****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (2 Viewers)

[Marvin]

Bruce, you could write a book titled "Mr. Pickles isn't a Chemical Engineer: The Compelling Evidence for a Total Fraud" and tout it to people. It would be about as intellectually weighty as that book.

Troll

No YOU ARE!

 

[JZilla]

We about ready to bury this one? I feel like we made a lot of progress here.

 

[Marvin]

We about ready to bury this one? I feel like we made a lot of progress here.

It was just getting good.Troll.

 

[Psychopav]

I think for some folks belief in God or Jesus is one of those cornerstone Jenga pieces that just isn't going to budge without the whole thing toppling over.

Interesting comment. I think my wife is in this boat. Her faith in God and Jesus is what keeps her sane, according to her. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or real or not. It is the belief that it is real that matters. Even if it is a placebo effect and nothing more, her faith is strong and she isn't interested in discussing any of this stuff. I wish I could have that same kind of faith.

Then you should pray for that kind of faith.

Think I haven't?

I know you have. Just saying no reason to give up. St. Monica prayed for years before Augustine converted. God's time =/ our time. GB.

 

[shader]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

O RLY?

Thanks for the link. I forgot to put it in. Yes, this is the study I'm discussing, and no, creationists never came up with the "junk dna" in the first place. All this study did is verify what creationists and ID'ists have been saying for years.And before it even starts, I remember arguing junk DNA years ago with evolutionists. The junk DNA theory has fallen out of favor in recent years, so this isn't particularly shocking. But anyone who has discussed these issues for many years remembers the junk DNA discussions that used to occur years ago.

I still don't get why you think that this is some sort of "embarrassment".

It won't matter what I post, you doggedly oppose everything I say.But to those that argued in favor of junk DNA, it's embarrassing, though few will admit it. It's not embarrassing to science.

It's not my fault you're wrong.

Glad you got it all figured out.

 

[Marvin]

Bruce, you could write a book titled "Mr. Pickles isn't a Chemical Engineer: The Compelling Evidence for a Total Fraud" and tout it to people. It would be about as intellectually weighty as that book.

Troll

No YOU ARE!

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

Now you're just making stuff up.

 

[JZilla]

Can we get a health status on Konotay?

 

[matuski]

2. Golddigger died. I am taking care of the estate for him. I know you don't believe that and I really don't care.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Can we get a health status on Konotay?

Too soon, troll.

 

[Claydon]

Why are you guys still arguing with this moron golddigger/MoO?

It's like arguing with a holocaust denier....what's the point?

 

[JZilla]

Why are you guys still arguing with this moron golddigger/MoO?

It's like arguing with a holocaust denier....what's the point?

Where's the fun in arguing with a holocaust denier?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Why are you guys still arguing with this moron golddigger/MoO?It's like arguing with a holocaust denier....what's the point?

The same reason psychologists study crazy people. Entertainment.

 

[Mario Kart]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

The phrase "we know, DNA wise" was meant to reference how similar we are. We share an unordinary amount of DNA with them. What is the percentage? Something like 95% of our respective DNA is shared. How does a creationist explain that? Is the answer "coincidence"? That is difficult to explain from an ID perspective, no?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

The phrase "we know, DNA wise" was meant to reference how similar we are. We share an unordinary amount of DNA with them. What is the percentage? Something like 95% of our respective DNA is shared. How does a creationist explain that? Is the answer "coincidence"? That is difficult to explain from an ID perspective, no?

God has a sense of humor.

 

[CBusAlex]

Can I just say that it would be freaking hilarious if Pickles really was, like, a janitor or something, and yet still managed to own MoO at every turn?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Can I just say that it would be freaking hilarious if Pickles really was, like, a janitor or something, and yet still managed to own MoO at every turn?

Pickles = Matt Damon?

 

[Mario Kart]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

The phrase "we know, DNA wise" was meant to reference how similar we are. We share an unordinary amount of DNA with them. What is the percentage? Something like 95% of our respective DNA is shared. How does a creationist explain that? Is the answer "coincidence"? That is difficult to explain from an ID perspective, no?

God has a sense of humor.

I'd like to have a beer with him.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Can I just say that it would be freaking hilarious if Pickles really was, like, a janitor or something, and yet still managed to own MoO at every turn?

Pickles = Matt Damon?

 

[CBusAlex]

Can I just say that it would be freaking hilarious if Pickles really was, like, a janitor or something, and yet still managed to own MoO at every turn?

Pickles = Matt Damon?

Do you like chemical engineering? Well, I got research on protein folding and T-cells published in PNAS! How about that chemical engineering?

 

[Marvin]

“Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.” Bertrand Russell.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

“Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.” Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell is a well-known troll.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

-- Bertrand Russell, troll

 

[Novice2]

 Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth!

 

[JZilla]

 Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth!

Troll fossils

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't even think golddigger will quote Ken Ham.

 

[matuski]

What if god were a troll?

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Since specified information has only one source - intelligence

This is dead wrong. You need to stop saying it. I'm not even sure where you read something this stupid.

Prove me wrong. This is thesis of the book called signature of the cell..

That's your evidence? Oh dear god.

This thread has been hysterical.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Bruce, you could write a book titled "Mr. Pickles isn't a Chemical Engineer: The Compelling Evidence for a Total Fraud" and tout it to people. It would be about as intellectually weighty as that book.

I'd buy it.

I would too. some of Pickles most insightful and entertaining posts, from over a decade of things that have made me laugh, are in this thread.I think god created this thread.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." -- Bertrand Russell, troll

This really does explain a lot of the posts around here.

 

[shader]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

The phrase "we know, DNA wise" was meant to reference how similar we are. We share an unordinary amount of DNA with them. What is the percentage? Something like 95% of our respective DNA is shared. How does a creationist explain that? Is the answer "coincidence"? That is difficult to explain from an ID perspective, no?

Why would it be difficult to explain?

 

[Mario Kart]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

The phrase "we know, DNA wise" was meant to reference how similar we are. We share an unordinary amount of DNA with them. What is the percentage? Something like 95% of our respective DNA is shared. How does a creationist explain that? Is the answer "coincidence"? That is difficult to explain from an ID perspective, no?

Why would it be difficult to explain?

Could you explain it to me (us)? I would enjoy hearing an answer as to how and why we are so much alike if we are all created? TIA

 

[shader]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

The phrase "we know, DNA wise" was meant to reference how similar we are. We share an unordinary amount of DNA with them. What is the percentage? Something like 95% of our respective DNA is shared. How does a creationist explain that? Is the answer "coincidence"? That is difficult to explain from an ID perspective, no?

Why would it be difficult to explain?

Could you explain it to me (us)? I would enjoy hearing an answer as to how and why we are so much alike if we are all created? TIA

I don't know that I can answer the WHY. I'm sure when the Madden 2013 programmers start their programming, they don't start over, they take the existing programming from Madden 2012 and than add to it. But I'm not going to go down that route too far, because I didn't design humans.I don't know exactly what you would expect to see though? A different type of DNA? 80%? 40% 10%? Is there a number that would satisfy you?

Simple powers of observation show that there are vast differences in a chimpanzee and a human. To say they are 95% like us is a gross exaggeration. Also, when you say we share 95% of DNA with chimps, what all is being compared? Are they comparing the entire genome to come up with those numbers? Also, lets assume that your 95% was right. There would still be millions of differences in DNA itself, no small number. It's pretty obvious that chimps share many similarities to humans, so I personally would expect our DNA to be similar. But it's also pretty obvious that the differences between chimps and humans are significant.

 

[matuski]

Simple powers of observation show that there are vast differences in a chimpanzee and a human. To say they are 95% like us is a gross exaggeration.

It is exaggerated so much that the correct answer is 96%.The "look in the mirror" objection needs to be thrown out.

eta - PBS low level informational video

 

[Mr. Pickles]

To me, thinking that we are created is small minded. It's small just like some thought the Earth was flat. Just like how some thought Earth was the center of the universe. Just like how some thought the sun revolved around tether Earth. Those things are, obviously, wrong yet people fought and fought and killed those who questioned those thoughts.

To think us humans are so special, so unique, so extraordinary that we are created is much more mind boggling to me than sitting down and looking at some readily known things. Such as, South America and Africa fit together like a puzzle. Surely this was not designed to look like that. We know about plate techtonics now and can explain with 99.99% certainty that land masses were once together. (with that, animals roamed both land masses and viewing the finches we know on a larger scale, those older animals would deviate from their ancestors).

We know, DNA wise that we are really close to an Orangutan. We look alike, we learn similarly, we have hands, feet, brains and whatever else that is very close to each other. How, in all the world, can people deny that we share a common ancestor? (the funny question of "why are their still monkeys" is pure comedy gold).

We know people deviate from each other from climate to climate. From color to stature to many other variables, yet people deny that, at one time, animals can not deviate in the same manner. A dog is a dog, a wolf is a wolf and a finch is a finch. Why can those organisms no all share a common ancestor within their order? Seems mind boggling to see, read, hear people deny these 99.99% probability.

Sadly, it has been on display in this very thread the small minded way of thinking. I just dont get it.

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

The phrase "we know, DNA wise" was meant to reference how similar we are. We share an unordinary amount of DNA with them. What is the percentage? Something like 95% of our respective DNA is shared. How does a creationist explain that? Is the answer "coincidence"? That is difficult to explain from an ID perspective, no?

Why would it be difficult to explain?

Could you explain it to me (us)? I would enjoy hearing an answer as to how and why we are so much alike if we are all created? TIA

I don't know that I can answer the WHY. I'm sure when the Madden 2013 programmers start their programming, they don't start over, they take the existing programming from Madden 2012 and than add to it. But I'm not going to go down that route too far, because I didn't design humans.I don't know exactly what you would expect to see though? A different type of DNA? 80%? 40% 10%? Is there a number that would satisfy you?

Simple powers of observation show that there are vast differences in a chimpanzee and a human. To say they are 95% like us is a gross exaggeration. Also, when you say we share 95% of DNA with chimps, what all is being compared? Are they comparing the entire genome to come up with those numbers? Also, lets assume that your 95% was right. There would still be millions of differences in DNA itself, no small number. It's pretty obvious that chimps share many similarities to humans, so I personally would expect our DNA to be similar. But it's also pretty obvious that the differences between chimps and humans are significant.

It's almost as if we are descended from a common ancestor or something.

 

[Marvin]

Simple powers of observation show that there are vast differences in a chimpanzee and a human. To say they are 95% like us is a gross exaggeration. Also, when you say we share 95% of DNA with chimps, what all is being compared? Are they comparing the entire genome to come up with those numbers? Also, lets assume that your 95% was right. There would still be millions of differences in DNA itself, no small number. It's pretty obvious that chimps share many similarities to humans, so I personally would expect our DNA to be similar. But it's also pretty obvious that the differences between chimps and humans are significant.

Not when you compare human DNA to something like a worm or a jellyfish. Simple powers of observation.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

"Junk DNA" is an unfortunate term that was coined in 1972. It's true that ~98% of all DNA does not code for proteins, but geneticists have long suspected that at least some of this DNA had function. The ENCODE project didn't turn anything on its ear. It's new data and the science adjusts. It's actually very exciting. Nothing about this threatens evolution. Exactly the opposite.

You are very very wrong. The junk DNA is all about what switches do. Here is a gene regulatory network for a sea urchin that shows that life has a huge new layer of complexity over and above DNA. You stated that epigentics is well characterized science in previous posts. Well it is not. another link. quotes from link.
[*]I don't think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance," says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle.

[*]These results are going "to change the way a lot of [genomics] concepts are written about and presented in textbooks," Stamatoyannopoulos predicts.

[*]"It's a treasure trove of information," says Manolis Kellis, a computational biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge who analyzed data from the project.

[*]"What we found is how beautifully complex the biology really is," says Jason Lieb, an ENCODE researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

[*]"Regulation is a 3D puzzle that has to be put together," Gingeras says. "That's whatENCODE is putting out on the table."

Mapping the Genome goes well beyond genes. Junk DNA debunked



Life is far beyond anything Darwin could have conceived. We have a complex operating systems, switchboards, and hierarchical management structures that is over and above what we find in DNA? The problem is that we have known for a very long time that junk DNA (epigentics) had a an important role in biology. We had no idea how big the role is. The sad thing is that we haven't looked as hard at it because it didn't fit the evolutionist script. In other other words, we tried to put biology in the evolutionary box and that box does not fit. That box inhibited us from looking at what was staring us in the face - epigenetics.

Epigenetics is huge an is a paradigm shift.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Again, none of this threatens evolution.

 

[Marvin]

I don't think we have a clue what we "know" Dna-wise. Witness as evidence today's study released that pretty much puts the "junk DNA" thesis in the history books. Junk DNA and vestigal organs...two embarrassing areas for evolutionists.

"Junk DNA" is an unfortunate term that was coined in 1972. It's true that ~98% of all DNA does not code for proteins, but geneticists have long suspected that at least some of this DNA had function. The ENCODE project didn't turn anything on its ear. It's new data and the science adjusts. It's actually very exciting. Nothing about this threatens evolution. Exactly the opposite.

You are very very wrong. The junk DNA is all about what switches do. Here is a gene regulatory network for a sea urchin that shows that life has a huge new layer of complexity over and above DNA. You stated that epigentics is well characterized science in previous posts. Well it is not. another link. quotes from link.
[*]I don’t think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance,” says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle.

[*]These results are going “to change the way a lot of [genomics] concepts are written about and presented in textbooks,” Stamatoyannopoulos predicts.

[*]“It’s a treasure trove of information,” says Manolis Kellis, a computational biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge who analyzed data from the project.

[*]“What we found is how beautifully complex the biology really is,” says Jason Lieb, an ENCODE researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

[*]“Regulation is a 3D puzzle that has to be put together,” Gingeras says. “That’s whatENCODE is putting out on the table.”

Mapping the Genome goes well beyond genes. Junk DNA debunked



Life is far beyond anything Darwin could have conceived. We have a complex operating systems, switchboards, and hierarchical management structures that is over and above what we find in DNA? The problem is that we have known for a very long time that junk DNA (epigentics) had a an important role in biology. We had no idea how big the role is. The sad thing is that we haven't looked as hard at it because it didn't fit the evolutionist script. In other other words, we tried to put biology in the evolutionary box and that box does not fit. That box inhibited us from looking at what was staring us in the face - epigenetics.

Epigenetics is huge an is a paradigm shift.

Troll

 

[MasterofOrion]

Again, none of this threatens evolution.

How does it fit evolution? It doesn't

 

[zoonation]

Just so I'm clear, Bruce and Shader don't believe that we are monkeys?

Um, a living transitional form was uncovered in the expose "Encino Man" more than 20 years ago.

 

[Mario Kart]

You are very very wrong. The junk DNA is all about what switches do. Here is a gene regulatory network for a sea urchin that shows that life has a huge new layer of complexity over and above DNA. You stated that epigentics is well characterized science in previous posts. Well it is not. another link. quotes from link.

[*]I don't think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance," says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle.

[*]These results are going "to change the way a lot of [genomics] concepts are written about and presented in textbooks," Stamatoyannopoulos predicts.

[*]"It's a treasure trove of information," says Manolis Kellis, a computational biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge who analyzed data from the project.

[*]"What we found is how beautifully complex the biology really is," says Jason Lieb, an ENCODE researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

[*]"Regulation is a 3D puzzle that has to be put together," Gingeras says. "That's whatENCODE is putting out on the table."

Mapping the Genome goes well beyond genes. Junk DNA debunked



Life is far beyond anything Darwin could have conceived. We have a complex operating systems, switchboards, and hierarchical management structures that is over and above what we find in DNA? The problem is that we have known for a very long time that junk DNA (epigentics) had a an important role in biology. We had no idea how big the role is. The sad thing is that we haven't looked as hard at it because it didn't fit the evolutionist script. In other other words, we tried to put biology in the evolutionary box and that box does not fit. That box inhibited us from looking at what was staring us in the face - epigenetics.

Epigenetics is huge an is a paradigm shift.

This is all irreverent. Simple observation of humans and other primates is clear as day, as in, we have a common ancestor. All of the DNA talk along with everything underneath that scope not only helps to explain that observation but it strengens the whole Theory of Evolution. You can attempt to poke holes here or there but they either make zero sense or they have nothing to do with the question at hand.This whole "junk DNA" means nothing. We have have DNA that we, essentially, do not use but we are still carriers of that DNA. The beneficial traits will be passed on. That is how this thing works.

Talk about all the junk DNA you want but in this instance, observation is plain as day. You denying it all is what is funny. Then, you use the same science to try to debunk what that science theorizes. Got any ideas of your own? Any tests of your own? Anything other than saying "this is all one big coincidence."

 

[matuski]

Again, none of this threatens evolution.

How does it fit evolution? It doesn't

If I say 5, what does that have to do with 2+2?Huh? Answer that smart guy! Hahaha I got you now!

 

[Mario Kart]

I don't know that I can answer the WHY. I'm sure when the Madden 2013 programmers start their programming, they don't start over, they take the existing programming from Madden 2012 and than add to it. But I'm not going to go down that route too far, because I didn't design humans.I don't know exactly what you would expect to see though? A different type of DNA? 80%? 40% 10%? Is there a number that would satisfy you?Simple powers of observation show that there are vast differences in a chimpanzee and a human. To say they are 95% like us is a gross exaggeration. Also, when you say we share 95% of DNA with chimps, what all is being compared? Are they comparing the entire genome to come up with those numbers? Also, lets assume that your 95% was right. There would still be millions of differences in DNA itself, no small number. It's pretty obvious that chimps share many similarities to humans, so I personally would expect our DNA to be similar. But it's also pretty obvious that the differences between chimps and humans are significant.

Read your reply earlier today, thinking about it at different times and if I am understanding your words correctly, they do not denounce evolution but they kind of denounce a creator.The programming of a game. You used Madden but let's just say a game in general. A person builds upon existing knowledge to "create" a new and better game. Building blocks, if you will. In other words, God, created simple organisms and has continued to "modify" this or these organisms into what we know today. So, either God is playing a game or The Matrix, in which God resets things, is what we are in. Who knows what iteration we are in but God has "reset" things to modify and "create" new organisms.Not sure "vast" would be accurate in describing our differences. I think everyone would concede there are differences but overall, not much. I'm not using the 96%/4% difference in DNA as justification here. Biologically speaking we are almost exact. In comparison to a banana, humans share 50% DNA. Obviously there are "vast" differences between a human and a banana but just using those numbers, 50% of DNA makes up the difference between man and banana. Now, since the difference is only 2-4% between humans and apes... we are pretty much exact.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Again, none of this threatens evolution.

How does it fit evolution? It doesn't

You can't even acknowledge that I'm a chemical engineer (skulked away from a $10,000 bet). You flatly denied that PNAS was a "multidisciplinary" journal despite it being plainly posted on their webpage. You claimed your former username was actually not you but some guy that died, and you handled his estate.It's not that I don't enjoy a good debate, but some days it feels like a foot race against a four year old.

 

[Frostillicus]

You can't even acknowledge that I'm a chemical engineer

To be fair, I think most of us don't buy this. Protein folding? You sound like somebody who watched The Net with Sandra Bullock and now tries to sound smart.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You can't even acknowledge that I'm a chemical engineer

To be fair, I think most of us don't buy this. Protein folding? You sound like somebody who watched The Net with Sandra Bullock and now tries to sound smart.

Every time I see a reference to The Net, I'm reminded of that David Spade joke:Spade: "Did you see that talking pig movie?"

Sean Penn: "No."

Spade: "You didn't see The Net?"

See, because Babe also came out in 1995, so.. I'd say pretty sick burn, brohan.

 

[Frostillicus]

You can't even acknowledge that I'm a chemical engineer

To be fair, I think most of us don't buy this. Protein folding? You sound like somebody who watched The Net with Sandra Bullock and now tries to sound smart.

Every time I see a reference to The Net, I'm reminded of that David Spade joke:Spade: "Did you see that talking pig movie?"

Sean Penn: "No."

Spade: "You didn't see The Net?"

See, because Babe also came out in 1995, so.. I'd say pretty sick burn, brohan.

But she's not fat. I know, because I'm actually watching it right now. Shame.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

You can't even acknowledge that I'm a chemical engineer

To be fair, I think most of us don't buy this. Protein folding? You sound like somebody who watched The Net with Sandra Bullock and now tries to sound smart.

Every time I see a reference to The Net, I'm reminded of that David Spade joke:Spade: "Did you see that talking pig movie?"

Sean Penn: "No."

Spade: "You didn't see The Net?"

See, because Babe also came out in 1995, so.. I'd say pretty sick burn, brohan.

But she's not fat. I know, because I'm actually watching it right now. Shame.

I think it has to do with the snout.

 

[Frostillicus]

You can't even acknowledge that I'm a chemical engineer

To be fair, I think most of us don't buy this. Protein folding? You sound like somebody who watched The Net with Sandra Bullock and now tries to sound smart.

Every time I see a reference to The Net, I'm reminded of that David Spade joke:Spade: "Did you see that talking pig movie?"

Sean Penn: "No."

Spade: "You didn't see The Net?"

See, because Babe also came out in 1995, so.. I'd say pretty sick burn, brohan.

But she's not fat. I know, because I'm actually watching it right now. Shame.

I think it has to do with the snout.

Yeah well yeah. She's snoutier than a mother ####er too.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't know that I can answer the WHY. I'm sure when the Madden 2013 programmers start their programming, they don't start over, they take the existing programming from Madden 2012 and than add to it. But I'm not going to go down that route too far, because I didn't design humans.

What is Windows NT? When things start getting complex in a designed world, good designers absolutely start over to eliminate or at the very least hide that complexity. This is exactly where ID fails. The argument that complexity equals design is completely backwards. Simplicity is the result of design, complexity is the result of systems that are evolved.