• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

So you say I don't understand Evolution. Really?

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
I hate the phrase "junk DNA", it leads to the (erroneous) conclusion that this DNA doesn't do anything. We just haven't worked out what it does yet..
Here are some of my thoughts on the junk issue. A large portion of the DNA is non-coding, that we know. And I agree to call it junk is misleading. It's just not coding, and it could contain genes that turn on or off at some point or perhaps it's just a reservoir of genes (quick jump in "mutation" essentially, a gene with the function already there, a few mutations to turn it on). In a sense, it would be more accurate to call a gene junk if it's producing a non-useful protein. Such a gene is coding, but produces junk protein.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
One particular project, titled ENCODE, compared all sorts of genomes, and found that about 5% of the genome was conserved. That is to say, it's mutating at less than you'd expect by chance, and therefore is functional. 1.2% of the genome encoded proteins. The remaining 3.8%, we're not really sure of much of it. tRNAs, sncRNAs, miRNAs, rRNAs, but what more, and how much?

The remaining 95% is just drifting.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
The remaining 95% is just drifting.
I think it has an evolutionary benefit since it can jump start new genes. It's like a pool or reserve of genetic material. Once in a while, one of these drift and turn on and you have a whole gene, if lucky close enough to give a better advantage, available. This is of course not some intentional design, but it's part of how things evolved. That's my thoughts on it. So they're "junk" in one sense, but they have some evolutionary potential benefits to stay around.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I think it has an evolutionary benefit since it can jump start new genes. It's like a pool or reserve of genetic material. Once in a while, one of these drift and turn on and you have a whole gene, if lucky close enough to give a better advantage, available. This is of course not some intentional design, but it's part of how things evolved. That's my thoughts on it. So they're "junk" in one sense, but they have some evolutionary potential benefits to stay around.

Actually, we don't think a gene can form like that. It's ridiculously improbable. Any TAA, TGA or TAG in the right reading frame would cut it off. Plus, for a eukaryote, you need an suitable promoter, regulatory sequences, ribosomal binding sites...
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Actually, we don't think a gene can form like that. It's ridiculously improbable. Any TAA, TGA or TAG in the right reading frame would cut it off. Plus, for a eukaryote, you need an suitable promoter, regulatory sequences, ribosomal binding sites...
Oh. Ok.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The only fraud I see is here with you making one ridiculous claim after another, and not backing up any of claim with evidences or with citing scientific sources.

You don't understand evolution, and you really don't understand the Big Bang cosmology.

You have even less understanding in the Big Bang than with evolution. You have mistaken the theory with the most common misunderstanding of BB - that the BB started with an "explosion." And all you have done to back your claim of this so-called "explosion" is quote from a online dictionary that got its definition wrong in the first place.

Is that really the extent of your sources? A dictionary?

You really look at some real scientific texts about the Big Bang that explain the stages of the earliest universe, rather than basing your entire source on a single dictionary, and making things up.

Like everyone here has been telling you, the Big Bang wasn't an "explosion". But instead of learning from others what the Big Bang is, you persisted on making ignorant remark that have no basis in understanding the fact.

No one know what the pre-BB singularity is. The expansion of the universe began with expanding of space itself, cooling the universe further, which allow for the energies to transform into subatomic particles, and these subatomic particles, eventually made atomic nuclei and atomic particles like protons and neutrons, being bound together.

Both protons and neutrons, were made out of subatomic particles called quarks. Electrons are different type of subatomic particles, that were developed separately from the protons and neutrons, and were unbound (not tied to the atomic nuclei), but eventually the electrons did tie themselves to nuclei to form the first elements - hydrogen and helium (there are no neutrons in hydrogen atoms).

The earliest stars formed millions of years later, from mostly hydrogen matters.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Isn't it ironic that all of what we have accomplished takes intelligence. Yet you give credit to a natural force that actually has no real brain or actual intelligence. Regardless your problem is no matter where you go you have to get there by intelligence that Designs Engineers Programs etc. Evolution has no actual brain of intelligence. No more than mother nature does. But you give it credit as if it does. Adaptation, micro evolution, is not macro evolution and you again have no real proof step by step from one to the other proving macro like I've asked for. You can't explain the start and ending point and all the points in between and what each step entailed and the no. of steps. Yet real science can do that with processes and systems very specifically. Creationist science is exactly the same on all of that. The only difference is how it came about at the beginning. We use logic and common sense acknowledging that what we see in the world shows us that complexity of Design, Engineering Programing always takes an actual brain of intelligence. It does not occur w/o one as evolutionist claim. Evolutionist own words betray it. It is full of innuendo and just so stories and not specifics like real science. But I can't make you see what you refuse to see due to your commitment to atheism first and foremost as Dr. Lewontin admits regardless of the bad science he admits etc.

As I said, even atheist Fred Hoyle sees and admits to this and shows how mathematically evolution is impossible. But to get to the intelligence he knows it requires, to avoid God he goes to outer space. Again, evolution is more faith based than anything I know. I has to violate so many laws of science etc that you say it created in the first place. Yet those are so precise, intricate, unchanging and must be so so "evolution" can occur which must have the constant change you claim happened. Yet we are in a constant state of declining not getting better. Our life spans, DNA/RNA copying errors are getting more and more and making things worse as they build up. Yet it must work in reverse for evolution to work. What faith you have.

I just don't have that much faith. I can't suspend my common sense and logic as Dr. Lewontin says is required for evolutionist.

I find evolutionist are teaching students WHAT TO THINK NOT HOW TO THINK! That is very disturbing. What are they so afraid of by letting them be exposed to the problems and all the frauds being exposed to them. Esp when they are the pillars used to teach evolution.

The book by Jonathan Wells who is a Dr of microbiology. Who for some reason doesn't use his Dr. in title as author. Wrote "Icons of evolution" exposing all the frauds used to teach evolution and how they have had plenty of time to remove them from text but haven't. Sad commentary on real and truthful science! Really?

Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation - Conservapedia

Evolution Fraud and Myths

http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002

Here are three links about the frauds in evolution that are proven including the book by Dr. Jonathan Wells.

I know it is hard to admit you have fallen for frauds and been a victim. Don't blame the messenger. Be anger at those that conspired to do this to you. Don't be mad at those of us trying to wake you up to it!.

Hoyle isn't a biologist, so what he has to say about evolution don't count much. He is an astronomer, ttechsan, not a biologist.

Astronomy is a totally different branch of science, and astronomy is studies of stars, planets, galaxies and other objects in space. Astronomy is not life science, hence not biology.

If you want to debate evolution, then bring in an astronomer in a debate, would be like bringing a carpenter or plumber into a cooking conferences among chefs.

Are you so ignorance that you can't distinguish astronomy from biology?

If you want to learn about biology, then you don't learn it from astronomers, just as you won't ask a biologist to teach astronomy or physical cosmology.

And a majority of biologists accept evolution to be fact, and these biologists include people with theistic religion. The official stance among Roman Catholic even agree that evolution is accepted explanation for biological change of life, over time. Are you saying that all these experts in biology no less than you, because you really don't seemed to know much at all.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Hoyle isn't a biologist, so what he has to say about evolution don't count much. He is an astronomer, ttechsan, not a biologist.

Astronomy is a totally different branch of science, and astronomy is studies of stars, planets, galaxies and other objects in space. Astronomy is not life science, hence not biology.

If you want to debate evolution, then bring in an astronomer in a debate, would be like bringing a carpenter or plumber into a cooking conferences among chefs.

Are you so ignorance that you can't distinguish astronomy from biology?

If you want to learn about biology, then you don't learn it from astronomers, just as you won't ask a biologist to teach astronomy or physical cosmology.

And a majority of biologists accept evolution to be fact, and these biologists include people with theistic religion. The official stance among Roman Catholic even agree that evolution is accepted explanation for biological change of life, over time. Are you saying that all these experts in biology no less than you, because you really don't seemed to know much at all.
... and let's not forget the Steve Project!
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Fred Hoyle was indeed a mathematician, philosopher, and cosmologist, who wrote a number of once popular semiscientific books. He promototed the concept of continuous creation.
Almost all of his ideas have now been superceded or debunked.
While I read and enjoyed most of his books in my youth, to day I would not hold him up as any sort of authority.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Fred Hoyle was indeed a mathematician, philosopher, and cosmologist, who wrote a number of once popular semiscientific books. He promototed the concept of continuous creation.
Almost all of his ideas have now been superceded or debunked.
While I read and enjoyed most of his books in my youth, to day I would not hold him up as any sort of authority.
Nor would I.

The only real contribution to science from Hoyle was really his theory on Stellar Nucleosynthesis. And that was a lifetime ago.

He has been proven wrong in other scientific matters more often than right.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I couldn't give a piece sh## what Hoyle have to say about evolution, because he not qualified to give expert's opinion on the subject, because he is not a bloody biologist.

In fact I couldn't give a rat's *** about his opinion on the Big Bang, or astronomy in general, because he has been shown to be wrong on most matters that he talk of or wrote about.

That some one can't distinguish a cosmologist or astronomer from a biologist, is seriously troubling.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

Is an atheist who believes in an Intelligent Designer of the Universe your role model of coherent thinking?

Must be. That would expalin the rest of your post ;)

Ciao

- viole
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
All this talk of Hyole is funny because his tornado analogy wasn't even about evolution the process but about abiogensis specifically. Hoyle accepted evolution for at least part of his career. What he never accepted was abiogensis.
 
Top