tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2448889431991318427..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Still Digging: Part ILarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21589016819101413752012-10-15T10:12:27.367-04:002012-10-15T10:12:27.367-04:00Wait, wait, wait. I'm confused. ID proponets...Wait, wait, wait. I'm confused. ID proponets believe in evolution as well, don't they? You, for example, do not believe that humans and trilobites swam the lakes togehter, right? I'm not trying to be snarky. I cannot find a single source of what 'ID theory' actually proports or predicts. I thought that ID agrees with all the basic tenets of evolutionary theory like gradual change of organisms over time, natural selection, speciation, common ancestory of all life forms on earth, etc. I thought the only difference between the explanations is that ID invoked an incorporeal, conscious designer..a.k.a a God. Please give me a rundown on what ID theory is. Is the thing or spirit still doing the designing...like causing mutations? Do you think the first dna molecule was designed and then left to be shaped by natural non-conscious laws? In other words, what is being designed? Bill Raybarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04983019883413164948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43517879619495602902012-08-12T16:47:45.103-04:002012-08-12T16:47:45.103-04:00Gross: I've given you two examples outside of ...Gross: <i>I've given you two examples outside of the usual crowd on what the view use to be</i><br /><br />He has not, of course. Gross confusingly copied-n-pasted from other creationist websites, which in turn cited a book "Human Origins 101" written by Holly Dunsworth. <br /><br />Dunsworth does not say non-coding DNA = junk DNA, in fact she says non-coding DNA may be functional, and she's not a molecular biologist nor geneticist; she is a post-doc in anthropology at Penn State U. <br /><br />Dunsworth ignorantly says that humans have more non-coding DNA than any other species, which shows that she is ignorant of basic, basic genetics. Her statements are so obviously inaccurate, she cannot represent what molecular biologists or geneticists think, when she's that ignorant of basic, basic genetics.<br /><br />At most, the Dunsworth quote from "Human Origins 101" shows that some anthropologists are grossly ignorant of basic, basic genetics. That point I will concede.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35801950648518559282012-08-12T16:46:13.500-04:002012-08-12T16:46:13.500-04:00It doesn't matter what fraction of molecular b...It doesn't matter what fraction of molecular biologists believed junk DNA existed, or what fraction of molecular biologists thought most of the genome is junk.<br /><br />What matters is that <b>ID creationists said, and continue to say, that molecular biologists equated non-coding DNA = junk DNA, but no molecular biologist ever said non-coding DNA = junk DNA,</b> so ID proponents like Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin and Jonathan M were lying. We caught them dead to rights.<br /><br />The quotes presented by Andre Gross only underline the dishonesty of the ID creationists. <b>No ID creationist has presented even one example of a molecular biologist saying that he/she believes non-coding DNA = junk DNA.</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1062011.html" rel="nofollow">I have already debunked most of these quotes</a> during a brief period when comments were opened at ENV. Casey Luskin copied the same quotes from Jonathan Wells' book, plus about a dozen others, and in not one of them, in not one does any molecular biologist state that non-coding DNA = junk DNA. I debunked all their "evidence", and they closed comments at ENV because the evidence of their dishonesty was irrefutable.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the ID creationists are determined to repeat the same lies over and over, and we are forced to debunk the same fake "evidence" over and over.<br /><br />The Jerry Coyne quote refers exclusively to pseudogenes, which make up a small minority of non-coding DNA, just 1 or 2% of it. Because pseudogenes are a small minority of non-coding DNA, his statement cannot honestly be taken to mean that non-coding DNA = junk DNA.<br /><br />Nevertheless, ID creationists lied and said the quote showed that Jerry Coyne equated non-coding DNA = junk DNA.<br /><br />In the Michael Shermer quote, he does not say non-coding DNA = junk DNA, and he is a historian, not a molecular biologist. His first sentence mentions junk DNA and his second sentence mentions non-coding DNA, but he does not say they are the same.<br /><br />Shermer's first sentence: "We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, tandem repeats, and pseudogenes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being." <br /><br />If by making a human being, Shermer means coding for protein, then Shermer is saying that junk DNA is a subset of non-coding DNA. This is the converse of saying that non-coding DNA is a subset of junk DNA, which is what ID creationists say he said. <b>What Shermer actually said is the converse of what ID creationists say he said.</b><br /><br />In the Dawkins quote from 1976, he is talking about retrotransposons. Retrotransposon DNA is a subset of non-coding DNA, so he cannot and does not say non-coding DNA = junk DNA. Rather he is explaining the historical origin of transposon DNA, which makes up a majority of the genome, from what he calls "parasitic genes." Dawkins' statement, "The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or... a harmless but useless passenger", describes the historical origin of transposon DNA, and does not say non-coding DNA = non-functional DNA. "Surplus DNA" here refers to a large subset of non-coding DNA, but he obviously does not say that non-coding DNA = "surplus DNA."<br /><br />Nevertheless, ID creationists lied and said that Dawkins equated non-coding DNA = junk DNA.<br /><br />So there was no valid evidence presented here, or at ENV, of any molecular biologist or geneticist saying that non-coding DNA is equal to, or a subset of, junk DNA.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52992578751423226032012-08-11T12:36:19.532-04:002012-08-11T12:36:19.532-04:00@Andre Gross,
Do me a favor and admit that you we...@Andre Gross,<br /><br />Do me a favor and admit that you were wrong when you said ...<br /><br /><i>The human genome has more noncoding DNA than any other animal known to date ...</i><br /><br />Be brave. I know you can do it.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77871432031878804012012-08-11T10:08:33.150-04:002012-08-11T10:08:33.150-04:00Andre Gross asks how many biologists believed in j...Andre Gross asks how many biologists believed in junk DNA in the early 1970s.<br /><br /><i>How many did not say so versus how many did? What is the total count of Biologists?</i><br /><br />Why don't you ask Jonathan Wells, Jonathan McLatchie, David Klinghoffer, or Casey Luskin? I'm sure they must have the answer because they've been making the claim that it's a majority for some years and their attempt to show that scientists were stupid depends on the truth of the claim.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15235607561185020722012-08-11T10:01:22.307-04:002012-08-11T10:01:22.307-04:00I vividly remember thinking in the early 1970s tha...I vividly remember thinking in the early 1970s that most of the DNA in the human genome was junk and I was not alone. We bought the genetic load argument because it fit nicely with the new ideas about neutral mutations and random genetic drift and it fit nicely with the Cot analyses showing that a large percentage of the genome consisted of highly repetitive and middle repetitive sequences. <br /><br />Junk DNA was also a nice way to explain the C-value paradox. It wasn't a paradox. <br /><br />It's true that there were many colleagues who didn't like the idea of junk DNA and we used to argue about it frequently over a beer or two at various meetings. I'm surprised that you couldn't find any defenders of junk DNA in the literature.<br /><br />I'll have a look next week.<br /><br />The important point is that it's certainly not true, as the creationists claim, that the majority of scientists (Darwinists) believed in junk DNA in the early 1970s. Thank-you for emphasizing that point.<br /><br />And thank-you for pointing out that the selfish DNA papers in 1980 were actually attempts to explain why some of the DNA was functional and not that it was junk. The DNA is functional because it consists of active transposons that are "selfish."Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21769827525839001322012-08-10T23:12:22.952-04:002012-08-10T23:12:22.952-04:00Before and after Ohno's papers, there was a wi...Before and after Ohno's papers, there was a widespread assumption that non-coding DNA must be doing *something* or it would have been deleted. I have not been able to find any notable examples of people claiming that it does not have a function between 1970-1980. In fact, this adaptationist assumption was sufficiently pervasive that Nature published two "selfish DNA" papers in 1980 whose aim was explicitly to get people to stop making this assumption because there are other possible reasons why DNA might be maintained (intragenomic selection being one). These authors did not reject the notion that some non-coding DNA is functional, and stated clearly that co-option for functions in regulation would be an obvious expectation. Doolittle wrote a paper about a year later and lamented the strong objection that the idea received initially. Meanwhile, discussions of possible functions continued throughout the 1980s, including in science news reports in Science and Nature. But by the mid-1990s, you already had some journalists and researchers (e.g., Mattick) already using the "long dismissed as functionless junk, some of it is now turning out to have functions..." trope. So, at most, there is a period of maybe 5-10 years where there could have been dismissal, but I have yet to see any examples of it in the literature (and I really looked hard -- I was trying to find the source for the claim that it was dismissed, without success). Also, most authors cite Ohno 1972 and the selfish DNA papers for this claim, even though no such arguments were presented in those publications.T Ryan Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028390880937952573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66530854619948320482012-08-10T19:35:48.386-04:002012-08-10T19:35:48.386-04:00Let us see now; the argument has been that for a l...<i>Let us see now; the argument has been that for a long time now many biologists have said that most of the DNA is actually not Junk and Idiots have been lying about it by saying that biologist or almost all of them claim that it is junk . I pulled these stats from the Prof’s own site now I have to ask?<br /><br />1.) 87.3% is not mostly junk or is it?<br />2.) How do we know that these figures are correct?<br />3.) Do we take the prof’s word that these are correct and who agrees or disagrees?<br />4.) Am I the only one here that sees how misleading this is to the layman and public?<br />5.) Who is a liar now this IDiot or the prof?</i><br /><br />You are starting to confuse the hell out of me. <br /><br />Just to be clear, I use 'junk' to mean sequence that can be mutated ad lib (including deletion) without consequences for fitness. I don't doubt that many people have said that 'junk = noncoding'. Those people are wrong - but certainly add to the healthy air of confusion you seem keen to exploit. I don't know how many such people are 'biologists'. Even then - you cover this stuff in your degree, but you could well come away thinking that junk was noncoding. Depends if you were paying attention that day. There are many biological specialisms, and expert in one does not = expert in all. <br /><br />Wells says "the <b>dominant</b> view was that <i>non-protein-coding regions</i> had no function". If the dominant view was as stated, universities were doing a <i>really</i> poor job of educating biologists in gene expression and control and RNA synthesis. <br /><br />Prof Moran is hardly a liar in stating consistently that he thinks <br />a) few if any people in the field ever meant 'noncoding DNA' when they said 'junk'<br />b) the junk fraction is substantial.<br />c) people in the field have been resistant to b)<br /><br />Even if 'most' biologists resist b, observing that does not make a liar out of one who doesn't. <br /><br />Hard, of course, to be more definitive about where on the 0-100% continuum people would actually pin their flags (only a bozo would go for 0 or 100). I think it fair to say that, as of now, well over 90% of biologists in the field would agree that at least 50% of the genome is non-functional. The greater you make the latter figure, the lesser will become the former.Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32562713154953752512012-08-10T17:15:04.434-04:002012-08-10T17:15:04.434-04:00Dear Prof Moran
You said,
"The claim we'...Dear Prof Moran<br /><br />You said,<br /><br />"The claim we're disputing is whether the IDiots were correct when they claimed that almost all biologists believed in junk."<br /><br />How many did not say so versus how many did? What is the total count of Biologists? There must be some sort of data available on this. If we know almost everything from the past we should certainly be able to know somethings in the present.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />AndreAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55853025246465004682012-08-10T17:00:06.361-04:002012-08-10T17:00:06.361-04:00Dear Prof Moran
I am very excited about the fact ...Dear Prof Moran<br /><br />I am very excited about the fact that you are showing the controversy but don't you think the time has come to discard the title "junk DNA" and if it can not be discarded can anybody actually phrase it in such a manner that the use is consistent in all literature?<br /><br />RegardsAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49307011826205431952012-08-10T16:51:22.508-04:002012-08-10T16:51:22.508-04:00Andre Gross asks,
Who is a liar now this IDiot or...Andre Gross asks,<br /><br /><i>Who is a liar now this IDiot or the prof?</i><br /><br />You, of course. <br /><br />There's still an ongoing scientific controversy about the amount of junk in our genome. I'm presenting the best case for one side of the argument and I'm certain that I'm right.<br /><br />The claim we're disputing is whether the IDiots were correct when they claimed that almost all biologists believed in junk. Over the years I've posted many examples of scientists who oppose the concept of junk DNA because it doesn't fit into their concept of evolution. Wells even quotes some of them in his book.<br /><br />Here are a couple of examples: <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2011/08/pervasive-transcription.html" rel="nofollow">Pervasive Transcription</a> and <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2007/07/junk-dna-in-new-scientist.html" rel="nofollow">Junk DNA in New Scientist</a>.<br /><br />Now, I realize that the concept of fairly presenting two sides of a controversy might be foreign to you, but it does happen. I'm sorry that it confuses you.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2066254992226193822012-08-10T16:49:27.056-04:002012-08-10T16:49:27.056-04:00Dear Prof Moran
Certainly not confused.
Regards...Dear Prof Moran<br /><br />Certainly not confused. <br /><br />RegardsAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47093824745228485582012-08-10T16:32:39.816-04:002012-08-10T16:32:39.816-04:00Andre Gross says,
People were told that Junk DNA ...Andre Gross says,<br /><br /><i>People were told that Junk DNA represented proof for evolution in all the popular scientific magazines.</i><br /><br />I think you are confused.<br /><br />There are many articles where the presence of homologous pseudogenes in different species provides evidence of common descent and evolution. <br /><br />That's not the same thing as saying that junk DNA is evidence of evolution. <br /><br />Wells made the same mistake and I set him straight in <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2011/10/junk-jonathan-part-13chapter-10.html" rel="nofollow">Junk & Jonathan: Part 13—Chapter 10</a>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17786922174164516282012-08-10T16:16:50.801-04:002012-08-10T16:16:50.801-04:00Dear Allan
Let me start right here with Prof Mora...Dear Allan<br /><br />Let me start right here with Prof Moran’s very own JUNK DNA page<br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/theme-genomes-junk-dna.html<br /><br />“Total Essential/Functional (so far) = 8.7%<br />Total Junk (so far) = 65%<br />Unknown (probably mostly junk) = 26.3%”<br /><br />Let us see now; the argument has been that for a long time now many biologists have said that most of the DNA is actually not Junk and Idiots have been lying about it by saying that biologist or almost all of them claim that it is junk . I pulled these stats from the Prof’s own site now I have to ask?<br /><br />1.) 87.3% is not mostly junk or is it?<br />2.) How do we know that these figures are correct?<br />3.) Do we take the prof’s word that these are correct and who agrees or disagrees?<br />4.) Am I the only one here that sees how misleading this is to the layman and public?<br />5.) Who is a liar now this IDiot or the prof?Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46136199823574894192012-08-10T15:48:11.189-04:002012-08-10T15:48:11.189-04:00He includes control sequences (non-protein-coding)...<i>He includes control sequences (non-protein-coding), specifically because they can suffer deleterious mutations. </i><br /><br />*excludes*Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58152705477122717362012-08-10T15:46:18.330-04:002012-08-10T15:46:18.330-04:00@Andre:
OK, here's a quote, courtesy of Senor...@Andre:<br /><br />OK, here's a quote, courtesy of Senor Google:<br /><br />http://www.news-medical.net/health/Junk-DNA-What-is-Junk-DNA.aspx<br /><br /><i>In genetics, "junk DNA" or noncoding DNA describes components of an organism's DNA sequences that do not encode for protein sequences.</i><br /><br />This isn't a site dedicated to pulling the wool over the public's eyes on evolutionary theory, but a general 'medical news' site. Either way, the statement is simply incorrect. If you refer to Ohno's paper (and I hope you actually <i>read</i> that primary source, not someone's many-times-mutated derivative), you will see that he is quite clearly not saying that. His definition - quite a good one - is that junk is that which cannot suffer a deleterious mutation (ie, any substitution, deletion, or insertion of something that is not in itself fitness-affecting, has no effect on fitness). He includes control sequences (non-protein-coding), specifically because they can suffer deleterious mutations. <br /><br />Now, you may subscribe to the view that 'junk' is useful for its occasional benefits. But that is akin to saying that the contents of my trash cannot be trash because someone might use it for something - a sculpture, landscaping perhaps ... whatever - if a sequence can be corrupted or removed with no effect, then it is doing nothing. <br /><br />You really think there has been some kind of orchestrated campaign to deceive on this? And tacit approval by some conspiracy of silence? Ha ha! I've never known a scientist pass up an opportunity to correct someone on a point of fact or interpretation!Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38042721101925426192012-08-10T15:27:38.269-04:002012-08-10T15:27:38.269-04:00I remember that several decades ago the phrase &qu...I remember that several decades ago the phrase "I know I am special because God don't [sic] make no [sic] junk" was widely circulated by religious types. Dawkins would probably call it a a "meme." I suspect that the opposition between "God" and "junk" is emotionally powerful, and therefore believers are desperate to show that humans "ain't got no junk" in them. Bad enough to be descended from apes, but from junk....Ted Lawrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85663213975178173742012-08-10T15:19:50.458-04:002012-08-10T15:19:50.458-04:00People were told that Junk DNA represented proof f...<i>People were told that Junk DNA represented proof for evolution in all the popular scientific magazines. If this was in fact incorrect back then why did you never say anything?</i><br /><br />I think we'd need to see the actual references. And I think it would help if you are quoting things to wrap them in italic tags. You closed off the quote marks, so it looked exactly like it was you saying the human genome has more noncoding etc etc.Allan Millernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58702569324954753532012-08-10T15:11:54.939-04:002012-08-10T15:11:54.939-04:00Dear Prof
I did not say that the human genome has...Dear Prof<br /><br />I did not say that the human genome has noncoding... it's an extract from Human Origins 101. I only used the extract to point out that there were many scientific journals and peer-reviewed publications calling it junk.<br /><br />Secondly what about Orgel and Crick calling it junk in the 80's did they really mean functional? Perhaps a typo that was never picked up until the story about "junk DNA" gained traction and the ENCODE project proved it wrong? How is it that so many distinguished Biologists over the years missed this seemingly non-important mistake that has misled the public and the layman for the last couple of decades? People were told that Junk DNA represented proof for evolution in all the popular scientific magazines. If this was in fact incorrect back then why did you never say anything? Where were all the other naturalists that disagreed with the pop culture notion of "Junk DNA"<br /><br />I agree with you it’s time for the facts to be set straight.<br /><br />RegardsAndrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44770613930427780972012-08-10T14:54:35.745-04:002012-08-10T14:54:35.745-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83561550334557131942012-08-10T14:24:28.798-04:002012-08-10T14:24:28.798-04:00Andre Gross said;
Let me get this straight.... you...Andre Gross said;<br /><i>Let me get this straight.... you are referencing Wikipedia as a truthful source and as some objective standard to any other literature? Have you ever looked at how many times content is changed and altered in a Wikipedia article? You believe it to be true? </i><br /><br />No it's not the most accurate source of information. Everyone here knows that it makes a lot of mistakes. Hence, in my post, I included the sentence; <i> Thank-you for proving that the information from the DI is less reliable than a wiki page!</i><br /><br />Yet in this case, it is more accurate that the stuff coming from you guys. Thanks for taking the bait!<br /><br />So answer my question - who ever said tRNAs rRNA, promoters, centromeres, etc were junk DNA? These are examples of non-coding DNA. We've know they were functional since the dawn of molecualar biology. <br /><br />A failure to answer will be taken as an admission that you are lying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86283962371956134432012-08-10T12:37:33.245-04:002012-08-10T12:37:33.245-04:00I forgot to mention that the Shermer quote is from...I forgot to mention that the Shermer quote is from 2006. All these quotations have been lifted from <i>The Myth of Junk DNA</i> by Jonathan Wells.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19484174697751610612012-08-10T12:27:06.803-04:002012-08-10T12:27:06.803-04:00Andre Gross says ...
The human genome has more no...Andre Gross says ...<br /><br /><i>The human genome has more noncoding DNA than any other animal known to date and it is not clear why. </i><br /><br />Here's some data from Ryan Gregory's website on <a href="http://www.genomesize.com/" rel="nofollow">The Animal Genome Size database</a>.<br /><br />All haploid genome sizes are measured in picograms (pg).<br /><br /><i>Protopterus aethiopicus</i> (lungfish) 133pg<br /><i>Necturus lewisi</i> (salamander) 123pg<br /><i>Ampelisca macrocephala</i> (Amphipod) 65pg<br /><i>Otomesostoma auditivum</i> (Flatworm) 21pg<br /><i>Oxynotus centrina</i> (shark) 17pg<br /><i>Podisma pedestris</i> (grasshopper) 17pg<br /><i>Ceratophrys ornata</i> (frog) 13pg<br /><i>Crassinarke dormitor</i> (skate/ray) 12pg<br /><i>Tympanoctomys barrerae</i> (rat) 8.4pg<br /><i>Diplommatina kiiensis</i> (Snail) 7.0pg<br /><i>Spirosperma ferox</i> (Tubificid worm) 7.6pg<br /><i>Boophilus microplus</i> (tick) 7.5pg <br /><i>Macropus rufogrigeus</i> (wallaby) 5.6pg<br /><i>Testudo graeca</i> (Greek tortoise) 5.4pg<br /><i>Aramigus tessellatus</i> (Weevil) 5.0pg<br /><i>Salmo salar</i> Atlantic salmon) 4.9pg<br /><i>Myxine garmani</i> (Hagfish) 4.6pg<br /><i>Thyonella gemmata</i> (Sea cucumber) 4.4pg<br /><i>Crocodylus niloticus</i> (Nile crocodile) 4.0pg<br /><i>Bos taurus</i> (cow) 3.7pg<br /><i>Homo sapiens</i> (humans) 3.5pg<br /><br />Andre Gross also said ...<br /><br /><i>Time to get your facts straight the “once “junk DNA” fairly tale of evolutionists is in tatters and what remains? I’ll tell you; a code optimized for function.</i><br /><br />Getting facts straight is a really good idea, don't you think?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2019161080646887712012-08-10T12:23:18.137-04:002012-08-10T12:23:18.137-04:00I'm flabbergasted. Why would a man who's j...I'm flabbergasted. Why would a man who's just been demonstrated to be flat out wrong return and start to straight up fucking lie? This Andre guy has just zero fucking clue and is just making shit up as he goes along. <br /><br />WHY DO IDIOTS CONSTANTLY BEHAVE LIKE THIS? <br /><br />Seriously Andre. Doesn't it even bother you that you're forced to straight up rewrite the narrative here? You were shown to be wrong and the only thing you can offer in return amounts to insisting you're right, tailed by some out of nowhere and hilarious swipe at "naturalists". <br /><br />PS: Transcriped =/= important biological function. (Yes, IDiots like J. Wells and D. Klinghoffer like to wibble around on the usual creationists lack of understanding of this). The fact that a region is transcribed doesn't mean it has a function.Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49406917712993589192012-08-10T11:52:58.151-04:002012-08-10T11:52:58.151-04:00Andre Gross says ...
Let us call a spade a spade,...Andre Gross says ...<br /><br /><i>Let us call a spade a spade,<br />For the last 40 years "Junk-DNA" was the mainstay argument for the truth of evolutionary theory.</i><br /><br />That statement is incorrect. <br /><br />Normally I'd attribute such a statement to ignorance or stupidity, or both. But in the case Andre Gross does not get the benefit of the doubt. He has been following the debate on the blogs and he claims to have read the relevant literature.<br /><br />The only possible conclusion is that he is a lair.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.com