Creation

[scouterjim]

Winnipeg has indian warriors

I spent a month in Winnipeg one weekend.

[WIP]

DISPLAYING FACT in bold, large type is: DISPLAYING WITH THE UTMOST...

.... CONFIDENCE!

No, it's just being rude and annoying...like people who use all-caps. If you are really that confident, you would be presenting your own arguments, instead of cutting and pasting lame arguments of others.

[WIP]

Therefore not supernatural in reality, just some people's belief.

Same thing.

Whatever your supernatural hobby-horse is, it cannot be accepted as part of any applied theory until it is testable and can be demonstrated repeatedly by independent investigators. That's the whole point of methodological naturalism, you don't get to claim something as fact until it clears the bar!

[betsy]

Whatever your supernatural hobby-horse is, it cannot be accepted as part of any applied theory until it is testable and can be demonstrated repeatedly by independent investigators. That's the whole point of methodological naturalism, you don't get to claim something as fact until it clears the bar!

Then that means, methodological naturalism cannot consistently give a definitive - and/or reliable - conclusion.

Edited May 21, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Then that means, methodological naturalism cannot consistently give a definitive - and/or reliable - conclusion.

You're kidding, right?

[Saipan]

Whatever your supernatural hobby-horse is, it cannot be accepted

Should I give a rat's ass?

you don't get to claim something as fact until it clears the bar!

I just did.

Btw, what "bar"?

[betsy]

I just came across some articles which are fairly new. Has any of the evolutionists seen these yet, and if so do you know of any articles that refute these?

These ones talk about the pseudo-genes.

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson, prominent participants of the BioLogos Forum, have suggested that Christians should believe in evolution because it has been confirmed by science. They relied on a category of DNA called "pseudogenes" to make this case in their recently published book The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. However, evidence continues to mount that completely nullifies this argument.

Pseudogenes have almost the same DNA sequence as a regular gene, which codes for a protein. But a pseudogene has an embedded "stop" message inside its sequence. When first discovered, it was thought that the stop message was an accidental mutation that prevented the DNA from being processed into a full-length protein, and that therefore pseudogenes must be useless junk.1 Evolutionists believed that this "useless" DNA would provide the necessary material for natural processes to work with to "invent" the new enzymes required for one life form to evolve into another.

But that was prior to about 10 years ago, when evidence began accumulating that the "broken" bits of genes were nonetheless processed and used as regulatory features in the cell.

A review of recently discovered pseudogene function appeared in RNA, a technical journal published by the RNA Society.

More....

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/

From the RNA Society

Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health and disease?

Ryan Charles Pink, Kate Wicks, Daniel Paul Caley, Emma Kathleen Punch, Laura Jacobs and David Raul Francisco Carter

+ Author Affiliations

School of Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom

Abstract

Pseudogenes have long been labeled as junk DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation.

http://rnajournal.cshlp.org/content/early/2011/03/11/rna.2658311.abstract

Edited June 26, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

This one is about Transposons

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Transposons are a class of “mobile genetic elements” that operate within the DNA of living organisms. For years, macroevolutionary proponents have claimed that their presence undoubtedly supports Darwinian evolution. But a recent investigation showed that transposons have been wrongly interpreted, changing macroevolution’s best argument into its worst nightmare—an almost complete lack of genetic material for it to “tweak” into newly selectable features.

Many scientists still believe that these repeated segments contain nearly random, functionless, non-coding sequences with which “evolution” can tinker. But a new study published in Nature Genetics found that they actually contain functional code that is accessed for use in specific tissues.1 Scientists recently discovered that DNA which came from transposons can regulate the expression of gene products.

One class of transposons, called “retrotransposons,” is formed when DNA is copied into RNA, which is then reverse-copied back into DNA. Retrotransposon sequences had been almost dogmatically interpreted by evolutionary scientists as remnants of ancient viruses. These viruses supposedly infected the host organism long ago, and it was assumed that the viral DNA became incorporated into one or more of its chromosomes.

Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical repeated sequences that look as though they were formed by retrotransposons. Evolutionists have argued that they must have been introduced by the same virus before the two species diverged from a (presumably) ape-like ancestor. Thus, each species retains today a remnant of the same ancient viral infection.

This is often cited as strong evidence that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, and therefore that broad-scale evolution is true―that single cells can eventually develop into humans through random natural forces. This is currently one of evolution’s best arguments.

But the argument rests squarely upon the premise that these long DNA repeat sequences came from ancient viruses. Creation scientists predicted that not all—and perhaps not any—retrotransposon activity was viral or random, but instead was part of a well-designed, originally created cellular process.2 The new Nature Genetics study has confirmed this creation prediction.

More...

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

If I recall, someone was talking about viruses as an argument in past posts.

Could this be that?

[cybercoma]

betsy, let's assume for a second that every last bit of science for evolution is entirely incorrect. Even if evolution was wrong, you still have absolutely no evidence of a creator.

[betsy]

betsy, let's assume for a second that every last bit of science for evolution is entirely incorrect. Even if evolution was wrong, you still have absolutely no evidence of a creator.

Never mind "absolute!"

There has never been - at any time - any clear evidence of

macro-evolution! None.

What you have is merely an assumption being fostered by a strong atheistic faith, and a delusional secularist society! Nothing more.

That's the only reason evolution is still around, being propagandized as a "fact!"

From cosmology to evolution - all about origin - assumptions based on atheistic faith are not only hitting brickwalls, but different branches of science are making discoveries that all point to

Intelligent Design.

ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME The CREATOR.

Edited June 27, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

different branches of science are making discoveries that all point to

Intelligent Design.

Give me a single peer-reviewed research project that concludes intelligent design. Show me one scholarly project that gives evidence for a designer.

[ToadBrother]

There has never been - at any time - any clear evidence of

macro-evolution! None.

If by macro-evolution, you mean speciation, yes there has. Beyond that, there is vast swathes of such evidence, which you have repeatedly been shown, and repeatedly refused to even consider.

What you've written above is a lie.

Perhaps we could start with one evidence at a time, so as not to overwhelm you.

Why do some mutant whales and dolphins produce hind limbs?

Edited June 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

Give me a single peer-reviewed research project that concludes intelligent design. Show me one scholarly project that gives evidence for a designer.

The surest way to scientific fame would be to disprove evolution. Yet it has stood for 100+ years.

There's mountains of evidence in favor of evolution...but creationists simply don't listen. Minds like that are a disgrace to the human species.

[ToadBrother]

There's mountains of evidence in favor of evolution...but creationists simply don't listen. Minds like that are a disgrace to the human species.

In Betsy's case, I'm not even sure she knows what evolution is. It seems she's picked upon the "micro-evolution okay, macro-evolution not", without actually understanding what it is that biologists mean by the two.

[DogOnPorch]

In Betsy's case, I'm not even sure she knows what evolution is. It seems she's picked upon the "micro-evolution okay, macro-evolution not", without actually understanding what it is that biologists mean by the two.

I grew-up without religion and had access to Life's excellent set of books on all aspects of science and nature (example). I think it makes a big difference if you're loaded up with Biblical stories as a child (only or as well as)...it must be confusing.

Edited June 27, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[betsy]

If by macro-evolution, you mean speciation, yes there has. Beyond that, there is vast swathes of such evidence, which you have repeatedly been shown, and repeatedly refused to even consider.

What you've written above is a lie.

Perhaps we could start with one evidence at a time, so as not to overwhelm you.

Why do some mutant whales and dolphins produce hind limbs?

I take it then that there's nothing to refute this article?

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Many scientists still believe that these repeated segments contain nearly random, functionless, non-coding sequences with which evolution can tinker. But a new study published in Nature Genetics found that they actually contain functional code that is accessed for use in specific tissues.1 Scientists recently discovered that DNA which came from transposons can regulate the expression of gene products.

One class of transposons, called retrotransposons, is formed when DNA is copied into RNA, which is then reverse-copied back into DNA. Retrotransposon sequences had been almost dogmatically interpreted by evolutionary scientists as remnants of ancient viruses. These viruses supposedly infected the host organism long ago, and it was assumed that the viral DNA became incorporated into one or more of its chromosomes.

Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical repeated sequences that look as though they were formed by retrotransposons. Evolutionists have argued that they must have been introduced by the same virus before the two species diverged from a (presumably) ape-like ancestor. Thus, each species retains today a remnant of the same ancient viral infection.

This is often cited as strong evidence that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, and therefore that broad-scale evolution is true―that single cells can eventually develop into humans through random natural forces. This is currently one of evolutions best arguments.

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

Edited June 28, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Your article refutes a point about evolution.

Again, I ask you, assuming evolution is entirely wrong, please produce one scientific study that points to an intelligent designer.

[betsy]

If by macro-evolution, you mean speciation, yes there has. Beyond that, there is vast swathes of such evidence, which you have repeatedly been shown, and repeatedly refused to even consider.

What you've written above is a lie.

Perhaps we could start with one evidence at a time, so as not to overwhelm you.

Why do some mutant whales and dolphins produce hind limbs?

Okay. Let's begin.

Why do some mutant whales and dolphins produce hind limbs?

Cite.

[cybercoma]

Forget asking ToadBrother to cite anything. You've made a claim and everyone is waiting for you to cite evidence for it.

[ToadBrother]

I take it then that there's nothing to refute this article?

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

Was there something in that article that you cared to point out as a refutation, Betsy? EVRs are from retroviruses (you can tell different genomes apart), and if two species have the same genes at the same insertion points, short of a miracle, do you care to propose how they got there.

How about an article from a peer reviewed journal as opposed to a Creationist site long debunked? How about anything other than handwaving?

Edited June 28, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Cite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1

[betsy]

Was there something in that article that you cared to point out as a refutation, Betsy? EVRs are from retroviruses (you can tell different genomes apart), and if two species have the same genes at the same insertion points, short of a miracle, do you care to propose how they got there.

I was asking you if my quoted article addressed it. I recalled something about viruses.

How about an article from a peer reviewed journal as opposed to a Creationist site long debunked? How about anything other than handwaving?

Peer reviewed? Oh puhleez....they got no more credibility!

Some of my sources may be Creationist sites.....so what! Deal with their claims! Deal with the posted articles. Refute them!

I guess still no refutation with these two latest ones?

[betsy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1

The 29 Evidences again? We're back to these again?

[M.Dancer]

Peer reviewed? Oh puhleez....they got no more credibility!

cough<chortle>cough

[ToadBrother]

I was asking you if my quoted article addressed it. I recalled something about viruses.

Perhaps you could point out the part that wasn't handwaving, see as I must be too stupid to see it.

Peer reviewed? Oh puhleez....they got no more credibility!

Some of my sources may be Creationist sites.....so what! Deal with their claims! Deal with the posted articles. Refute them!

I have repeatedly pointed you to sources that point to primary literature. I doubt ICR has come up with anything new in 25 years. Are they still hawking their "moondust proves the Earth is young nonsense" as well?

I guess still no refutation with these two latest ones?

A few months ago I provided a link to EVRs, and you just handwaved it away.

I'll ask you directly. Why are those genomic insertions not from viruses?