{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Bearbeitet von SuperJohnJohn:
8/12/2017 6:21:32 PM
31
'Junk DNA' is found to be false
https://world.wng.org/content/the_designer_is_in_the_details
[quote]A new study is reigniting the old debate about junk DNA and evolution.
For years, evolutionary scientists claimed most human DNA was a useless byproduct of the evolutionary process. And they used that theory to support their contention that there was no design or purpose to the universe.
Then in 2012, after a decadelong project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, or ENCODE, published 30 papers that Science Magazine reported sounded the death knell for the theory of junk DNA. The ENCODE researchers found at least 80 percent of human DNA serves a purpose.
Their conclusion didn’t sit well with evolutionary scientists, particularly Dan Graur, who on his Twitter feed calls himself a crusader on a white horse about to slay the dragon, ENCODE.
Now Graur has published a new study in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution that attempts to refute the ENCODE findings and proclaims at least 75 to 90 percent of human DNA is useless trash.
The ENCODE researchers, sponsored by the National Human Genome Research Institute, were not affiliated with creationism or intelligent design. They were unique, according to Jonathan Wells, author of Zombie Science, because they did not go into their research trying to make their data fit the assumption that Darwinian evolution was true.
“They’re just doing their work and reporting their evidence,” Wells said on a video.
Graur referred to the conclusions reached by the research team as the “evolution-free gospel of Encode.”
“ENCODE’s take-home message that everything has a function implies purpose, and purpose is the only thing that evolution cannot provide,” he wrote in a paper published in Genome Biology and Evolution.[/quote]
Let the Games Begin
[EDIT] i added the source.
English
#Offtopic
-
1 AntwortenTCD has already said everything. I'd just like to point out that the site is trying to sell me bibles.
-
29 AntwortenBearbeitet von The Cellar Door: 8/12/2017 6:26:12 AMThe bias is pretty clear in your article, and whoever wrote it is clearly unqualified. Just an FYI, we were not unaware of the fact that what we called "junk DNA" could be transposal genes. Perhaps you've been reading to much click bait that reaffirms your own convictions and not enough science. The reason [i]why[/i] it was called junk DNA, is because it's duplicated DNA. It isn't unique. It doesn't provide anything (directly) very interesting from a genetic standpoint. The study that your source (which you didn't provide) is referring to, never disputed this fact, nor did it attempt to. What the ENCODE data showed is that a good chunk of this duplicated DNA is chemically active by way of transpositions. This is not a surprise, nor does it even remotely provide an argument against Darwinian evolution. In particular, these conclusions help explain why our immune system is so good at what it does. The funniest part is, the fact that this duplicated DNA is chemically active actually helps explain the complexity of human genetic architecture. It's literally evidence for evolutionary theory. LOL. [url=http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/14/11/2209.short]Source[/url] An argument to complexity is simply a show of being misinformed. We've mapped our entire genome, and have deduced countless times that there is nothing out of the ordinary or far too complex to have evolved in the time that it has. We've also concluded reasonable times for phylogenetic separation when comparing human gene sequences with that of other hominids. [url=https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/pdf/408708a0.pdf?origin=ppub]Source[/url] [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235277/]Source[/url]
-
22 AntwortenEvolution is all about purpose.
-
What's that have to do with proving or disproving evolution or creation? If evolution is true, it proves that it's a much more efficient process than we once though; if creation is true, it proves that the creation was well-designed.
-
3 Antwortencheckmate, atheists
-
The only evaluation that matters to me is when pigs go from "pig to beacon".
-
1 AntwortenI'm pretty sure Jesus failed biology though.
-
2 AntwortenSeeing as this is now a religion vs science debate, can someone explain to me how science = religion? [spoiler]i never understood why people think they are both religions[/spoiler]
-
12 AntwortenI don't see how any of that refutes the theory of evolution. If anything, it supports it because it further reinforces that successful DNA gets passed on by future generations of the creature in question, which is one of the precepts of the theory. It might debunk that junk DNA theory, if it is part of the theory of evolution, but not as a whole. [quote]“ENCODE’s take-home message that everything has a function implies purpose, and purpose is the only thing that evolution cannot provide,”[/quote] Religious bias is religious bias.
-
Stop teaching me thing that I already know about.
-
I believe that porn evolved to keep my hands busy & CVS evolved to prevent chaffing from my rough hands.
-
I'm telling you to loosen up my buttons baby UHUH but you keep fronting UH saying what you gon do to me UHUH but I ain't seen nothing UH
-
World is easily one of the worst sources you could post here.
-
2 AntwortenHow does this disprove evolution?
-
2 AntwortenSo what's up with the 20% left?
-
7 AntwortenBearbeitet von Krishnas Prophet: 8/11/2017 9:52:32 PMIt's interesting how its always the scientists themselves amending their own theories, and religious proponents spinning it to seen like the scientists are undermining their own theories. Mind you, science is religion as well; but its hilarious how the traditional religionists misrepresent science. Makes sense I guess, as they are both dogmatic systems of thought. It's just [i][b]ironic[/b][/i]... [spoiler]inb4 Darth Plagius The Wise[/spoiler]
-
1 AntwortenDo you actually believe the Matrix to have flaws?
-
3 Antworten[quote]“ENCODE’s take-home message that everything has a function implies purpose, and purpose is the only thing that evolution cannot provide,” [/quote] Not really. It might simply be that over time we jettison the DNA that we don't have a use for, leaving us with mostly DNA that we use. Sounds like evolution working just as it should imo.
-
1 AntwortenBearbeitet von Stitch: 8/11/2017 11:48:20 PM[b] [/b]
-
2 Antworten[quote][quote]A new study is reigniting the old debate about junk DNA and evolution.For years, evolutionary scientists claimed most human DNA was a useless byproduct of the evolutionary process. And they used that theory to support their contention that there was no design or purpose to the universe.Then in 2012, after a decadelong project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, or ENCODE, published 30 papers that Science Magazine reported sounded the death knell for the theory of junk DNA. The ENCODE researchers found at least 80 percent of human DNA serves a purpose.Their conclusion didn’t sit well with evolutionary scientists, particularly Dan Graur, who on his Twitter feed calls himself a crusader on a white horse about to slay the dragon, ENCODE.Now Graur has published a new study in the journal Genome Biology and Evolution that attempts to refute the ENCODE findings and proclaims at least 75 to 90 percent of human DNA is useless trash.The ENCODE researchers, sponsored by the National Human Genome Research Institute, were not affiliated with creationism or intelligent design. They were unique, according to Jonathan Wells, author of Zombie Science, because they did not go into their research trying to make their data fit the assumption that Darwinian evolution was true.“They’re just doing their work and reporting their evidence,” Wells said on a video.Graur referred to the conclusions reached by the research team as the “evolution-free gospel of Encode.”“ENCODE’s take-home message that everything has a function implies purpose, and purpose is the only thing that evolution cannot provide,” he wrote in a paper published in Genome Biology and Evolution.[/quote] Let the Games Begin[/quote]You seem to be missing the link to your article, friend. Source?
-
2 AntwortenWhat?? I'm not sure how this refutes evolution. Further, I don't see how intelligent design or creation conflicts with evolution. Any reasonable stance would concede that evolution, or at least Darwinian natural selection, is a part of intelligent design just as all natural processes are a part of intelligent design.
-
2 Antwortenur mom gay
-
1 Antworten*turns out were not as meaningless as we initially thought "God f***ing damn it we need new interns!"
-
[i]"They were unique, according to Jonathan Wells... because they did not go into their research trying to make their data fit the assumption that Darwinian evolution was true."[/i] That's quite the claim.
-
Read that as Spunk dna
-
20% is still a lot.
