Evolutionist Say the Darndest Things, Part II

Retroman,

You can try your tu quoque tactic, but the fact remains, the vast majority– approaching 100%, I would imagine– of people who deny evolution do so because they think their religious text says it can’t be true.

That's quite a statement, do you have any actual data to back it up? Dr. Berlinski comes to mind as a prolific counter example. Clive Hayden

Housestreetrooom: Except that saying I hold my views for religious reasons robs the word "religion" of any sense. You can try your tu quoque tactic, but the fact remains, the vast majority-- approaching 100%, I would imagine-- of people who deny evolution do so because they think their religious text says it can't be true. Starting with the unshakable belief in the truth of their religion, they then look for reasons why evolution isn't true. That's the definition of "rationalizing." People like me, who were raised religious, started with religious beliefs, examined the evidence for evolution, and found it quite compelling. We thus concluded that it is most likely true. That's called "reasoning." If you can't see the difference, your deflection not withstanding, I am not sure what else to say. However, I am not agitated at all. I'm sorry that's all you got from my post (even when I made my main point explicit), so I will repeat it: Mr. Hunter's definition and explication of "theory" (as in the "theory" of evolution) is errant. He is either mistaken or willfully ignorant. Retroman

off topic: This hot off the press article ought to ruffle a few Darwinian feathers: Asking Darrel Falk to Pick a Number, Any Number - Richard Sternberg - March 2010 Excerpt: So the true number of genes in our DNA is probably >450,000 + 25,000 = >475,000. What is more, these >450,000 genes cover more than 88.5% of our 3 million genetic letters. That’s right—most, if not close to all, of our chromosomal DNA consists of different types of genes that have only recently been discovered. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/asking_darrel_falk_to_pick_a_n.html#more Amazingly, materialists use to insist that most of the 98.5% of the genome, which did not directly code for proteins, was useless "Junk DNA". Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists: Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm Whereas ID predicted functional "Junk DNA": “Indeed, if it were true that the genomes of higher organisms contained vast quantities of junk the whole argument of this book would collapse. Teleology would be entirely discredited. On any teleological model of evolution, most, perhaps all the DNA in the genomes of higher organisms should have some function.” From Michael Denton’s 1998 book Nature’s Destiny (pages 289-290)https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/faq/#nopred John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity found across the ENTIRE genome: "There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns - which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture - which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes). (Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005) Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome - Oct. - 2009 Excerpt: We identified an additional level of genome organization that is characterized by the spatial segregation of open and closed chromatin to form two genome-wide compartments. At the megabase scale, the chromatin conformation is consistent with a fractal globule, a knot-free, polymer conformation that enables maximally dense packing while preserving the ability to easily fold and unfold any genomic locus. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5950/289 Here is a site that gives a clear example of what Dr. Sanford means by Poly-Functional equals Poly-Contrained: Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ bornagain77

I'm sorry, 5 was addressed to Retroman. HouseStreetRoom

The virtually tractable evidence and explanation is only tractable or explanatory in the brains of naturalists/Darwinists like you, Retroman, who decide for religious reasons that evolution must be true and then look desperately for any shred of evidence that can support their preordained conclusion. You could play the "I'm right you're wrong" game all day long. Do you see why that's not really a productive argument? The only thing I can gather from your response is that you're agitated. HouseStreetRoom

The "virtually intractible" evidence and the "lack of explanation" is only intractibile or non-explanatory in the minds of creationists like you, UB, who decide for religious reasons that evolution can't be true and then look desperately for any shred of evidence that can support their preordained conclusion. Regardless, that wasn't my point. My point is that evolution is called a scientific theory because it is a framework to explain scientific observation, not because "we don't know how it works." That's just obscurantist propaganda on the part of Mr. Hunter. Retroman

correcto-magic: ...and in still other cases it doesn’t offer any explanation AT ALL (like form). Upright BiPed

retro, It is a theory that explains SOME observations (like bacterial resistance), but is ALSO contradicted by virtually intractible evidence to the contrary in other cases (like physico-chemically inert semiosis), and in still other cases doesn't it offers no explanation AT ALL (like form). ...and in NONE of these cases does it exclude all other explanations. Upright BiPed

"It is a fact in the sense that we know it occurred. It is a theory in the sense that we don’t know how it occurred." No. It is a theory in the sense that it explains a great deal of scientific observations. In no sense is it called a theory because "we don't know how it occurred." You just betray your own ignorance (or probably, your own agenda) when you say things like that. Retroman