seem to be amiss.

[a_haworthroberts]

I'd been searching for that Abstract on the Nature website...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 11247.html

[GrumpyBob]

For those interested readers (who have an iPad), there is a rather neat ENCODE app for the iPad. I think it has the papers (at least the Nature ones). I couldn't find it in the iTunes store, but Ewan Birney tweeted the URL: itunes.apple.com/app/id553487333

R

[a_haworthroberts]

May be of interest to some: http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09 ... ncode.html

[a_haworthroberts]

A non sequitur at the end of this?
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... ement.html

[cathy]

A non sequitur at the end of this?
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... ement.html

Annoymous I notice - not even adding their names to their deceptions anymore. Anyone up for sending them Grumpybobs post about it and asking them to explain?

[a_haworthroberts]

A non sequitur at the end of this?
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... ement.html

Annoymous I notice - not even adding their names to their deceptions anymore. Anyone up for sending them Grumpybobs post about it and asking them to explain?

A creationist referred me to the sixth paragraph here. I then drew it to Bob's attention (via email):
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... an-genome/

[GrumpyBob]

In my view, Ed Yong got it wrong, along with most journalists.

Robert

[Brian Jordan]

Pillocks. Evidence of complexity is not evidence of divinity.

[a_haworthroberts]

YEC Todd Wood recently suggested in his blog that function might not be evidence of design.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09 ... ncode.html

[Peter Henderson]

Dr. Purdom weighs in:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -part-one/

A third phase of the ENCODE project is now beginning to further refine exactly what all the “junk” DNA is doing. Ewan Birney stated, “We are the most complex things we know about. It’s not surprising that the manual is huge. I think it’s going to take this century to fill in all the details.”[5] Or will it take longer? Geneticist Rick Myers stated, “We’re far from finished. You might argue that this could go on forever.”[6] Agreed! I couldn’t help but think of the following verses as I read through the ENCODE findings.

For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well. (Psalm 139:13–14)

For more detailed information about the ENCODE findings, I suggest the two following websites:

ENCODE Project

Nature ENCODE

Be sure to come back next Tuesday when I will discuss the negative reactions of many evolutionists to the ENCODE findings.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6749213.stm.

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/scien ... ealth.html.

[3] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... an-genome/.

Wow !

[Peter Henderson]

However, the Panda's Thumb has linked to this article by T.Ryan Gregory:

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2 ... code-hype/

The claim that “lots of the genome isn’t junk after all!” is not new — people have been using this straw man for nearly 20 years. What’s novel is that the ENCODE authors are claiming that there is now evidence that 80% of the genome shows signs function, or at least of “specific biological activity”. Many people are not convinced by this, me among them. I am especially unimpressed by this figure when I read the ENCODE project lead’s own words on the subject of “function” and the 80% figure

So, “functional” is a pretty big stretch here, and 80% rather than 20% was used because it generates more interest. Not surprisingly, this has irritated many biologists and thrilled anti-evolutionists

2) To get that 80% figure, you have to have a very loose definition of “function” indeed. Actual evidence (which itself may not convince many experts) suggests 20% is functional in the sense of, well, having a biological function. The 80% value refers only to “specific biological activity”. Some comments from the interwebs sum up the critique of this criterion rather nicely:

Also, there’s this:

These considerations suggest that up to 20% of the genome is actively used and the remaining 80+% is junk. But being junk doesn’t mean it is entirely useless. Common sense suggests that anything that is completely useless would be discarded. There are several possible functions for junk DNA.

That was written by D.E. Comings in 1972, in the very first detailed discussion of “junk DNA”.

[Brian Jordan]

<yawn>
We really do need some more smileys.

[a_haworthroberts]

I'll catch up with this later, but WHY is Dr Purdom calling so-called Junk DNA 'Dark Matter'?