Look, if they can’t even sell Darwinism to sperm, they need PR 911 pronto.
Genetics
Ghost worms unchanged in form for 275 million years but show “highly distinct” genetics?
One wants to ask, how distinct ARE the genomes of these species that all look the same?
Would it be like mapping a cat’s genome and finding a German Shepherd’s GATTACA in there? What that level of distinction really tells us goes well beyond cats and German Shepherds. Or do the researchers really mean something less highly distinct? What? We search for analogies here.
Predictions, predictions: ID predicts overlapping codes, Darwinism predicts “junk DNA”
The nested hierarchies we find in codes point to an intelligence behind nature.
At The Scientist: “Junk RNA” is top science news in 2019
A “completely unknown biology,” says a researcher. “There really is no framework in biology as we know it today that would explain how RNA and glycans could ever be in the same place at the same time”
One of the biggest science stories of the last decade: The Descent of Man gets crowdsourced
Those old Descent of Man charts were sometimes fun, showing a bacterium ending up as some poor slob hunched over a workstation. Some sort of moral was always pounded into us by these tales, usually not an uplifting one. But real history is always better and more interesting.
The Man With Two Fingerprints also has his donor’s semen
Well first, as commenter Latemarch put it at the previous story, “He is still the same “person.” His DNA has changed but he’s still the same person. Another blow to materialism…think about it.”
The larger lesson from the story of the Man With Two Fingerprints
Remember when DNA was Certain? When people were executed or spent life in prison on account of DNA evidence? “Your DNA is on it” was like Holy Writ. DNA was the guarantor of the Darwinian selfish gene.
And now… The worst thing that ever happened to Darwinism was DNA mapping.
Bacteria harpoon DNA from their environment, to fight antibiotics
Wait. What does this story remind us of? Oh yes, recently a writer at The Atlantic went so far as to express doubt about the claim of a Darwin-in-the-schools lobbyist that everyone needs to buy into their approach to evolution if we want to understand superbugs.
Identical birds, different genes
So different sets of genes can result in identical looking birds? This is getting as complicated as the butterflies.
Big Data study of termites forces rethink of their evolution
“Often, researchers construct a phylogeny using a single gene. This can, however, give an inaccurate picture of the relationship between species — and can incorrectly place them.” So the industrious team studied “used up to 4065 genes from each termite species to construct the phylogeny.” Good for them. But it raises the question, why—in the age of Big Gene—doesn’t everyone do that, instead of loudly proclaiming an evolutionary history based on a handful of genes? One is much less inclined to dismiss the evidence of thousands than a handful.
Long stretch of Neanderthal DNA found in a modern population
Apparently, it’s the geneticists’ “worst nightmare.”
One in 2000 people may have two copies of a chromosome from one parent
And none from the other. And they may show no abnormalities. It’s amazing how much the human genome has learned in recent years. 😉
Have we been wrong about DNA bonds all these years?
Researchers: It is not, as is generally believed, hydrogen bonds which bind together the two sides of the DNA structure. Instead, water is the key.
Researchers: Biology’s optimal ‘molecular alphabet’ may be preordained
It sounds as though these researchers want to quietly abandon Darwinian randomness in favour of a structuralist approach to the unfolding of life but — understandably — do not want to hear from an army of Darwinian orcs.
More Salt in the Peppered Moth’s Wounds
The entire history of Kettlewell’s Peppered Moth experiment is littered with problems: doctored photographs, wrong assumptions and slim evidence, followed by genetic analysis revealing that the protein exons coding for color were not changed, but, rather, a transposon (non-random) was inserted in an intron (“junk DNA”). And now there’s this paper. It seems that the Read More…