Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Discovery Institute ^ | June 15, 2007 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 last
To: Gargantua
I particularly enjoy the huge dinosaur footprints imbedded in petrified mud in Texas... with human footprints petrified right inside of them.

The human footprints there are frauds. Most of the creationist websites are now advising not to rely on the Paluxy River footprints. Good link. Another good link. Commentary by AnswersInGenesis.


When "Nova" showed up to film the discovery, the producers scrapped the footage because it so plainly disproved any notion of Evolution being credible.

Sounds like creationist nonsense. Please provide a link.


Kind of makes Evolutionists look silly, since it is an unimpeachable geoligical record of humans existing right alongside the same creatures which The Theory of Evolution insists all died out "over 60 million years ago..."

False. Most creationists know that the Paluxy River human footprints are frauds and avoid making any claims about them.


Get a grip. Your religion (Evolution) is built upon lies. The Biblical record is unbroken and accurately goes back to the beginning of all time (between 8,000-10,000 years).

False. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the earth is not just 8,000-10,000 years old, and there is no credible scientific evidence to the contrary.

101 posted on 06/16/2007 9:33:36 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

yes, but teachers too are brainwashed by the master brainwasher.


102 posted on 06/16/2007 10:42:02 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Your post makes little sense. I public opinion polls are not a way to conduct science, then why post them, and why support their use? You contradict yourself.

Back in the day, IDers could also believe in Evolution. I mean ID before it was co-opted by the Creationists. Something like the book "Calculating God", by Robert Sawyer. Full ID, WITH Evolution. Its where I got interested in the IDea. I think the only IDers with a real opposition to Evolution these days are the Creationists.

103 posted on 06/17/2007 12:41:02 AM PDT by Paradox (Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: VOA

Interesting about the “secondary products” in plants. The chemists avoided the arrogant belief, “I don’t understand what it does, therefore it can not be important.”


104 posted on 06/17/2007 4:56:17 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

All that boring old science will be gone. But there will be rich debate about exactly which 24-hour period on the calendar 6,000 years ago the earth was created. Out of all the things in the Bible, somehow figuring out this exact date and “proving” it took exactly 24 hours is the most important thing of all.


105 posted on 06/17/2007 5:16:09 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
"While there is ample evidence for Creation, there exists no evidence whatever for Evolution. None."

Statements as vacant of reason and education as that one are the reason I refer to ID-iot as ID-iots. Evolution is how life developed. There are questions of detail but none of basic mechanism.

Of course, it's impossible to prove to the willfully blind that the earth isn't flat but I waste no time with those morons either.

106 posted on 06/17/2007 7:23:52 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ndt
So they predicted that there are things that we don’t know and offered no clue as to what they were?...

No.

Evolutionists had assumed that "unused" DNA was "junk" DNA, the useless leftover byproduct resulting from a long process of macroevolution.

As it turn out, it wasn't useless at all, it is still being used, and as such, tends to indicate Intelligent Design.

Additionally, because ID predicted this, at lease one of the criticisms that had been levied against ID is now knocked down, for evolutionists had said that ID would not be able to make any testable predictions.

Once more, science tends to confirm theology. Let's get used to it, because we'll be seeing a lot more of it in the future.

Sweet vindication!

Sauron

107 posted on 06/17/2007 10:17:01 AM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sauron
"Evolutionists had assumed that "unused" DNA was "junk" DNA, the useless leftover byproduct resulting from a long process of macroevolution."

Some of it is but not all.

"As it turn out, it wasn't useless at all, it is still being used, and as such, tends to indicate Intelligent Design."

No one ever said all junk DNA is without function. You are either not ignorant of the definition of Junk DNA or intentionally misrepresenting it.

"Additionally, because ID predicted this,"

Here, let me make a prediction. Something will happen tomorrow. Aren't I brilliant too!!

Even telephone psychics do better than that.

A prediction would be to state specifically what that function is.
108 posted on 06/17/2007 10:26:38 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ndt
Sorry, typo. "You are either not ignorant of the definition of Junk DNA or intentionally misrepresenting it." Should read "You are either not [either) ignorant of the definition of Junk DNA or intentionally misrepresenting it."
109 posted on 06/17/2007 10:27:45 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ndt
DOH! Dang HTML

You are either not ignorant of the definition of Junk DNA or intentionally misrepresenting it.
110 posted on 06/17/2007 10:28:50 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
According to whom?

Me.

This is not the case.

I see. So you think that all life evolved over millions of years through a series of random mutations (some that worked, some that didn't), but yet it is possible that there is no 'Junk' DNA?

Uh huh.

111 posted on 06/17/2007 10:35:49 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Evolutionary theory relied on this being true for 50 years now

How does evolutionary theory rely upon some DNA having no known function?

112 posted on 06/17/2007 12:05:02 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I’m not sure what planet you flew in from, but by my count ID (and Creation Science) is disproving Darwinian evolution left and right.

Strangely, they seem to be most convincing to those without advanced degrees in the sciences. Hmm. . .

113 posted on 06/17/2007 12:09:25 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: sauron
"As it turn out, it wasn't useless at all, it is still being used, and as such, tends to indicate Intelligent Design"

Total, non sequitur leap of faith

114 posted on 06/17/2007 1:02:01 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Gargantua
I particularly enjoy the huge dinosaur footprints imbedded in petrified mud in Texas... with human footprints petrified right inside of them.

Don't forget Onyate Man! :-D

115 posted on 06/17/2007 1:08:56 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

==Your post makes little sense. I public opinion polls are not a way to conduct science, then why post them, and why support their use? You contradict yourself.

See my previous post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1851215/posts?page=76#76


116 posted on 06/17/2007 7:40:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
==Strangely, they seem to be most convincing to those without advanced degrees in the sciences. Hmm. . .

It’s called brainwashing. They have been conditioned to believe a lie and therefore continue to ask the wrong questions. In that sense, the general public is far closer to the truth than your average Darwinist.

117 posted on 06/17/2007 7:47:19 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
==I think the only IDers with a real opposition to Evolution these days are the Creationists.

Creationists are not opposed to change over time within the limits of the biblical “kinds”. What they are opposed to is the notion that one kind can turn into another kind via macro evolution. And the fossil evidence suggest that they are probably right...even top evolutionists in good standing admit that the fossil evidence contradicts Darwinist predictions (and yet still cling to the notion that they will one day find the myriad of transitional species that they all admit are conspicuously absent from the fossil record). Instead, species appear abruptly in the fossil record (”as if from nowhere”), remain largely unchanged during their tenure on earth, and then mysteriously vanish as if wiped out by some sort of catastrophe. So, in so far as the fossil record is concerned, Creationist predictions blow Church of Darwin predictions out of the water.

118 posted on 06/17/2007 8:07:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
and yet still cling to the notion that they will one day find the myriad of transitional species that they all admit are conspicuously absent from the fossil record

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

See this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

Note, even prominent IDers accept an old earth and common descent. That argument is over.

119 posted on 06/17/2007 8:36:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Apparently, Stephen Jay Gould didn’t get the memo:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May


120 posted on 06/17/2007 8:52:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Apparently, Stephen Jay Gould didn’t get the memo:

Gould's arguments do not support creationism. They deal with the pace of evolution, not whether or not it occurred. It is a scientific discussion, and should be of no interest to creationists, who deny it all anyway. Why should you care if there were hiccups in the rate of evolution if those hiccups did not change anything but the rate?

I find it amusing that creationists distort and quote mine what scientists say to such a degree that scientists often don't recognize their own writings. It's a pity that Gould is not here to defend himself.

121 posted on 06/17/2007 9:00:10 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Yeah, provide some links to some vapid Evo-sapien sites which claim that "even most creationists no longer believe their own eyes," and pretend you've addressed the issue.

I know that nothing will change your mind until you're marching off to eternity in Hell. Fine by me. But when you are, do you really think you'll still feel that this inane rebellion against God's Truth was worth the price you'll pay?

We'll see, huh?

;-/

122 posted on 06/17/2007 9:45:51 PM PDT by Gargantua (For those who believe in God, no explanation is needed; for those who do not, no explanation exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I love quote mining evolutionists. The evidence is so overwhelmingly against them that they can’t help but inadvertently admit it over and over and over. In fact, there are so many such quotes one could very probably write a book refuting the Church of Darwin using their own quotes exclusively. LOL

PS I am well aware that Gould clung to Darwinism in spite of the evidence. He admits that the fossil evidence shows sudden appearance and stasis, which he further admits is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. So what does he do? He amends the dilemma by trying to make the theory of evolution fit the fossil record (and his attempts to do so were a miserable failure). Just goes to show that the Church of Darwin is a religion, not science. Creationists predict sudden appearance, stasis, and catastrophic extinction...all of which are born out by the fossil evidence. So when it comes to the fossil evidence...

CREATIONISTS 1....Church of Darwin 0

123 posted on 06/17/2007 9:49:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==See this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

See this: A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp#contents


124 posted on 06/18/2007 1:12:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Don’t you think that’s just a bit convenient?

I switched from YEC to a modified version of theistic evolution while attending a YEC Christian college. The lack of a coherent creationist model to fit with all of the data forced me to change my mind.


125 posted on 06/18/2007 5:09:14 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
See this: A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp#contents

The first section, really the introduction, of this essay includes the global flood in the argument as if the global flood actually happened. I assume it goes downhill from there but I stopped reading at that point.

This stuff is simply not science. It is religious belief masquerading as science.

126 posted on 06/18/2007 8:03:59 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==The first section, really the introduction, of this essay includes the global flood in the argument as if the global flood actually happened. I assume it goes downhill from there but I stopped reading at that point...This stuff is simply not science. It is religious belief masquerading as science.

That’s too bad, because the latest prophet from the Church of Darwin (Richard Dawkins) says that Creation Scientists ask imminently scientific questions. Indeed, his faith in the Church of Darwin is so great that he thinks that NOMA should be completely obliterated...and I’m quite positive that Creationists/IDers would be happy to oblige him.

Now, getting back to the scientific study of creation, one of the predictions of Creation Science is that the geologic column will show evidence of a worldwide flood. This prediction will either be born out by the evidence or it will not. And so far, it appears that the evidence is on the side of Creation Science (as usual)—GGG

127 posted on 06/18/2007 8:58:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Actually, what creationists do with the writings of evolutionary biologists and other mainstream scientists is precisely what they emphasize ought not to be done to the Bible, namely cherry-picking quotations which, when taken out of context, can be construed to mean something that the book or other literary work as a whole could not.

“Gould clung to Darwinism in spite of the evidence” is not a fair depiction of Gould’s standpoint at all. He found the evidence for evolution overwhelmingly persuasive (because it is), and was exploring a hypothesis that would treat the fossil record as providing accurate data. But it may turn out to be the case that the data is in fact too piecemeal, and that (rather than punctuated equilibrium) is why the fossil record proceeds in fits and starts (but fits and starts that nonetheless allow one to clearly trace evolution over time, the only topic of debate being whether it moves steadily and gradually or not).

I would challenge you to read a whole book by Gould or any other mainstream biologist, and then come back here and claim that any of their quotes, taken in the context of their book (not to mention their life’s work), indicates they found serious problems with the theory of evolution as a whole, and didn’t just engage in scientific discussion of the specifics.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/


128 posted on 06/18/2007 9:04:22 PM PDT by ReligionProf (http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/science/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ReligionProf
==Actually, what creationists do with the writings of evolutionary biologists and other mainstream scientists is precisely what they emphasize ought not to be done to the Bible, namely cherry-picking quotations which, when taken out of context, can be construed to mean something that the book or other literary work as a whole could not.

So what are you suggesting, that we not quote Church of Darwin evangelists? What would you have us do, post entire books to get at a quote? The point is, the Church of Darwin can’t help but contribute to the unraveling of their own pagan creation myth because the evidence is against them. BTW, I have read Gould and many other Church of Darwin devotees. And as you pointed out, I was sure to mention that he continued to cling to his Darwinist faith in spite of the evidence against Darwinism that he himself chose to shine the spotlight on.

==He found the evidence for evolution overwhelmingly persuasive (because it is), and was exploring a hypothesis that would treat the fossil record as providing accurate data.

Look, Gould admits that Darwin’s predictions are not confirmed by the fossil record. But rather than admitting that the Church of Darwin has been falsified by the fossil record he instead invents the biological equivalently of geocentric epicycles in order to keep his natural selection god in play. And everytime the evidence forces them to make such admissions, I for one plan to call them on it. And besides, it’s not like the quote mining you so lament is a one way street. Your talkorigins.com link is full of quote mining in the opposite direction. When it comes to the Creation/evolution wars...JUDGE AND PREPARE TO BE JUDGED.

129 posted on 06/18/2007 9:35:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: balch3

http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/zuck-is-out-of-luck-marsupial-findings-vindicate-behe-denton-hoyle/#more-2438


130 posted on 06/21/2007 5:16:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson