tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5192215128092575421..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The creationist view of junk DNALarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53642956263436145402022-09-03T21:58:31.387-04:002022-09-03T21:58:31.387-04:00Robert Byers.
whats sad is the accusation of lies ...Robert Byers.<br />whats sad is the accusation of lies and distortions against me fellow creationists. list three~ Why couldn't they just be wrong like these scientists? In fact likely they get their material exclusively from them. Nobody pays creationists to explore these obscure points. <br />+Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17226386832358052266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25404409319963408572022-09-02T06:57:05.668-04:002022-09-02T06:57:05.668-04:00Slightly humbled to see that Prof Felsenstein has ...Slightly humbled to see that Prof Felsenstein has taken up my suggestion and started a Thread on Panda's Thumb debunking the video.<br /><br />Thanks, Professor!<br /><br />http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2022/08/ICR-junkdna.html<br /><br />Prof Felsenstein highlights Daniel Stern Cardinale's video debunking ICR's claims.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOXrsaCpt-A<br /><br />Dr Cardinale has a further video on his YouTube channel which educated me. <br /><br />https://youtu.be/7W8RrDTg0Aw<br /><br />I hadn't realised Prof Dan Graur's work on the connection between mutational load & the fraction of the genome which is functional had been finessed from infinite to finite populations and that this further work had shown that the mutational load argument isn't as clear an argument as it was originally claimed against widespread functionality. Always learning!Neil Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09534881503253877469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7724482276187444152022-08-31T10:15:03.028-04:002022-08-31T10:15:03.028-04:00@ Athel: I think that is a good reason to put it i...@ Athel: I think that is a good reason to put it into Wikipedia. I don't know why it would be a bad idea, put that way. Mark Sturtevanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05846892642161763103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75707324124900111572022-08-30T11:35:44.962-04:002022-08-30T11:35:44.962-04:00I'm inclined to think creationists and laypeop...I'm inclined to think creationists and laypeople are more likely to look at the wikipedia article on non-coding DNA than are actual molecular biologists. Just a hunch. As such i suspect it's more likely it just provides ammunition to creationists to say that science supports their claim that there's no junk DNA, than it is likely to help change minds of molecular biologists. <br /><br />On another note Dan Stern Cardinale did a response video to ICRs nonsense here: <br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOXrsaCpt-A" rel="nofollow">Bad Creationist Genetics: NO Junk DNA???</a>.<br /><br />Both Dan and I posted substantive criticism in the comments to ICRs crap, but the comments were quickly hidden and can no longer be seen. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3109720785510502252022-08-30T09:02:03.561-04:002022-08-30T09:02:03.561-04:00OK, I'll undo it if you like. But I don't ...OK, I'll undo it if you like. But I don't think it does any harm for people who think "junk DNA" doesn't exist to know what sort of company they keep. What do others think?Athel Cornish-Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878950422369813933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31854634400427900262022-08-30T07:17:52.907-04:002022-08-30T07:17:52.907-04:00@Athel
Why did you do that? It seems like a very ...@Athel<br /><br />Why did you do that? It seems like a very unwise decision.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53492826864659387162022-08-30T04:29:24.758-04:002022-08-30T04:29:24.758-04:00That's a useful link. I've added it to the...That's a useful link. I've added it to the Wikipedia article. Athel Cornish-Bowdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878950422369813933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88819703778252788182022-08-29T18:14:43.479-04:002022-08-29T18:14:43.479-04:00Maybe this is something to be crowd sourced on Pan...Maybe this is something to be crowd sourced on Panda's Thumb, but I would appreciate a list of the main errors being made here. Is it mainly if a function is found in one area previously thought to be junk it is wrong to extrapolate from this to assume all junk areas also have this function (and a rejection of mutational load)? Fascinated by Tomlin's rejection of the power of natural selection... What does he think is driving population changes in SARS-CoV-2 etc! He's willfully blind of course, and highly selective in his blindness which does make it interesting seeing how his views on junk DNA are so close to those Prof Moran has spent many years refuting in the scientific rather than religious field. Rationalisations against deflated egos all round?Neil Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09534881503253877469noreply@blogger.com