I was certain the Darwinists would spin the ENCODE findings, but even I am stunned at their sheer audacity. In response to my previous post, Critical Rationalist says that the ENCODE findings, which falsify a prediction Darwinists have been making for decades, far from being a crushing defeat for the theory and its proponents is a positively good thing for Darwinists.
CR writes: “all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows . . . Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win win situation, which doesn’t represent a blow to human intellect.”
Then CR makes the outlandish suggestion that ENCODE is somehow a loss for ID. He writes: “[When ID] Merely assum[es] the entire genome ‘should be functional’ [it] does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized.”
CR is wrong on both counts. Yes, Darwinism will survive ENCODE as he suggests, but not because it is the best explanation for the data. It will survive because materialists have hegemonic control of the academy and for them Darwin is quite simply the only game in town. That’s what Dawkins means when he says he would choose Darwinism even if there were no evidence for it.
No, CR, ID proponents did not merely say that the code “should be functional.” They made a testable prediction in the teeth of the overwhelming opposition from Darwinists. They said, “Darwinists are wrong when they say the vast majority of DNA is junk. We predict that function will be found.” And that prediction was confirmed.
Sorry CR. No matter how you try to spin ENCODE, it is a crushing defeat for Darwinism.
The whole issue is damaging to evolutionist activists.
They always demand creationists must accept conclusions from ‘scientists” and here it seems they are not doing that.
Are these people not doing doing science?
How could they be wrong?
Somebody is wrong about something!
If they reject these findings then they are rejecting science?
Yes or no!?
If these researchers had found Junk DNA as evolutionists desired they would be demanding ID etc creationists submitt to the findings!
What changed?
If the findings can be questioned then all findings can be questioned including evolution stuff!
Degrees and papers isn’t settling things after all.
As a YEC i have no interest and disagree that DNA is in any way a trail of biology.
Its just a grand presumption that has griped to many.
Another error.
Whether junk or not it still is all about assumptions about DNA and biology that has never been proven.
It is however a embarrassment to not just some idea on DNA and evolution but to the whole universe of confidence in investigative abilities of researchers in these very slippery things.
who predicted this?
Or, not:
http://selab.janelia.org/people/eddys/blog/?p=683
Nick, you are embarrassing yourself
Darwinism, and materialism in general, the atheistic philosophy which undergirds Darwinism, is certainly not ‘hard’ science in the normal sense of engineering and physics in that there is a rigid falsification criteria that can be applied to it to see if it is true or not (at least not a rigid criteria that Darwinists will accept),,,
,,, Moreover, Darwinism does not make daring predictions such as the predicted bending of starlight by a certain degree around the sun during an eclipse, which was perhaps the most famous stunning confirmed prediction in the history of science that brought General Relativity overnight prominence in science (and made a household name out of Einstein):
neo-Darwinian evolution simply has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which one can rigorously analyze it.
This lack of mathematical rigor in Darwinism is clearly exposed by supposed ‘Evolutionary Algorithms’, which have been ‘intelligently designed’ by computer programmers to simulate Darwinian evolution (please explain that huge non-sequitur to me!):
Yet despite this lack of scientific/mathematical clarity in Darwinism, it is still possible, by the criterion laid out by Lakatos in the following audio lecture, to see that Darwinism is, in reality, a ‘degenerating science program’, i.e. a ‘pseudoscience’;
Even some ‘honest’ Darwinists are now admitting that their theory has suffered major renovations (fabricated ‘epicyclic’ theories) in order to fit what the evidence is now saying:
Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from ‘anomalous’ genetic evidence by ‘fabricating theories’:
The following article goes through a bit of the history of how neo-Darwinists have come to use horizontal gene transfer to ‘explain away’ contradictory patterns in the genetic evidence;
Here are articles that clearly illustrate that the protein evidence (extreme rarity of functional proteins), no matter how crushing against Darwinism, is always crammed into the Darwinian framework by Evolutionists:
Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from the fossil record;
Here is how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:
Let’s not forget another prevalent means in which neo-Darwinism avoids falsification; the fraudulent, and very deceptive, practice of literature bluffing;
In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.
The deception (literature bluffing), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;
A very good site with many references exposing many more instances of Darwinism avoiding falsification from the empirical data, by ad hoc models (rationalizations), is found in this following site:
Quote of note:
Music and verse:
Nick Matzke,
The problem is that your version of “evolution” can explain lots of junk, some junk or no junk DNA. And THAT is the problem if it can “explain” everything as it explains nothing.
One of the greatest scientific revolutions in history is occurring before our eyes and the cultural and psychological aspects are almost as fascinating as the discoveries themselves. While scientists who seek design in the genome are finding it, others desperately continue clinging to a steam-age myth that has put blinders on biologists for a century and a half. This is going to be fun.
Casey Luskin has a article up on the Darwinian spin, oops, I meant Darwinian response, to the ENCODE findings:
From the New York Times reporting on the ENCODE announcement:
“There is another sort of hairball as well: the complex three-dimensional structure of DNA. Human DNA is such a long strand — about 10 feet of DNA stuffed into a microscopic nucleus of a cell — that it fits only because it is tightly wound and coiled around itself. When they looked at the three-dimensional structure — the hairball — Encode researchers discovered that small segments of dark-matter [a.k.a. junk] DNA are often quite close to genes they control. In the past, when they analyzed only the uncoiled length of DNA, those controlling regions appeared to be far from the genes they affect.” Emphasis mine.
Based on the above text, it seems that the dark matter DNA segments act as both “spacers” and controllers of their respective genes. Taking into account the 3D structure of DNA and its arrangement of genes proximate to the DNA that controls them, “junk” DNA wound around histones functioning as a “spacer” for the controlling of genes should be considered sufficiently functional to disqualify it as “junk”. Acting as spacers may not be as gloriously functional as a gene but is essential nonetheless.
The ‘denialism’ of these ENCODE findings by Darwinists is reminiscent of the ‘denialism’ Darwinists went through with the finding of digital information in DNA. I’ve lost count of how many times Darwinists have denied that the coded information we find in DNA is not really coded information. Here is one such episode of denial by, of all people, a software engineer at Google:
But as with Junk DNA now, ID has recently been vindicated with big time proof that the information we find in DNA is in fact ‘digitally encoded’ information:
This is simply completely insane,,,
,,,just how far beyond this is for the capacity of anything man has designed to store information in computers! ,,, And yet Darwinists, without even a batting a eye, think nothing of declaring the information that is stored in this astonishing DNA molecule to be mostly junk. It would be absolutely hilarious, on par with a modern scientist believing in a flat earth, if it were not for the fact that, in much of America, these Darwinists are allowed to teach impressionable young minds without restraint!.
The article Nick linked to makes an interesting suggestion. Create an entirely random sequence of DNA and see if it gets transcribed (what he calls the null hypothesis against the ENCODE results). The author suggests that it will. And on its face, this may not be a bad idea nor a bad expectation of the transcription outcome.
However — and these are the kinds of caveats you’ll rarely hear from someone who is enamored of the idea of pervasive junk DNA — we have to consider the following:
– The idea of pervasive transcription itself is a surprise for the evolutionary story. Oh, sure, it is now being accommodated, but let’s remember that it was a surprise (i.e., certainly not predicted or expected by the theory). This isn’t a knock-down proof one way or another, but it is a failure of expectations based on the theory, and on the other hand a vindication of expecations based on design, and we should be honest enough to admit as much.
– DNA is a 3D structure, with positioning of elements important in some cases, with more cases almost surely to be found. Thus, it is possible that certain portions of DNA are there solely for structural positioning, without regard to specific sequence.
– Some studies have started to discover that timing is important. Thus, there may be strings withing DNA that get transcribed purely as a timing element (and without any specific sequence needed), similar to a ‘wait loop’ in a computer program. Based on our own computer design experience, in fact I would expect to see such timing elements. We’ll see if more of these get found.
– The cell still has to deal with expenditure of resources in DNA replication during cell replication, identifying and breaking down unneeded RNA transcripts, and so forth. As we’ve been noting on another thread the last few days, this is not an insignificant use of resources, particularly for those who claim that somewhere betwen 60-90% of DNA is junk. The Darwinist response to date is simply that selection works sometimes and doesn’t work other times. Stuff happens.
– The real null hypothesis for the junk DNA claims is to get rid of all the alleged ‘junk’ and see if the organism can thrive, reproduce through multiple generations, fend off disease, respond to environmental pressures, etc. without the alleged junk. Even then it would not be definitive proof of non-function, but I would view it as evidence that needs to be seriously considered (unlike the current claims, which essentially amount to: “well it looks strange, and anyway we haven’t found a function for it yet”).
Barry,
Is there a particular reason why you did not include a link to my actual comment?
For those interested, 10 of the ENCODE scientists are currently accepting questions on reddit’s r/askscience:
http://www.reddit.com/r/asksci.....opedia_of/
BA writes…
Now the missing link becomes more apparent, as you’ve taken my comment out of context.
I wrote:
several paragraphs later I wrote…
Also, I wrote:
The key point I was illustrating is how even different theories that have been shown wrong, *as a whole*, via observations can be closer to the truth than others because they have more informational content that can be found false. This is a property Popper called “Verisimilitude”.
IOW, I said no such thing about ENCODE being a loss for ID. And it’s out ability to devise specific tests that would falsify one theory, but not the other, that is a example of human intellect, which is independent of Darwinism. Having developed a universal theory of how knowledge grows is yet another such an example.
Here are a few additional examples from a comment on another thread…
Looks like Larry Moran found the reddit thread also:
http://www.reddit.com/r/asksci.....of/c667vqi
semi OT:
Larry Moran asked one of the ENCODE researchers:
Don’t know if Dr. Moran was being sarcastic in that question (it’s hard to tell with him), but if that definition he suggested is used then we find that the percentage for ‘junk’ drops to far less than the 20% he is so upset about,,,
Moreover, there is ‘redundancy’ considerations to deal with:
@ba77: 1mb from a mouse genome is about .03%, not 1%. The mouse genome has about 2.8 billion base pairs.
It looks like an error in the original nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/200.....018-7.html
Thanks JoeCoder, will make a note correcting the error. Thanks for the correction since it is certainly ‘non-trivial’ as to the topic.
Barry, thanks for the OP. It’s all a hoot. I hope I’m not taking advantage of your hospitality by posting this link. But back in the 1990s on a nationally syndicated TV show I sparred with anti-ID gal Eugenie Scott for one hour. The best (only?) evidence she offered for evolution was Junk DNA. I challenged her to retract. She didn’t 🙂 It’s at http://realsciencefriday.com/eugenie-scott
OT:
I wish we had a forum here so we didn’t have to hijack threads for interesting topics and announcements.
The ENCODE team’s answers to Larry Moran don’t seem to confirm the idea that they accidentally spun their results to suggest more function in DNA than there actually is. The word “putdown” comes to mind.
I especially liked this response to Dr. Moran’s question by rule_30:
that comment reminds me of this video from ENV a while back:
notes:
The title of this following paper is catchy 🙂
What you guys aren’t getting is that nature has basically already done this experiment, and we know it works. Closely related species — same genus, hard to tell apart — are often known to have drastically smaller genome sizes than their relatives.
Heh. The very first thing an ENCODE person said on the 80% functional claim, was that he likes the post I linked to here on this thread, which you guys instantly ignored/dismissed:
Nick Matzke:
That is not a prediction of the theory of evolution.
Nick you state:
Well Nick now this should be a snap for you since you already got a blueprint from the smaller genome. All you have to do to verify your +50% junk claim is snip out all, or lots, of the ‘extra junk’ (close to 50% or thereabouts) of the larger genome and see if your hypothesis holds up. Do you care to take any wagers on your experiment that you will never get anywhere near deleting 50%???
Eric Anderson says,
That’s an untrue statement, otherwise known as a lie.
We’ve been running an undergraduate lab experiment on RNA polymerase for 25 years. Students isolate RNA polymerase from bacteria (E. coli) then add the purified enzyme to DNA from cows (calf thymus DNA). They get lots of transcription even though there are no bacterial promoters in the cow genome.
That’s because RNA polymerase is known to bind nonspecifically and initiate transcription at many, many, sites in cow DNA. We know this because the binding constants for RNA polymerase were worked out over thirty years ago.
The same thing is true for human RNA polymerase and human DNA. There will be specific transcription from strong fnctional promoters but there will also be tons of low-level nonspecific transcription (pervasive transcription).
Those of us who understood basic biochemistry EXPECTED pervasive, nonspecific transcription and we demonstrate it in undergraduate labs. The explanation is in all the textbooks on biochemistry and molecular biology. It’s been there for decades. Look on pages 636-643 of my textbook.
It’s not nice to lie no matter who you do it for.
Larry,
That it is known does not mean it was expected- you know a prediction of the theory made BEFORE the biochemstry was known- ie before your undergraduate labs and even before you. And as you just provided evidence for, the observation is now being accomodated.
Larry Moran @33:
Let’s think through the logic for a minute. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that would suggest pervasive transcription. Indeed, we can see this by simply looking at how many were surprised at the results of the ENCODE work.
Now, it is possible that you are a lot smarter than many other people and that you previously predicted nearly all of human DNA would be transcribed. Did you? If so, congratulations. Either way, you certainly would not have gained that expectation from evolutionary theory itself. Perhaps from some good bench science; but not from evolutionary theory.
Further, it is one thing to place some RNA polymerase from bacteria into cow DNA and notice that transcription takes place (which is very good and interesting science, by the way). Indeed, we might not even be particularly surprised that transcription takes place as soon as we insert the new material. It is quite another thing to have a genome in a population undergo pervasive transcription for millions of years without selection doing anything about it.
Some of us note, rightly so, that it is a little bit too convenient for the evolutionary story to say that selection is so very capable when it suits the story and so very inept when it suits some other aspect of the story, as I noted on the other thread here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-432893
Part of what we have been discussing on these threads is what selection is alleged to be able to do and not do, coupled with the position some are taking that the vast majority of the genome is junk. We’re being asked to believe that: (i) the vast majority of the genome is pure junk (way more than 50%, perhaps as high as 80-90%); (ii) significant cellular resources are spent in transcription, identification, breakdown, and, upon replication, copying all this junk, all without a single hitch to normal cellular function; (iii) selection hasn’t done anything much about this tremendous waste of resources for millions of years (while at the same time selection has just happened to fix numerous other genomic changes in the population; whew, what a lucky accident for us); and (iv) this was all expected by evolutionary theory.
Sorry, some people may be interested in buying that bridge, but others of us are not that gullible.
I’ll be more charitable than you and not say that you are intentionally lying. I think it is just a case of being stuck in a broken paradigm that clouds one’s thinking.
Larry Moran, 09/11/2012: “It’s not nice to lie no matter who you do it for.”
Larry Moran, 10/16/2011:
You “don’t know anything about” how the word “information” is used in human language?
You touch the pretty little letters on a keyboard and giggle when those same letters magically appear on the screen?
Bullshit…er…lie.
as to:
to which Dr. Moran states:
and yet:
Larry you state:
And please tell me exactly where you have derived this moral virtue from???:
I’m still unclear why this ID makes this particular prediction or why it relevant either way.
Surely, you’re not suggesting an abstract designer with no defined limitations couldn’t make nonfunctional DNA? Are you? Having no defined limitations, it wouldn’t need to make all genes functional. And, we as designers, do not make everything functional either.
Furthermore, observations are neutral until you have an explanatory theory by which to extrapolate them. OPERA’s “observations” of faster than light neutrinos are just one such example.
So, what we’re looking for is an *explanatory theory* as to why the genome is the way it is. It’s unclear how “abstract designer with no defined limitations must have wanted it that way” is a good explanation, for reasons I’ve pointed out.
We agree on something. However the point is that some evos were using the existence of junk DNA as evidence against ID and it ain’t.
BA,
You’re quoting news reports. News reports almost always over play the novelty of “new results”. It appears to be a particular problem in molecualr biology/biochemesitry because those fields seems to have very little respect for their on history (though Larry may have more to say on that)
Stretches credulity, doesn’t it?
I bet the concept of bioinformatics is completely foreign as well.
I wonder where Dr. Moran’s results get published, and how and why? I’m sure he thinks that’s just as magical.
And then I wonder how it is that what Dr. Moran publishes becomes available to other scientists to access and use.
There’s no recorded information in that there database!
CR @38:
You have a valid question and perhaps I can provide my perspective in the following terms.
I have stated elsewhere on this forum, and will repeat now, that both materialistic evolution and design can admit to some amount of functional and some amount of non-functional DNA. Thus, the issue is not one of absolute “all functional” or “all non-functional,” and no deductive proof can result from whatever percentage the evidence ultimately supports.
However, it is not the case that we are just talking about a minor quibble over a couple of percentage points. Evolutionists have loudly and publicly proclaimed for years that the vast majority of DNA is nonfunctional (historically stated as something around 90%+; now some are backpedaling to maybe 80% or even two-thirds). In direct contrast, several prominent IDists have stated publicly that they expect much and perhaps the majority of DNA to be functional. Again, this is not driven by deduction from the principles of the theories; but it highlights very starkly the near opposite expectations arising from the two theories. We are now beginning to glimpse a bit more clearly which theory provided the most accurate expectations for understanding DNA.
Having some occasional exposure to computer systems design, I have publicly stated on this forum that I do not expect more than 10% to be non-functional (note this is essentially diametrically opposed to the figure typically put forward by evolutionists). Other ID proponents may not be so bold and might hedge for a higher percentage of non-functionality, but as a group will typically still expect a much higher percentage of functionality than their materialist-minded friends. I have outlined my reasons in some detail previously and won’t bore you with the details again, but in short it has to do with our understanding of how highly-integrated functional systems operate.
Additionally, there are a couple of reasons the discussion merits attention: (i) prominent evolutionists have long proclaimed (and several notable personalities continue to proclaim) in the most juvenile and disparaging way possible that the existence of large amounts of junk DNA is proof against design (which it isn’t, but it is used as a bully pulpit to disparage design and attempt to take the rhetorical advantage); (ii) design theorists have proposed that a much larger percentage of DNA will ultimately prove to be functional than was claimed by the evolutionists.
So finding a bit more functional DNA here and there is not definitive proof against materialistic evolution or proof of design. No particular piece of DNA is going to settle the question. But the overall trajectory of the evidence is quite telling and it is important because (i) it demonstrates the inadequacy of the evolutionary expectation proclaimed by many notable evolutionary personalities; (ii) it puts the lie to their silly “proof” against design; and (iii) it demonstrates that a design perspective can yield insights and expectations that have long been missing in a paradigm that refuses to consider any possibility of intelligent involvement in the history of life.
Is it a knock-down, deductive proof? Of course not. It is the overall trajectory of the evidence that supports the design perspective and should make thoughtful observers sit up and take notice.
wd400 said:
and ignored that I listed this paper:
But the problems are much deeper than that, as listed previously the new study found:
Thus these new studies strongly suggest that nobody really has a clue what the fundamental unit of inheritance is anymore. If Larry and you pretend like this is no big surprise to the entire Darwinian framework all I can say is dream on buddy, that is devastating!!!
But actually this ‘overthrow of the gene as the fundamental unit of inheritance’ has been building for some time now:
As well, as was pointed out to Dr. Moran by the ENCODE researcher who goes by the handle ‘rule_30’, ENCODE has revealed a ‘hierarchy of information’ in the genome that goes far beyond mere genetic text. A good glimpse of that hierarchy is here:
as to the ‘pervasive overlapping transcription’ mentioned in the ENCODE studies, well that presents its own unique set of problems for neo-Darwinism that are insurmountable:
further note:
More to add to the collection > http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....-like.html WOW!!
From the above-linked Sandwalk post:
“Nothing has changed. The ENCODE consortium scientists were wrong in 2007 and they are still wrong—all of them.” Larry Moran
WOW!! is right
@ REX
Or this:
“I would never, ever, try to misrepresent science in order to strengthen the argument against creationism” Larry Moran
Yet that is exactly what he seems to be doing.
And: “I will fight that by continuing to present evidence that junk DNA exists and that our genome is mostly junk.” Larry Moran
Double WOW!
I wonder if that evidence would qualify as information.
One hopes it can be stored and even transmitted.
And one can surely assume that even Larry Moran himself believes that it ought to have some discernible effect.
That exchange on reddit was amusing. I think one of the researchers made a good point when he stated that it can’t be known that something is nonfunctional until it is tested. That is the material point – assuming nonfunction a priori is just plain stupid. When we don’t know what something does, we should just test it and leave our assumptions at the door. It’s not even a natural assumption to make given what we know about the workings of biological systems. The only real reason why people are fighting ENCODE so much is that it undercuts a favorite anti-design argument, namely junk DNA. There’s an interesting pattern displayed by Darwin defenders: criticize some organ or biological system (appendix, eye, DNA, etc.), more research is done, criticize research ferociously or pretend that initial criticisms were never made, repeat as needed.
This is an interesting bit of research, but I’ve got an issue with the claim made by many ID proponents that these results were predicted by ID.
For example, Casey Luskin says:
Does this mean that ID also predicts that most of the onion genome will have function?
Genomicus, it is quite understandable that you want to change the subject after suffering such a massive defeat. But we decline to oblige you. The record is as plain as day. For years ID proponents have been saying junk DNA is wrong. Darwinists have been pushing it. It turns out the ID proponents were correct and the Darwinists were wrong. Now Darwinists say, “let’s talk about something else.” Why don’t you just admit you were wrong?
Barry Arrington, I like you but I think it’s necessary to point out that I’m an ID proponent (I was the guy who wrote the front-loading articles for UD’s ID foundations series), although I don’t go along with a lot of what the mainstream ID community says.
Having said that, I am genuinely interested as to whether or not ID predicts that most of the onion genome will turn out to be functional.
Thoughts?
For years ID proponents have been saying junk DNA is wrong. Darwinists have been pushing it. It turns out the ID proponents were correct
Actually, no, as people have repeatedly made clear to you, ENCODE doesn’t do away with the idea of junk DNA. I’m still waiting to here someone make a defence of ENCODE’s 80% given that it includes every nucleotide of every intron…
For years ID proponents have been saying junk DNA is wrong. Darwinists have been pushing it. It turns out the ID proponents were correct
Actually, no, as people have repeatedly made clear to you, ENCODE doesn’t do away with the idea of junk DNA. I’m still waiting to here someone make a defence of ENCODE’s 80% given that it includes every nucleotide of every intron…
“Nothing has changed. The ENCODE consortium scientists were wrong in 2007 and they are still wrong—all of them.” Larry Moran
Hold on a second, what’s to be ‘wrong’ about? Surely the only confusion is over what is meant by ‘function’?
I think Larry has just about thrown in the towel (or may as well).
Ummm darwinists pushed junk DNA because they thought it refutes ID- “no designer would put junk dna in us” stupid strawman.
That said ID does not say anything about it because we have no idea what tolerance our genomes have for junk. Not only that no one said the design had to be perfect nor that if it started out perfect that it had to remain that way.
With that in mind there is a function that we are not even considering- that of just holding software. Ya see we know we cannot put more data on a disk than the disk can hold. But darwinists don’t ever consider software so they never consider that possibility.
Then there are future functions that also need to be considered…
James Shapiro weighs in on ENCODE (and Intelligent Design):
Anyone who seriously and logically thinks about evolution for more than ten minutes and still believes it is a moron. Sorry for pronouncing that hard truth. And I have found, through long experience, is that it is futile to argue with them. Granted, that is inductive and only gives a probable prediction. So it is possible that there is a committed darwinist out there who will respond to reason and evidence. I just haven’t found one yet. In fact, I’ve pretty much quit looking.
p.s. Note to darwinists. The laws of physics explain physics and chemistry. Information (thought) explains biology. If you want to understand biology then continue to unpack the genetic language. I predict that it will be more complex than any human language by orders and orders of magninute. Why can’t physics ever explain biology? Because physics can’t explain language. It’s pretty simple, really.
Hey Tom.
Spot on, as usual.
Regarding the Shapiro/ENCODE link, amusing to watch them still banging away with the onion test.
It let’s them think it’s the onion that’s causing them to weep.
Found this while reading Ewan’s thoughts on ENCODE:> http://www.blogger.com/comment.....7187001223 (Note; Nick seems very ‘worried’ about you guys:-P
PeterJ @ 55:
Interesting, that the wedge which is dividing off, isolating, and setting up the Darwin Death Cult for its inevitable demise, is being driven by practitioners of mainstream science. Who are more interested in following the evidence where it leads than in curve fitting their science to fit the dogma of the cultists.
The latter’s entertaining-to-watch, slow-mo slide into oblivion is going to continue to be a sight to behold. Erm, I just looked in my pantry, and yep. I need more popcorn.
>”The latter’s entertaining-to-watch, slow-mo slide into oblivion is going to continue to be a sight to behold. Erm, I just looked in my pantry, and yep. I need more popcorn.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....81788.html
Note how the cultist’s are jumping all over Shapiro..
My previous comment is not showing correctly. It was meant to to say:
“The latter’s entertaining-to-watch, slow-mo slide into oblivion is going to continue to be a sight to behold. Erm, I just looked in my pantry, and yep. I need more popcorn”
LoL!
Michael White is defending Junk DNA over at Huffington Post; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..81788.html
Note how the cultist’s are jumping all over Shapiro..