Trash Be Gone: Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results? "no publication shook this debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

"no publication shook this debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest--or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the "vast majority" of the human genome shows biochemical function: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."

Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, "it's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent." Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that "almost every nucleotide is associated with a function." A headline in Science declared, "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA."

"Bad News for Darwinism"

This report was a game-changer in the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design because, since the mid-1990s, ID theorists had been predicting that noncoding DNA would turn out to have function, and ID critics had been arguing that junk DNA drove a stake through the heart of ID.

For example, back in 1994, pro-ID scientist Forrest Mims submitted a letter to Science warning against assuming that "junk" DNA was "useless." Science wouldn't print the letter, but that same year, anti-ID biologist Kenneth Miller published an article in a different journal making the opposite conclusion, namely that "the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/the_encode_embr097561.html

Contrast Miller's assertion with a conclusion of Discover Magazine 18 years later in light of ENCODE's 2012 breakthrough report: "The key point is: It's not 'junk.'"

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

"no publication shook this debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest--or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the "vast majority" of the human genome shows biochemical function: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."

Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, "it's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent." Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that "almost every nucleotide is associated with a function." A headline in Science declared, "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA."

"Bad News for Darwinism"

This report was a game-changer in the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design because, since the mid-1990s, ID theorists had been predicting that noncoding DNA would turn out to have function, and ID critics had been arguing that junk DNA drove a stake through the heart of ID.

For example, back in 1994, pro-ID scientist Forrest Mims submitted a letter to Science warning against assuming that "junk" DNA was "useless." Science wouldn't print the letter, but that same year, anti-ID biologist Kenneth Miller published an article in a different journal making the opposite conclusion, namely that "the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/the_encode_embr097561.html

Contrast Miller's assertion with a conclusion of Discover Magazine 18 years later in light of ENCODE's 2012 breakthrough report: "The key point is: It's not 'junk.'"

"no publication shook this debate so much as ... (show quote)

This guy rac just keeps desperately trying to find proof of his unintelligent design nonsense. He digs up totally obscure and ridiculous nonsense he believes prove that unintelligent design is a valid concept. NOT! The only good thing about this guy rac is he is only good for a laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT5xKrqgpj8

Singing Swan

It's never a bad thing to expand your store of information. It might help you in some other aspect of your own life someday. You might just know the answer to the $64,000.00 question if someone asks. It might turn out to be a stupid question, and it might be that the answer is totally incorrect, but you still win the money. But then again, some people still think the Earth is flat. :( Oh, well.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Singing Swan wrote:

It's never a bad thing to expand your store of information. It might help you in some other aspect of your own life someday. You might just know the answer to the $64,000.00 question if someone asks. It might turn out to be a stupid question, and it might be that the answer is totally incorrect, but you still win the money. But then again, some people still think the Earth is flat. :( Oh, well.

What???? the earth is NOT flat?? ;) Everytime I walk on the ground it seems to be flat and level :)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

"Denying Data Won't Change the Emerging Facts of Biology" - See more at: http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo32/the-encode-embroilment-part-II.php#sthash.YFOlkRrW.dpuf

In Salvo 31 we saw that the ENCODE project found that 80 percent of the human genome is biochemically functionalwith 100 percent functionality in sightoverturning the concept of junk DNA. Fearing the demise of a cherished argument, evolutionists immediately retaliated in their customary styleby becoming emotional and attacking the messengers. Even top science journals like Science and Nature recognized the "anger," "rudeness," "intemperate griping,"and "vitriolic . . . hyperbole and mockery" of ENCODE's critics.

OldDoc Loc: New York

This thread is typical of creationist false logic: if "A" is false then "B" must be true. If there is a fault in some facet of evolutionary science, then it must be false, and creationism must be true. This is not so - it just means that science is moving closer to understanding what is true, while creationists remain locked in poorly reasoned mindsets.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Racmanaz wrote:

What???? the earth is NOT flat?? ;) Everytime I walk on the ground it seems to be flat and level :)

Of course it's flat. Ever been at the beach? the horizon is dead level, if the Earth were round the horizon would curve. Not only that the Sun goes around the earth, You can actually see it move. Evolution is a fraud, Fossils is just God playing games just to confuse us. Of course people lived at the same time as dinosuaurs. The Earth is after all only6,000 years old, and that is just not enough time for evolutionary changes. All this is quite obvious. You have to be a fool not to agree

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

"no publication shook this debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest--or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the "vast majority" of the human genome shows biochemical function: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."

Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, "it's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent." Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that "almost every nucleotide is associated with a function." A headline in Science declared, "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA."

"Bad News for Darwinism"

This report was a game-changer in the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design because, since the mid-1990s, ID theorists had been predicting that noncoding DNA would turn out to have function, and ID critics had been arguing that junk DNA drove a stake through the heart of ID.

For example, back in 1994, pro-ID scientist Forrest Mims submitted a letter to Science warning against assuming that "junk" DNA was "useless." Science wouldn't print the letter, but that same year, anti-ID biologist Kenneth Miller published an article in a different journal making the opposite conclusion, namely that "the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/the_encode_embr097561.html

Contrast Miller's assertion with a conclusion of Discover Magazine 18 years later in light of ENCODE's 2012 breakthrough report: "The key point is: It's not 'junk.'"

"no publication shook this debate so much as ... (show quote)

Rac, the Wack-O-Doof, pucks again. Grow up Rac. You know not science, yet attempt to use it to support fiction (Intelligent Design). Junk DNA is just a cover term for those who do not know its entire function. Much like your cover term for God - Intelligent Design. Laughable fool Rac, you are.

Intelligent Design is fiction of a fool. If you think otherwise then provide its theory and it mechanism of action?

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

b "Denying Data Won't Change the Emerging Fa... (show quote)

HAHAHAHAHAHA your just full of nonsense.

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

"no publication shook this debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest--or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the "vast majority" of the human genome shows biochemical function: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."

Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, "it's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent." Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that "almost every nucleotide is associated with a function." A headline in Science declared, "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA."

"Bad News for Darwinism"

This report was a game-changer in the debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design because, since the mid-1990s, ID theorists had been predicting that noncoding DNA would turn out to have function, and ID critics had been arguing that junk DNA drove a stake through the heart of ID.

For example, back in 1994, pro-ID scientist Forrest Mims submitted a letter to Science warning against assuming that "junk" DNA was "useless." Science wouldn't print the letter, but that same year, anti-ID biologist Kenneth Miller published an article in a different journal making the opposite conclusion, namely that "the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, 'orphaned' genes, 'junk' DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/the_encode_embr097561.html

Contrast Miller's assertion with a conclusion of Discover Magazine 18 years later in light of ENCODE's 2012 breakthrough report: "The key point is: It's not 'junk.'"

"no publication shook this debate so much as ... (show quote)

"Beak through report." Rac, you are feeble minded.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

James Shaw wrote:

"Beak through report." Rac, you are feeble minded.

I think that rac believes in fairies and sasquatch.

James Shaw

Quote:

James Shaw wrote:
"Beak through report." Rac, you are feeble minded.

silver wrote:

I think that rac believes in fairies and sasquatch.

Yes, and I think when he refers to an Intelligent Designer he is referring to sasquatch:

Sasquatch or ID?
Sasquatch or ID?...