Roundup

Polar bears are not vanishing — it is just another part of the ClimateGate lies. 

One more time, people: President Obama did not inherit all this deficit.  Congress  — you know, the group that Obama was a member of — passed the 2008 budget.

Good reminder about not using the Lord’s name in vain by saying, “The Lord moved me to tell you…”  People use God’s name vainly when they over-spiritualize things. Saying, “God told me . . .” puts the burden of proof on the listener when it should be on the hearer.  If you use that line with me it better be followed by a Bible verse.

Cowardly Richard Dawkins explains why he won’t debate William Lane Craig — Sadly, the uninformed audience clapped at his response. 

Evolutionary theory wrong  — again — Science Daily reports that there is no such thing as Junk RNA « Wintery Knight.

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Junk DNA/RNA is a bad term for it, since it refers to things that were once very useful, but if is a fact that a massive portion of our genome is not actually expressed. Finding something new is great, and we will continue to do so, but do you think for a second that the scientist who discovered thus new information threw out evolution because of it?

    You seem to twist every scientific discovery into a proof against evolution. Had you read the article, you would have read that the authors of the study were studying genetics and the results of the study had a firm basis in evolution. They were studying how these traits have evolved. Yet you think it proves evolution wrong, like pretty much everything else.

    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    Like

      1. But there isn’t a tautology, and nothing in the article (or anywhere else I know of) that proves evolution wrong.

        Darwinian evolution does not predict the existence of “junk” DNA. The theory predicts that DNA that is expressed physically in a species will be extremely similar throughout the population of that species (and decreasingly similar in closely related species), and DNA that is not expressed will be more divergent, since mutations in that part of the genome will not be subject to natural selection on their own accord.

        Finding out that a part of the genome is not “junk” has no effect on the theory that “junk” DNA will be more divergent that expressed DNA.

        Like

      2. Here’s the tautology:

        Evolution is survival of the fittest genes. Which genes survive? The fittest. Which genes are the fittest? Those that survive.

        Tautology 101.

        Like

      3. Actually, it’s Biology 101 that you need. In fact, grade 10 biology could show you how wrong you are.

        The fittest genes don’t always survive, and the fittest are not always the one that survive. Many genes survive because they share a common location on the genome with genes that carry a beneficial trait. Some of the best genes do not survive because a particular organism may walk off a cliff. 90% of those who survive do so because of dumb luck.

        I’m getting sick of this. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

        Like

      4. Ryan, feel free to stop commenting. We also tire of correcting your silly illustrations (Ryan / Michael Jordan is the same as Craig / Dawkins? Sure. Map illustration that ignores the CREATOR of the thing being mapped and the CREATOR of the software? Yeah, that works too.).

        Darwinists errors on junk DNA / RNA? See WK’s comment.

        You just type first and think later.

        Like

      5. Here’s why I’m angry at this, if you’re interested.

        You are citing an article by scientists that you have told me lie to get grants and pretend that evolution is true for the sole purpose of gaining notoriety. You tell me that all the scientists are under a delusion that evolution occurred, or are flat out lying. But as soon as you see an article that you think proves evolution wrong (even when the scientists who wrote the article make no such claim), all of a sudden they are great scientists.

        You seem to think that biologists will never change their mind about the processes of evolution – but here’s an example. Science is willing to follow the evidence, and you seem willing to accept only the parts you like.

        Like

      6. Change the terms if it suits you.

        Whatever exists is a product of evolution. Whatever is a product of evolution exists.

        Same tautoloy.

        Like

      1. What is “de-evolving”?

        Unexpressed means that the DNA exists from previous generations, but is not used in the organism. Some DNA contains plans for certain traits, and some DNA has the plans for implementing those traits. If the part the implements the plans mutated in such a way that there is no implementation, there is no process for removing the plans, since there is no benefit to the organism to do so. Those plans lie dormant, and if there are any mutations in those plans, it will not affect the organism – that’s why they diverge.

        Humans have DNA that generates antibodies for diseases that have never affected humans – remnants from diseases that once plagued our ancestors.

        Like

      2. More tautology and “science of the gaps” — i.e., “I don’t understand this, but it had to be evolution, so the cause was evolution — there simply couldn’t be an alternative explanation.” You never learn. Junk DNA that isn’t junk, junk RNA that is isn’t junk, not-so-vestigial organs, and so on. Your inability to reconsider your worldview regardless of the failed predictions and failed conclusions speaks volumes.

        Like

      3. Feel free to point out at any time why any of this new information proves evolution wrong. The people who provided you with the information don’t even think that.

        Like

      4. As usual, you equivocate and conflate neo-Darwinism with any type of evolution. I weary of your kindergarten tricks.

        This new information proves the non-falsifiability and tautology that is Darwinism, and it proves that your worldview drives your conclusions and not the evidence. Its predictions fail over and over, yet you cling to it. You should meditate on why that is.

        Like

      5. OK, last comment today. I know you’re sick of me.

        non-falsifiability and tautology that is Darwinism

        Evolution can be falsified without question is so many ways. Find me a bunny fossil in a pre-cambrian layer, and evolution is done – put a fork in it. Tell me why that has never happened, if God created all of these creatures as they are today.

        Like

      6. You should go see or buy Darwin’s Dilemma. It might help explain the Cambrian Explosion issues for you. You couldn’t have seen it in LA, of course, because the chickens at the CA Science Center canceled it because they aren’t into that free speech thingy — http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/12/ca-science-center-sued-for-info-by-intelligent-design-group/ .

        You create a straw man about God’s creation with your continued equivocation about evolution (that’s one of the things I get tired of). We believe in evolution, just not the Neo-Darwinian kind. We believe that all humans evolved from Adam and Eve. Plenty of room for change within a species.

        Like

  2. In regards Dawkins, Neil since you’re from the South you know the word for it “yellow-bellied”. What a coward! (and idiot) I propose we all send him a white feather.

    Like

  3. Did Darwinists claim that Junk DNA proved evolution (before the discovery proved them wrong?)

    —-
    “[Junk DNA] is essentially a parasite,” and “junk DNA is a puzzle only if we are clinging to the assumption that our genes are there to do something for us.”

    –Keith E. Stanovich, The Robot’s Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin

    “Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution.”

    –Michael Shermer, The Case Against Intelligent Design

    “Junk DNA” is “considered defective” and comprises “inherited sequences [that] perform no currently known ‘genetically useful’ purpose, yet they remain part of the chromosomes.”

    –William D. McArdle et al., Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance

    And, of course, the high priest of evangelical evolution/atheism, Richard Dawkins:

    “Most of the capacity of the genome of any animal is not used to store useful information” and “There are many nonfunctional pseudogenes and lots of repetitive nonsense, useful for forensic detectives but not translated into protein in the living cells.”

    –Richard Dawkins, The Information Challenge
    —-

    Oops.

    More here:
    http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/science-daily-reports-that-there-is-no-such-thing-as-junk-rna/#comment-7556

    Like

    1. Great roundup of quotes, WK. Shermer’s is the funniest. Maybe we should buy them all copies of Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer? You know these folks are totally open minded and would be glad to be corrected on their errors.

      Like

  4. Dr. Scaredypants: Not a very good reason to avoid Dr. Craig! Blow him out of the water if you surmise Dr. Craig doesn’t have enough, or that he “needs more”. Put that silly ID notion to bed with your brilliance, please. That way we can all move forward!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s