Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[AndrewC]

[Al Simmons]

Masterful. How well St. Augustine knew them almost 2000 years ago....

[ahayes]

Oh come on, you and I had a long discussion not too long ago about emergent properties of non-coding DNA. Function in "junk DNA" does not contradict evolution, and in fact is entirely consistent with it.

[AndrewC]

Then you must also contend that there exists no evidence that can possibly go against it.

Nope. I can contend that evidence against it is suppressed so as to make Darwinism non-falsifiable. O.J. Simpson is a free man.

[AndrewC]

Function in "junk DNA" does not contradict evolution, and in fact is entirely consistent with it.

Okay, and what if no function were found in "junk DNA" what would that do?

[RunningWolf]

AndrewC,

The studies and research by world-renowned Hwang Woo-suk were "intentionally fabricated" or faked. His evidence included at the very least several altered photographs.

BTW the sacrosanct 'peer review' failed yet once again

Peer review is the process scientific journals use to assess research before it is published; but it is not fail-safe.

Peer review is supposed to ensure that any study's methodology is sound, and that interpretation of data does not go beyond what can be reasonably justified

All this is of course, not withstanding the counter-insistence of a few anonymous evo posters at the FR.

Wolf

[Coyoteman]

Okay, and what if no function were found in "junk DNA" what would that do?

Read the science news from about the past three days on "junk DNA" and whether or not it has any uses. Some new information out there, did you miss it?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Nope. I can contend that evidence against it is suppressed so as to make Darwinism non-falsifiable."

You can contend anything you want, it won't make it logically sound though just because you wish it. If evidence exists that goes against evolution, it is not possible for evolution to be unfalsifiable. There is no way around that fact. A=A.

"O.J. Simpson is a free man."

Because people with your logical capabilities were on the jury.

[AndrewC]

Read the science news from about the past three days on "junk DNA" and whether or not it has any uses. Some new information out there, did you miss it?

Buzz off.

[ahayes]

You mean universally? There is certainly non-coding DNA that does not currently have a function. Knowing what we did 40 years ago, the absence of function in all non-coding DNA would be expected. Knowing what we do now, it would be quite surprising if there was no emergent function at all.

[AndrewC]

Because people with your logical capabilities were on the jury.

Nah, they were more like you. They had preconceived notions like you. "If the glove don't fit you must acquit."

[Coyoteman]

Read the science news from about the past three days on "junk DNA" and whether or not it has any uses. Some new information out there, did you miss it?

Buzz off.

That's not very polite.

There has been some recently-published news, just within the past few days, on "junk DNA" and whether or not it has any uses.

I think it contradicts your claims. Perhaps you should check it out.

(You're welcome.)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that a theory can't be both unfalsifiable and have evidence that goes against it.

You don't get to change the rules of logic because you feel like it.

A=A.

[AndrewC]

Knowing what we did 40 years ago, the absence of function in all non-coding DNA would be expected. Knowing what we do now, it would be quite surprising if there was no emergent function at all.

It certainly would be surprising since it does have a function.

[AndrewC]

That's not very polite.

It was not meant to be. You don't understand what you read.

[Liberal Classic]

I can contend that evidence against it is suppressed so as to make Darwinism non-falsifiable.

Do you also believe the British royal family controls the international drug trade?

ROFLMAO!

[AndrewC]

Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that a theory can't be both unfalsifiable and have evidence that goes against it.

And your statement does not negate the fact that evidence is manipulable.

[AndrewC]

Do you also believe the British royal family controls the international drug trade?

No, but then I don't have your interest in the British royal family and drugs.

[Coyoteman]

You don't understand what you read.

I guess you better explain it to me then. Here is the article:

IBM researchers seek treasure in 'junk DNA'

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And your statement does not negate the fact that evidence is manipulable."

So you claim. Either way, if evidence exists that goes against evolution, it is impossible for evolution to be unfalsifiable.

You still have not provided any of this alleged fake evidence for evolution or ignored evidence against.

A=A.