a wealth of evidence that can be found in any university library --
biology -- supporting the theory that creatures have evolved to
their current forms over the course of Terran life's existence over
the last few billion years. How they arrived there is still a
topic of hot academic debate.A controversial new study takes
a crack at the topic of major evolutionary leaps. While the
concept of micro-evolution versus macro-evolution is considered
outdated, there are times when creatures make bigger changes than
others; take for the example the mammal's evolution from furry
reptiles in the late Permian or early Triassic period.While
some, including the founder of modern evolutionary theory, Charles
Darwin, theorized that competition
was the driving factor in dramatic leaps, PhD student Sarda
Sahney of the University of Bristol says living space is the
primary driving force.Ms. Sahney and her group's principle
investigator, Professor Mike
Benton, examined the fossil record and came to the conclusion
that organisms made the biggest leaps when they were exposed to an
uncolonized space -- somewhere devoid of
competition.Perhaps the evolutionary biologist's version of
"nature abhors a vacuum", the hypothesis states that a
creature -- say an ancient dinosaur -- gains a small evolution that
allows it to access a vast uncolonized area -- for example flaps of
skin under the arms that allow it to glide (briefly) into the air (an
uncolonized arena), when jumping from trees. Pressure
pushes the creature to accentuate that evolution with more changes
(for example, bigger skin flaps to help it jump from higher branches,
hollow bones to help it glide better, and longer feathers to channel
the air). Via these changes the organism conquers its new
territory.Professor Benton elaborates,
"Competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of
evolution. For example, even though mammals lived beside
dinosaurs for 60 million years, they were not able to out-compete the
dominant reptiles. But when the dinosaurs went extinct, mammals
quickly filled the empty niches they left and today mammals dominate
the land"Professor Stephen
Stearns, a senior evolutionary biologist at Yale University
disagrees with the report's assessment that competition was less
important than space in the evolutionary process. He states,
"To give one example, if the reptiles had not been competitively
superior to the mammals during the Mesozoic (era), then why did the
mammals only expand after the large reptiles went extinct at the end
of the Mesozoic?"While the debate is unlikely to settled
conclusively anytime soon, it's interesting to note that there's a
broad spectrum of ways space and competition could stack up in terms
of importance. The new study is published in Biology
a Royal Society journal.
quote: There are gaps and unexplained occurrences in a lot of evolutionary theory
quote: Its defintely proven fact.
quote: We know it happened, we know its a fact , but we don't know exactly what caused it, and why it happened in the first place. The fact is it happened, there are many theory's as to how and why, but it doesnt alter the fact that it happened.
quote: There maybe evidence, but not necessarily fact.
quote: Eventually, these observable micro evolutionary changes will add up. It is only logical to believe they will lead to an organism that is fundamentally different from the first observed S. aureus.
quote: To conclude, micro evolution is clearly an observable fact. Micro evolutionary changes are accumulative, therefore, it is evidence supporting macro evolution.
quote: No fossils of modern organisms have been found in the same time period as fossils of organisms that no longer exist,
quote: ....which is also evidence of macro evolution.
quote: Faith is not required when there is good evidence.
quote: And I say for the 100th time; EVIDENCE IS OPINION, NOT FACT. DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS CAN COME FROM FACTS. For example; Fact: The grand canyon exists. Opinions: 1) it was formed in the aftermath of the worldwide flood or 2) It formed over millions of years from a river Both are opinions derived from the fact. Stop calling yours fact, and mine religion. They both require faith.
quote: We have observed plenty of life changes due to micro evolution, as for example MRSA. We name these organisms "strains" (micro evolution), rather than new species (macro evolution), though they are clearly not identical, and there are verifiable, clearly understood chemical differences in proteins and enzymes between MRSA and the S. aureus first discovered in the late 19th century.
quote: Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.1
quote: It is not proof of macro evolution, but it is strong evidence. Faith is not required when there is good evidence.
quote: Also a good question to answer is what came first, DNA or cells? DNA can not form a cell without the supporting mechanisms within a cell, and a cell can not replicate itself without the master blueprint of DNA. It takes complex proteins and nutrients and enzymes just to make the simplest cell function.
quote: This quote taken from here http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/cell-structure.h... just begins to describe the complexity of what a cell is. To say the first living cell just happened to form from a puddle of goo spontaneously would be like saying if you dump a billion Legos out of an airplane enough times they will land on the ground forming an exact replica of the White House all snapped together. Statically it is possible, but when you think about the physics involved in it happening the probability falls to near zero.
quote: To me those who hold to the pure evolutionary theory of chemicals to human evolution, must have just as much or more "faith" as anyone who would believe in Biblical creation. I know how difficult it is to make complex organic molecules, and those are not even in the same league with complex proteins needed for life.
quote: Once you can show me step by step how the individual molecules needed formed and then came together to produce a viable cell, then I will wholeheartedly believe in evolution. But seriously if you can not get past that point then the whole theory is full of holes, because without the first cell, none of the rest can happen.
quote: You can come to those conclusions after finding bones in the ground? Seriously?
quote: I guess you don't even realize that the geologic column doesn't exist in the real world?
quote: WTF? Are you serious? So are you telling me those strata in the rocks on hillsides and cliffs that I can see with my own eyes doesn't exist.
quote: Only 2 things are infinite; the universe and the stupidity of creationists. I'm not sure about the former."
quote: For instance you can get an icecore sample from the artic and read the rings
quote: (like a tree, one per year)
quote: Then you can go to some other place on earth and find that the same sediment exists there and can know the age of that rock based on the ice core.
quote: Then you can radiocarbon date the two samples and find it is consistent.
quote: Geology and Paleantology are whole fields of science that require years of study to understand and yet somehow you claim that they are incorrect without even a basic understading of how they work?
quote: Where did you get your information, maybe some christian fundumentalist leaflet handed out by some door to door evangelist?
quote: That is called rock layers. Not the geologic column; learn the concepts before debating about it.
quote: That method is completely useless since it has been proven that several layers can form in a single season, let alone a year.
quote: Evidently you are also ignorant of tree dating. Several layers can form per year.
quote: This kinda sucks for your theory when you figure out that ice core dating is totally inaccurate.
quote: Did you know that you can get thousands of different dates from a single object? Which one do you pick?
quote: I'd have a lot of money if I got a dollar for every time that someone claimed to know how well versed I am with the subject of evolutionary sciences.
quote: I have been studying all my life. Thanks for being a complete asshat though. You are so smug that you can't even accept that other people have opinions that are equal to yours.
quote: Radiometric dating is so flawed
quote: Accurate radiometric dating generally requires that the parent has a long enough half-life that it will be present in significant amounts at the time of measurement (except as described below under "Dating with short-lived extinct radionuclides"), the half-life of the parent is accurately known, and enough of the daughter product is produced to be accurately measured and distinguished from the initial amount of the daughter present in the material. [...] For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years so little carbon-14 is left that accurate dating can not be established. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades.
quote: Actually, no. Intelligent design has exactly zero scientific support.
quote: Evolution IS a fact, and it's indisputable. We see it every day in the evolution of microorganisms.
quote: If you think acceptance of the fact of evolution is so ridiculous, then I suggest if you ever get an infection don't go for any of the newer antibiotics. You won't need them, as bacteria can't have evolved to become resistant to the old ones.
quote: No, it's not my opinion, it's a statement of fact. If intelligent design has any scientific evidence in support of it whatsoever, feel free to post it here. I won't hold my breath. It's religion dressed up in a lab coat.
quote: The actual definition of faith is 'a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence'.
quote: evolution is the product of observations turned into testable hypothesis that have yielded accurate predictions.
quote: It's nice to watch you backpedal in the rest of your post now. Before you were disputing that evolution was a fact, now you're disputing that CERTAIN TYPES of evolution are facts. (despite that they both are products of the same theory)
quote: Answer me this: Just how in the hell do you test the unobservable?
quote: I can also prove that the bible yields accurate predictions. I predict that a worldwide flood would form layers of sediment(trapping things in between) all over the earth. Have you ever shaken up a jar with sand, soil, water, oil, and other things of different masses? They form layers. See how evidence can work? It is fact that the earth has layers; however it is opinion on how they got there. If you think you opinion is better than mine would be completely contradictory to your scientific integrity.
quote: The argument against Macro evolution is seriously flawed though, because we ALREADY CAN SEE IT! We can prove via genetics that all dogs are decended from wolves, yet each unique group has a different chromosome count.
quote: Eventually, you grow a stable population, and have a new species, which continues to diverge over time via micro-evolution.
quote: if you take the bible as true, then you quickly realise such an event is not possible timewise, unless you want to start changing the laws of physics.
quote: Likewise, anyone can write about a local flood, that envolps the world that they know at the time, and say "God created a flood that covered the world!", and then have some scribe put it in a book 1000 years after the fact, and have it called truth.
quote: No-one has ever seen a non dog come from a dog. It's still a dog.
quote: We do not observe this described phenomenon. We do not observe this. We do not observe this. Again, we can not and do not observe this.
quote: What makes you think that your opinion of this is any better than mine? You are talking about interpretation facts. Our interpretation of evidence is vastly different, but somehow yours is right?
quote: I love how everything thinks that people from 1000 years ago were literally retarded.
quote: There is plenty of evidence for a worldwide flood.
quote: Evidence is subjective.
quote: Answer me this: Just how in the hell do you test the unobservable? I predict that a worldwide flood would form layers of sediment(trapping things in between) all over the earth. Have you ever shaken up a jar with sand, soil, water, oil, and other things of different masses ? They form layers. See how evidence can work? It is fact that the earth has layers; however it is opinion on how they got there.
quote: If you think you opinion is better than mine would be completely contradictory to your scientific integrity.
quote: Micro evolution is most definitely a fact. You can't show one OBSERVABLE AND TESTABLE example of where macro evolution exists/existed. Micro is not evidence for macro; and this is where you are getting confused.
quote: No, it's not my opinion, it's a statement of fact.
quote: There are gaps, but to say it makes it sound like evolution isnt a factual account, and it is. Its defintely proven fact.
quote: If you believe in the scientific method you can't believe in god.
quote: Since we have a hypothesis. E.G. Our universe was created by a greater being that controls the all of creation. But we don't have any evidence that it is so
quote: certainly nothing that holds up to scientific peer review.
quote: In fact, evolution is not considered a majority. The last time I looked it was still about 50/50.
quote: Giving a creation science peer review to a group of atheistic evolutionists is laughable at best. Of course they would reject it without even researching.
quote: Seriously, what is science now was religion hundreds of years ago. You take Leonardo Da Vinci and show him a cell phone or TV and he'd freak out. It's magic or it's gods work!
quote: Probably not, they've pretty well abandoned most of his theories at this point.
quote: How Living Space Drives Evolution
quote: But think about your mom or dad and the love and sacrifice they have done for you. They did it out of love, if it was survival of the fittest you would have been last on your parents agenda.
quote: But love in the form of someone sacrificing their life for the life of another would be counter intuitive to evolution. That act would destroy the genetics of the one who possessed that trait and it would eventually die out.
quote: "To give one example, if the reptiles had not been competitively superior to the mammals during the Mesozoic (era), then why did the mammals only expand after the large reptiles went extinct at the end of the Mesozoic?"
quote: I don't think how we arrive at our belief in His existence will determine where we will spend eternity.
quote: Evolution is a testable scientific theory that has correctly made predictions and has withstood more than a century of work attempting to falsify it.
quote: It has provided us with the insight to save millions of lives through new antibiotics and treatments for genetic disease.
quote: ID has never once produced a testable prediction .
quote: and has repeatedly failed to even come up with a plausible method for testing their interpretation of how life came to be
quote: First, many of your 'predictions' aren't even related to evolution, for example it makes no claim as to how life arose. (example 3, and surely you've been told that many times before).
quote: So please do go on and on, because every example you've offered up so far has been worthless
quote: If someone who accepts the fact of evolution makes a wrong prediction, it doesn't disprove the theory.
quote: Evolution has a great deal to do with our ongoing arms race against bacteria however.
quote: Your example of 'junk DNA' is similarly full of holes. Junk DNA is DNA that serves no identifiable purpose, and to be very clear I am unaware of a single scientist who believes all DNA we don't understand is junk.
quote: About your horrible example though, scientists HAVE removed significant portions of a creature's DNA with no noticeable effect on the organism. This suggests that the DNA in question was in fact junk DNA
quote: Evolution is not unfalsifiable, I already told you how you could go about falsifying it. Your examples were simply so poor that they were unable to do so. Don't feel too bad though, people have been furiously attempting to disprove evolution for a very long time but they have failed just as you did.
quote: That wasn't even a good attempt to squirm out of being shown how you were wrong on junk DNA. Your logic is following the exact same idea as Intelligent Design though, which is why both your attempts and their attempts are junk science.
quote: The science I'm talking about is this: http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020724.html It is DNA removed without any discernible effect. If that is not evidence of the existence of junk DNA to you, then there is literally no evidence that you are likely to accept.
quote: As I have asked others without any answer, exactly what sort of trait would have to arise in order for you to consider a change 'macro' evolution vs. 'micro'?
quote: Sure, if we discovered a warm blooded reptile, that would be very good proof of macro-evolution. Something of that magnitude, basically.
quote: I have now convinced you that macro evolution is true. Birds are warm blooded descendants of reptiles, they even still have scales!You are welcome.
quote: That is called circular logic. In other words, neo-darwinism claims birds descended from reptiles. Reptiles and birds exist, therefore neo-darwinism is true.
quote: For that matter, according to neo-Darwinism, we are all descended from primitive bacteria. So in that sense you are nothing more than an advanced bacteria.
quote: You exist, therefore you must have evolved. Of course this type of reasoning is fantastically stupid.
quote: You asked for a warm blooded reptilian descendan
quote: That is not circular logic. Reptiles existing today would have no effect on whether birds evolved from them. Instead, there is a large amount of empirical evidence that supports birds evolving from dinosaurs.
quote: But for every argument, it seems there’s a counterargument. Not everyone thinks dinosaurs deserve a place in the bird family tree. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for example, doubts the dino-fuzz: He sees skin and tissue where paleontologists see feathers. The numerous fossil imprints of protofeather filaments in Sinosauropteryx, for example, represent fibers of collagen, the primary structural protein in skin tissue, Feduccia and others wrote in a Journal of Morphology study published in 2005. Collagen is relatively tough, composed of inelastic fibers and relatively insoluble in water, making it more likely than other soft tissues to be preserved. Another strike against the idea that Sinosauropteryx represented a stage in feather evolution is that Archaeopteryx, about 30 million years older, could already fly, according to Feduccia.Meanwhile, last June, zoologist Devon Quick and vertebrate paleobiologist John Ruben of Oregon State University in Corvallis published a paper in the Journal of Morphology that emphasizes the uniqueness of bird respiration — specifically the skeletal morphology related to avian breathing — and on that basis calls into question a theropod-bird ancestry.A bird’s respiratory system stands in stark contrast to that of other animals, Quick says. Flying requires a lot of energy and oxygen. As a result, over time, birds have developed a highly efficient lung and respiratory system that allows them to take in enough oxygen and exchange carbon dioxide efficiently enough to allow them to fly. “The way they move air across their lungs is really different from the way we do it,” she says. “It’s very special. We use a diaphragm to change the volume of our lungs. They don’t change the volume at all, because they have these really specialized collapsible structures, really thin-walled, compliant air sacs.” Birds also have a special skeleton, Quick says, that keeps the air sac from collapsing when the bird inhales.In the study, Quick and Ruben detailed new findings about this specialized skeleton, including an immobile thigh bone that is locked into the body wall and provides extra skeletal support for the birds’ flabby air sac. But the more controversial news was the underlying implication: that if dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, it seems unlikely that scientists would have found no trace of this highly specialized system in any dinosaur fossils.“We’re suggesting that theropod dinosaurs did not have a bird-like lung,” Quick says. That, in turn, suggests that theropods may not be the ancestors of birds, she says, but instead may represent an extinct lineage. “I don’t think it’s clear what theropods are at all, as far as what they gave rise to or what gave rise to them.” One possibility, she says, is that theropods and birds might both be derived from a common ancestor.The evolution of avian respiration is a tricky question, Varricchio says, because it’s a complex system that’s not likely to be preserved in the fossil record. “We’re really trying to predict what the lungs [of dinosaurs] look like, and they don’t leave any trace on any bone.” Even in birds, it’s not necessarily straightforward, he adds: For example, birds brooding on a clutch of eggs can’t use their sternums as a bellows — they have to use their abdominal muscles, suggesting that although the sternum is important, it may not be absolutely necessary for birds to breathe. Still, in their paper, Quick and Ruben do make a good point that the abdominal structure of most theropod dinosaurs is distinct from that of birds, Varricchio says. So, he adds, that structure is “probably not doing the exact same thing” when it comes to breathing.Quick insists that she didn’t set out to disprove a bird-dinosaur link. “I just don’t think we have enough information to make a definitive conclusion,” she adds. “[It’s] the nature of the fossil record — it’s so spotty. While we can have some good preservation, we don’t have the whole picture to say that ‘x’ is really derived from ‘y.’”
quote: I guess you could put it that way. I guess I'm missing your point?
quote: No I didn't. I responded to the question of what kind of evidence would it take for me to think that macro-evolution is true, by saying that a warm blooded reptile (like a warm blooded lizard or snake) would convince me that macro-evolution was true. I never asked for any examples of what Darwinists thought had evolved from reptiles, but you supplied this for some weird reason as though that settled the debate.
quote: Well I wasn't debating the bird-dinosaur link, but since we're on the subject there has been recent evidence that birds are in fact, NOT related to dinosaurs.
quote: So, are birds modern dinosaurs? The debate still continues. Ornithologist Feduccia’s opposition to a dinosaurian ancestry for birds has become well-known. Some of his concern, he says, is that the link is so tenuous that it invites opposition from creationists, who point to any holes in the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs or disputes over evidence that dinosaurs were feathered as evidence against evolution. “We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common,” Feduccia told the University of North Carolina’s Chapel Hill news service in 2005.
quote: How exactly do you think evolution works? That one day a cold blooded lizard is just going to pop out a warm blooded lizard? Sorry, that isn't how it goes. These processes take a long time.
quote: Did you read that article? I read the whole thing, and no where did it say birds and dinosaurs were NOT related, it brought up some discrepancies on exactly how they were related and where their lineage separated.
quote: ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs....
quote: Sure why not? Isn't that what punctuated equilibrium is supposed to be all about? I mean at SOME POINT, according to the theory of macro-evolution, a cold blooded animal popped out a warm blooded one. But I have to applaud you because, at least one some level, you seem to see how ridiculous this entire concept is. Of course we're not going to see any warm blooded snakes slithering around. That would be completely ridiculous. And yet these are the types of things that we're supposed to buy into if we believe in the concept of macro-evolution.
quote: In this day and age, with the information available for anyone that wants to look, an argument from ignorance is no longer a valid excuse. You should really understand scientific theories before you dismiss them. The comments you have made show a clear lack of understanding of the basic mechanisms of evolution, and the majority of the claims you make are arguments based on ignorance. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps they really don't understand and maybe I can help them learn. I have no patients for willful ignorance.
quote: Let me get this straight. Your argument that my example was wrong or insufficient was:1.) From a different experiment on different subjects.2.) Using a different part of the DNA.3.) Expressly removed because that area was believed to be important.You are simply baffling. A 5th grader could tell you what's wrong with your argument.
quote: "Non-coding DNA is a huge area of the genome, waiting to be explored, which could have huge dividends for understanding and treating disease," Pennacchio adds.
quote: but by that logic you could never show that some DNA has no effect because that effect could always just be right around the corner. This is the very essence of the pseudoscience that you're trying to peddle here, because your ideas are not subject to falsification.
quote: Oh, and I don't care where you work. As an aside though, I find it highly likely that if you presented your ideas on evolution to the people you quote from your employer they would laugh you out of the room. (as biologists such as the ones you cite accept the fact of evolution at rates greater than 98%) Doesn't it seem odd that you are attempting to cite people who almost certainly disagree with the conclusions you draw?
quote: Did you read the last paragraph in that abstract? They said it's an area that's waiting to be explored that could lead to good things. In absolutely no way does it address if certain segments of the DNA molecule are in fact useless, which was your whole point to begin with. It's a nice attempt to twist the argument towards one you think you can win, but Dailytech records all, eh? :)
quote: Oh, and color me surprised that you don't take birds as examples of warm blooded reptiles. As I suspected, there is no evidence that can convince you, because your beliefs are based in religious fanaticism.
quote: "Junk DNA"Over 98 percent of DNA has largely unknown functionPresently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be useless garbage, commonly called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists.Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways....More than 98 percent of all DNA, was called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists, because they were unable to ascribe any function to it. They assumed that it was just "molecular garbage". If it were "junk", the sequence of the "syllables", i.e. the nucleotides in DNA should be completely random.However it has been found that the sequence of the syllables is not random at all and has a striking resemblance with the structure of human language (ref. Flam, F. "Hints of a language in junk DNA", Science 266:1320, 1994, see quote below). Therefore, scientists now generally believe that this DNA must contain some kind of coded information. But the code and its function is yet completely unknown.It has been reported that the sequences of this unknown DNA are inherited and that some repetitive patterns in it seem to be associated with increased risk for cancer. Also, the DNA has been found to mutate rapidly for example in response to cancer. It has been speculated that this DNA may contribute to the regulation of cellular processes. Haig H. Kazazian, Jr., chairman of genetics at the University of Pennysylvania has recently found reasons to suspect they may be a key force for the development of new species during evolution. He thinks this DNA may be essential for increasing the plasticity of the hereditary substance.Published at this website in May 1997.Recent studiesSuch observations as above have spurred an extensive research into "Junk DNA" in recent years, some of which is briefly presented below.Various important roles of "Junk DNA" have been discovered in recent years.In June 2004 a team at Harvard Medical School (HMS) reported, that they have, in a yeast, found a "Junk DNA" gene that regulates the activity of nearby genes. While common genes work by giving rise to proteins, this gene works by just being switched on. Then it blocks the activity of an adjacent gene.Quote: "In a region of DNA long considered a genetic wasteland, HMS researchers have discovered a new class of gene."... "The researchers have evidence that the new gene, SRG1, works by physically blocking transcription of the adjacent gene, SER3. They found that transcription of SRG1 prevents the binding of a critical piece of SER3's transcriptional machinery." Source: "Junk DNA Yields New Kind of Gene", Focus, Harvard Medical School, June 4 2004.Some studies have found that noncoding DNA plays a vital role in the regulation of gene expression during development (Ting SJ. 1995. A binary model of repetitive DNA sequence in Caenorhabditis elegans. DNA Cell Biol. 14: 83-85.), including: * development of photoreceptor cells (Vandendries ER, Johnson D, Reinke R. 1996. Orthodenticle is required for photoreceptor cell development in the Drosophila eye. Dev Biol 173: 243-255.), * the reproductive tract (Keplinger BL, Rabetoy AL, Cavener DR. 1996. A somatic reproductive organ enhancer complex activates expression in both the developing and the mature Drosophila reproductive tract. Dev Biol 180: 311-323.), and * the central nervous system (Kohler J, Schafer-Preuss S, Buttgereit D. 1996. Related enhancers in the intron of the beta1 tubulin gene of Drosophila melanogaster are essential for maternal and CNS-specific expression during embryogenesis. Nucleic Acids Res 24: 2543-2550.).Over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes. This includes a/o:..........Over 60 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes. Such silencer genes include a/o:........Russian research adds a quantum physics perspectiveRecently, experimental results by Gariaev et al indicate that some, and perhaps important, aspects of genetic regulation are mediated at a quantum level. Moreover, in this respect they suggest that non-coding "Junk DNA" plays a crucial role, see * "The DNA-wave Biocomputer" (an MS Word document) and * "Crisis in Life Sciences. The Wave Genetics Response". Excerpt: "It appears that the languages we were looking for, are, in fact, hidden in the 98%, "junk" DNA contained in our own genetic apparatus . The basic principle of these languages is similar to the language of holographic images  based on principles of laser radiations of the genetic structures  which operate together as a quasi-intelligent system, as in  It particularly important to realize that our genetic devices actually perform real processes which supplement the triplet model of the genetic code."ConclusionThe idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles.This means that this so-called non-coding DNA influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes.
quote: Right, and what you did was straight out of the creationist handbook. You danced around my point in an attempt to create doubt, because you were completely unable to rebut the actual one. (hey, I know your study showed this, but my study showed that it's possible somehow somewhere that your study could be wrong in a way that I do not prove and can never be proven!)These are common ID/creationist tactics, because that's all you have left. Even if you were 100% correct about junk DNA, and let there be no mistake that you are not, it would do absolutely nothing to falsify evolution or to prove intelligent design. Literally zero .I've grown really tired of repeating myself to you.
quote: we have achieved the amazing technological and scientific accomplishments that we have to this day.
quote: Are you that impressed with the larger TV's and smaller cars?
quote: It can only carry you back in to time to a point where something exists. That something must have been created. Theoretical physics moves you further back, but arrives at the same impasse. No amount of math can explain the instant of creation. How you get from that instant to the present is irrelevant to the argument for or against the existence of God.
quote: Science proposed and repeatedly supported that the universe has a beginning. I believe this to be accurate. Defining how that beginning came about can not be deduced through thought.
quote: I offered my opinion only as a possible reconciliation of evolution and creation. And my belief that a omniscient being would find a static universe pretty damn boring. Leaving me to believe that learning to rewind the universe doesn't remove God from the equation.
quote: An omniscient being would find ANY universe boring as it would already know everything before it had created it. That is after all the definition of omniscient.
quote: Through pure faith and with out factual evidence of any kind, I believe that God is... no beginning and no end.
quote: I offered my opinion only as a possible reconciliation of evolution and creation
quote: If ID advocates were only concerned with the notion that some unknown intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe, they wouldn't feel the need to discredit evolution - after all, even the Pope accepts the validity of the theory of evolution.
quote: Evolution itself takes no position one way or the other concerning the occurrence of such a supernatural jump-start to creation.
quote: You see, the omnipotent creator of the universe, really, really cares about female chastity; tho if you're a guy he cuts you some slack. You might even marvel that god has the same oppressive, paternalistic attitude towards women as most patriarchal middle eastern societies - what a coincidence!
quote: ID advocates discredit the theory of evolution because they do not think it is true.
quote: I know its hip to paint Christianity as anti-women, but the truth is actually the opposite. Women in the ancient Judeo-Christian cultures fared much better than their contemporaries. In fact, one of the chief complaints that the ancient Roman pagans had against the ancient Christians were that they saw women as equals!
quote: A dishonest reply. Creationists dispute evolution because they are not just ID advocates but closet Christian Fundamentalists who feel compelled to discredit a theory that threatens everything they believe in.
quote: Are we supposed to think it's just coincidence that IDers only object to science that contradicts Genesis, but have no problems with everything else science has to say?
quote: You dodge the real issue here. If you acccept everything in the Old Testament as the literal word of god, that means you must support the stoning to death of brides who are not virgins.
quote: If your point is that women in the Islamic world are worse off, that is ironic seeing that the Muslims also accept the OT and base much of their social norms on it - i.e., the stoning of women.
quote: To say the ancient Hebrew women were better of than most modern women is flat out derisable. Inheritance, equality under the law, right to vote, freedom to divorce, protection from domestic violence, etc, etc. And that's just off the top of my head.
quote: This clearly indicates that the real reason IDers jump all over evolution is not because they dislike the theory per se, but because they see it as a threat.
quote: Because it's a scientific theory, as soon as someone shows it's false, it goes in the dustbin of history
quote: Tell me, truthfully - what would have to happen for you to admit that Genesis is false.
quote: being a free Christian woman was better than being a Roman slave
quote: No surprise there. Also utterly unsurprising that among the ills of modern women you roll out the usual suspects - abortion, promiscuity, etc - those are evils for Christian Fundamentalists - women seem them as hard-earned rights.
quote: And here again you dodged the issue, even if stoning was for breach of contract - tho frankly that's bulls**t, the insistence on sexual ownership of women is common to all patriarchal societies - does that make it OK to stone women? Yes or no?
quote: That the creator of the universe actually told the Hebrews that it is virtuous to stone non-virgins is so flat out ludicrous, it is so obviously just a primitive tribal custom, that I really have to doubt the sanity of anyone who believes it's the literal word of god.
quote: I really don't understand why Biblical literalists insist on arguing evolution. You can't have it both ways. You believe what you believe because you believe it - period. At least Kurt Wise was honest about it.
quote: Islam accepts that God revealed guidance for Jews and Christians and then adds their own perceived revelations in their scripture
quote: btw, you really can't see why the ability to divorce an abusive husband would improve the lives of women?
quote: Well many of its predictions have been falsified (for some examples of this go to www.darwinspredictions.com) and it is built of the house of cards of where exactly the first life came from. Skepticism about this view is reasonable.
quote: There is a lot wrong with this standpoint. First, Darwin making incorrect predictions does not falsify the theory. His theory has been greatly advanced and refined since he first came up with it. In many cases his predictions were right. A theory that gets many predictions right, but produces some predictions that are inaccurate but do not invalidate the theory as a whole means that theory simply needs to be refined and improved, not scrapped, which it has since the time of Darwin.
quote: As for your second point, there is no house of cards. The theory of evolution only explains the way life changes and adapts over time. It's only requirement is that life exists, no matter how it came to be, and is completely separate from abiogenesis.
quote: Any theory can get some predictions right. Geocentrism and flat earth theory both have successful predictions. It is the bad predictions of a theory that really tell the tale, and neo-Darwinism has had some spectacular failures.
quote: It's not completely separate. You are the one telling me that my views (God created life) are absurd. You can't just pick and choose what to argue about when you make a claim like this. You have to present a plausible alternative. If you can't present a plausible alternative on how life arose on Earth that covers all the bases (and I won't even touch where the Universe came from), then you have no right to tell me that my beliefs are stupid.
quote: And ironically, both geocentrism and flat earth theory have references(roots?) in the bible.
quote: A plausible alternative to what? "God dun it" is not a plausible answer to anything, has never gotten humanity closer to the truth, and has never had evidence to support it. Scientists know they severely lack knowledge in the field of abiogenesis, but not knowing does not mean it can't be known, and "God dun it" answers nothing.
quote: that space is expanding (Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22)
quote: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
quote: He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.
quote: So "he stretches out the heavens" means the universe is expanding. Man, you really have drunk the Koolaid!
quote: You get the same thing from all the Nostradamus nutters: every metaphor and simile is interpreted however the reader wants. You aren't one of those guys who sees the Virgin Mary in your cornflakes are you?
quote: Look, you're the one that brought this whole thing up by falsely claiming that the Bible taught that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe. I have yet to see an acknowledgement that those statements were wrong, you've simply just moved on to the next ad hominem attack.
quote: No, I don't remember saying any of that - you're confusing me with Calindar perhaps?
quote: And air has weight? Anyone who's ever had his hair blown about by the wind knows that the air has weight. How could it not? I'm sure the guys who wrote the Bible had all sorts of common-sense knowledge about the world; but to see that as god revealing modern physics to the ancient Hebrews is nuts. It's plain crazy interpreting simple figurative biblical phrases as expressions of modern science. You really don't help your argument any when you say stuff like this to non-believers.
quote: You know a lot of things wg, but I've got to say you are surprisingly ignorant about how the mind works. You really should read a few books on cognitive psychology. The mind is a really tricky beast - we constantly lie to and deceive ourselves.
quote: But I stand by my earlier point that just as many atheists are theologically motivated to SUPPORT macro-evolution in order to support their belief in atheism. And I can prove this. Just take a look at the hostility and resistance that was given to the Big Bang theory (indeed, the term "Big Bang" was a derogatory term applied to the theory by an atheistic scientist) because it threatened their atheism.
quote: But all of these things are demonstrably harmful to women.
quote: Statistically speaking, these children are much more likely to become violent criminals.
quote: I guess (stoning) would have been a question of what was the lesser of the two evils.
quote: And yet we accept the Big Bang because the evidence supports it. That is what differentiates the atheist from the theist, and illustrates how mistaken is the supposed equivalency between evolution and creationism.
quote: Is it any wonder the Darwin, who lived in a time that new nothing about DNA, got some of the details wrong?
quote: marvel at the lengths you go to, the intellectual knots you tie yourself into, the evasions and self-serving spin you give to everything to keep your theology alive. (About your objection to divorce, for instance, one could just as easily site studies that have shown that children raised by parents who are miserable with each other suffer lasting psychological damage.)
quote: I always recommend that people with unshakable convictions - esp, but not exclusively, religious literalists - spend some time researching the logical error of 'circular reasoning', it's amazing how much of what we think is prey to this defect.
quote: So god is a "lesser of two evils" kind of deity? "Well you dumb Jews, just so you don't sacrifice any children, I'm going to have to order you to stone your promiscuous women. It's a bad business all around, but that's what I have to work with and there's no help for it."
quote: Not every atheist supports the Big Bang. Many, if not most, atheists I talk to usually hem and haw at the implications.
quote: And also keep in mind that it took DECADES and mountains of evidence before it was finally accepted within the scientific community.
quote: And I marvel at your obstinate blindness, unwillingness to see the truth, and incredible ignorance! Dr. Judith Wallerstien conducted a study on this exact situation and found that most children were better off staying in an intact family with conflict and turmoil between the spouses than the children whose parents split up!
quote: It is not circular reasoning. Mountains of sociological evidence back up the lifestyles espoused in scripture, which indicates to me that these systems were designed by a higher intelligence. If these were all man-made rules, one would expect a mixed bag and no overall net tangible benefits towards living the lifestyle promoted in scripture.
quote: So let me ask you a question. I have already given my explanation - mistaken or not - as to why I think people do or don't believe in the supernatural; tell me, why is it you think we don't believe? I mean on a deeper psychological level. I flatter myself that I'm not stupid. I also admit that it would be nice if there were a god - not the blood-thirsty lunatic of the OT or the Koran, but someone like the Buddha or even the Christian god of the New Testament. Who wouldn't want to live on in eternal bliss? And surely if I thought there was even a remote chance that I would burn in hell for all eternity if I didn't believe (Pascal's Wager), I'd see the light double quick. Yet I don't. So why do you think we remain in the dark? What do you think makes the atheist tick?
quote: In my particular case I wanted to see myself as master of my own destiny and be able to live my life in any way I chose, without some Deity or religious system telling me what to do. And so I saw Christianity as a threat to this independence.
quote: No amount of math can explain the instant of creation.
quote: The last paragraph of your response could be seen as evidence that something outside of the normal human experience was in control. Why did such a simple story influence the world more than the ancient Greek, Chinese, and Indian? I'd throw Persia and sub-Saharan Africa in with those three as well.
quote: The reality is that much of the basis for current science came from scientists either looking to prove or disprove the existence of God.
quote: Yet. No amount of math can explain it YET.
quote: physics and astronomy have made giant progress in the last 100 years and if we extrapolate that progress, it's reasonable to assume, that they will one day explain the instant of creation.
quote: On the other hand, no religion has made ANY progress. Theology, the "science" of faith, has come up with absolutely ZERO new knowledge in the past 2000 years.
quote: Yet it were the boneheads who didn't know sh*t about Atoms, DNA or the non-flat earth who would lay down the incredible knowledge of the one true God and influence world view of billions for millenia to come
quote: Christian mythology is not creation ex nihilo. God's existence means pretty much destroys the 'ex nihilo' part.
quote: the no boundary proposal pretty much eliminates the need for a creator altogether, and the 'beginning' is only a simple point on a continuum.
quote: So what you are saying is that you have (blind) faith that someday someone will discover some purely naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe.
quote: Yes they HAVE made great progress, by eventually agreeing with a theory (Big Bang) that validates the Biblical account of creation.For a long time, mainstream science taught that the Universe was eternal and self-existant. When the evidence started pouring in that the Universe was indeed finite and had a beginning (as the Bible claimed) many scientists resisted that concept mightily.But the evidence was so strong for this that even the most die hard atheists had to concede that there model of the Universe was incorrect.
quote: I'm not going to defend religion in general, as I do not believe in most of them. But the Judeo-Christian religions have not HAD to make any progress, as they were right on the issue of the origin of the Universe (creation ex nihilo) all along. How can you improve upon perfection?
quote: Did the ancient Greeks and Chinese know about atoms and DNA? And what is this billions of millenia you are talking about? Your statement makes no sense and you are clearly on a strong anti-religion (Christianity in particular, I am sure) rant.
quote: The point being, everything operates within certain rules, and given enough study, the solution will be found. You are basically trying to argue that theres no point in studing, because an answer won't be found.
quote: Which proves what exactly? Even then, the most likely (although not proven) scenereo is a big bang-big crunch scenereo, which would technically mean the universe as a whole is a closed system that resets itself every so often.
quote: as for OUR unique big bang-crunch cycle, no god is needed to explain the beginning.
quote: His argument is basically that these things, that were once attributed to nothing but God's will, were understood given time and study, and the beginning of our universe is no exception.
quote: " But the Judeo-Christian religions have not HAD to make any progress, as they were right on the issue of the origin of the Universe (creation ex nihilo) all along. How can you improve upon perfection?"WHAT? Perfection? The description of "God created the heavens, the earth, and man", as they are today, in 7 days time is perfection to you?Wow...