Sign up with GoogleAnd what is the "correct" interpretation" of the results?
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the
- Thread starter empirex
- Start date
And what is the "correct" interpretation" of the results?
copacetic
King of the Hippies
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 57,908
I haven't the foggiest, as I mentioned earlier I don't remotely understand articles like that, nor do I pretend to.
Again, I take the interpretation of anyone/thing/site/ related to the Discovery Institute with an enormous pinch of salt, as their only objective is to 'prove' ID, there is no scientific objectivity involved at all.
Kinda like people should take the interpretation of anyone/thing/site/ related to the NCSE / Talk Origins with an enormous pinch of salt, as their only objective is to 'prove' Evolution, there is no scientific objectivity involved at all.
Yeah I hear ya on that.
copacetic
King of the Hippies
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 57,908
The huge and hilarious difference of course, is that evolution is accepted by 99.99% of the scientific community, and the only organized and political objection to it stems from the creationist/ID community, by way of organizations such as The Discovery Institute and associated circus acts, who again, are not remotely interested in scientific objectivity, unlike the many scientists over the years, who discovered the very much proven fact of evolution.
The huge and hilarious difference of course, is that evolution is accepted by 99.99% of the scientific community, and the only organized and political objection to it stems from the creationist/ID community, by way of organizations such as The Discovery Institute and associated circus acts, who again, are not remotely interested in scientific objectivity, unlike the many scientists over the years, who discovered the very much proven fact of evolution.
Whoaah there fella!
Where are the facts to back that up!! Did you perhaps.... venture a guess?
Anyway, don't you mean 90%
This is not the 1980's, or early 90's anymore. The dissent against neo-Darwinism has reached all time high levels.
The evidence keeps mounting (just like this article), neo-Darwinsim is in worse shape then ever before.
No doubt the fundamentals will shrug off this latest data, and anything else that might arise; but the true scientists (as opposed to the evolutionary ideologues) will at least admit that some serious questions have been raised, and it is time for an open mind rather than the usual closed-door policy. That's all I'm saying
Unhappy438
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 24,916
Have you ever seen the lion , the witch and the wardrobe . Well you know Narnia?
If you use TheRegister as a reference, you are automatically disqualified from this fight
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 15,950
If you use TheRegister as a reference, you are automatically disqualified from this fight
My, what a pretty genetic fallacy you have...
But isn't most discussions on this forum in anyway genetic fallacies?
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 15,950
Dunno. Is they?
copacetic
King of the Hippies
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 57,908
If you use TheRegister as a reference, you are automatically disqualified from this fight
I've not the foggiest idea what the Register is. It just happened to be the first article I came across that commented on the various aspects of this issue.
If there's something in there you disagree with, by all means, bring it up.
- Establish design inference
- Prediction is made based on the principle of design.
Not that hard.
- Darwinian prediction of 98% DNA being junk, as touted by Dawkins, Myers and co. from the 70's through to 2000's -- False.
- Intelligent Design predicition of so-called junk DNA containing function -- Correct, and perhaps, as more evidence pours in, even 100% correct:
porchrat
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 34,278
Where does this principle come from and how can one reliably apply it to life?
I don't even know what establishing a design inference is but it sounds quite sciencey. Thrill me.
Actually perhaps thrill me somewhere outside of the Natural Sciences section. I don't want anything even near that last mess of yours happening here.
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 15,950
Some perspective can be gained from reading an author of the study's own blog. Just another wild misinterpretation latched on to by the Discovery Institute morons.
An elucidating excerpt from a subsequent post by the author:
"With hindsight, we could have used different terminology to convey the concepts, consequence and massive extent of genomic events we observed. (Note to self: one can be precise about definitions in paper or a scientific talk to scientists, but it’s far harder via the medium of everyday press, even to the same audience). I do think we got our point to the general public: that there is a staggering amount of activity in the genome, and that this opens up a lot of sophisticated and highly relevant scientific questions. There was a considerable amount of positive mainstream press, sometimes quite nuanced. Hindsight is a cruel and wonderful thing, and probably we could have achieved the same thing without generating this unneeded, confusing discussion on what we meant and how we said it."
An elucidating excerpt from a subsequent post by the author:
"With hindsight, we could have used different terminology to convey the concepts, consequence and massive extent of genomic events we observed. (Note to self: one can be precise about definitions in paper or a scientific talk to scientists, but it’s far harder via the medium of everyday press, even to the same audience). I do think we got our point to the general public: that there is a staggering amount of activity in the genome, and that this opens up a lot of sophisticated and highly relevant scientific questions. There was a considerable amount of positive mainstream press, sometimes quite nuanced. Hindsight is a cruel and wonderful thing, and probably we could have achieved the same thing without generating this unneeded, confusing discussion on what we meant and how we said it."
Porchy asking someone else for advice? Nah it can't be, stop pulling my leg, we all know you are the smartest fella to ever surf the interwebz.
porchrat
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 34,278
I didn't ask you for advice.
As I said though this conversation doesn't belong in NS, this section is for science only. This china shop is only just now picking up the pieces from that last rampaging creationist bull.
Well I certainly have never claimed to be. Quite the opposite in fact I regard myself as rather average. Heck this forum alone has many people on it that make me feel like a kindergartener when I am exposed to their knowledge.
Certainly not how you conduct yourself.
copacetic
King of the Hippies
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 57,908
You make it sound like a clever paedophile is whipping out his cock of knowledge.