DNA Evolution Reading List for Christian denialists (America, bible, quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some recent debating denials on this sub-forum have been poorly based on the incorrect claim that a lot of the human genom is so-called "junk" DNA, and therefore (huh? I must have missed that logic connection..) does not show that we are in any way connected to our obvious pirimate ancestors.
One of the most vocal critics here even allows that, despite the absolute match-up of huge segments of their genomes, shared exactly between some ape and chimp co-ancestors, it all means nothing! Just because the DNA in question is, or once was, labelled "junk". A definition from the '80's and '90's, btw.
(Just yesterday, a really insistent anti-evolution poster here, famous for his intransigence & lack of any scientific education, posted a link, long-since proven to be wildly in error, from an 1868 publication no less!!!!
And yet he proudly flaunted it as "This science completely disproves evolution!"
Can you imagine? Not a typo: Eighteen Sixty-Eight: as in 1868. Not 1968, or 2008. Nope. And it's two authors were also both devout Christians, as most everyone was back then, simply in order to be socially accepted. Even Darwin claimed to be a Christian, though it's insidious disciplinary protocols obviously pained him...)
But now, folks, things have changed, and the scientific information revolution, achieved through carefully duplicated studies in most cases, is thus quite irrefutible, and also IS,yep, often "different" today than it was even yesterday. Only in this case, "different: means better resolved, with more accurate techniques and resutls and conclusions. This constant improvement i lost on the frantic denialist mentality.
Instead, they openly prefer what was thought to be "known" in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Things like a flat earth, the sun being a collection of mirrors hung by angels, a profusion of "junk" DNA [that, uhhmmm.... God just planted there for no good reason...!!) and so on.
These relentless & progressive advances in proven information must really get the goat of those who require purely static facts, as they believe with their one sole (and mostly disproven...) book of reference, the bible (in some version or other, all different, btw); and so easily disproven as scientific fact now.
Here's a brief reading list for those who might care to learn a bit about this DNA sequencing information and its consequences:
Well, enjoy. Then, but only after you've read these, please come back and, in logical point form, and without wildly and willy-nilly changing of established definitions, or yowling some categorical denigrating commentary about my mother or my own Evil™ scientist's character...
Then since there is Junk DNA, God can't have made it, therefore it is a product of evolution.
I'm so glad you're on our side.
On the other hand I read that some 'Junk' DNA can serve a purpose - "Recently, however, it has become clear that junk DNA performs a wide range of important tasks."
" Researchers at K.U. Leuven and Harvard University show that stretches of DNA previously believed to be useless 'junk' DNA play a vital role in the evolution of our genome. They found that unstable pieces of junk DNA help tuning gene activity and enable organisms to quickly adapt to changes in their environments."
sometimes it can have a purpose we might not have discovered yet. Just saying because of course that would explain why (like the appendix and the whale's legs) they haven't entirely vanished. At worst that fact would fit evolution theory as well as creation - theory.
The research seems to (as usual) look as though it hs evolutionary causes
"By examining the shapes, grooves, turns and bumps of the DNA that comprises the human genome, the team discovered that 12 percent of the human genome appears to be constrained by evolution. That's double the six percent detected by simply comparing the linear order of DNA nucleotides (A, T, G, and C, the familiar letters that make up the genome)."
Then since there is Junk DNA, God can't have made it, therefore it is a product of evolution.
I'm so glad you're on our side.
I believe they said it is not really "junk dna" in the article.
Not 'Junk DNA' After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes (Oct. 25, 2007) — PiRNAs, a recently discovered class of tiny RNAs, play an important role in controlling gene function. Derived mostly from so-called "junk DNA," piRNAs had escaped the attention of generations of ...
I believe they said it is not really "junk dna" in the article.
Not 'Junk DNA' After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes (Oct. 25, 2007) — PiRNAs, a recently discovered class of tiny RNAs, play an important role in controlling gene function. Derived mostly from so-called "junk DNA," piRNAs had escaped the attention of generations of ...
Yes, I will give you that. It is evident that what was once seen as purposeless DNA (which an intelligent designer would not have made, needed or left behind, but evolution might) actually has a purpose (1).
The upshot is that this is adaptation in action, refutes the irreducible complexity argument and is evidence that indicates evolution, not creation.
(1) Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions.
It's showing that you are clinging on by your fingertips when you need to resort to those ludicrous 'God put the fossils there to test our faith' type arguments, not to mention the impudent accusations that we do the misuse of evidence that is actually your forte.
It's showing that you are clinging on by your fingertips when you need to resort to those ludicrous 'God put the fossils there to test our faith' type arguments, not to mention the impudent accusations that we do the misuse of evidence that is actually your forte.
I was talking about DNA not fossils. How did you get fossils out of DNA? Just another straw man you people love to construct?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's showing that you are clinging on by your fingertips when you need to resort to those ludicrous 'God put the fossils there to test our faith' type arguments, not to mention the impudent accusations that we do the misuse of evidence that is actually your forte.
