Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The days of "junk DNA" are over

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, I can only repeat myself in reply, if you can't see my points, then I guess we're done here. I will note that rogue06 seems to concur that the concept of junk DNA is incorrect, which confirms the point of the thread.
    It's not a question of being able to see your points; it's recognizing that you make up whatever point you feel you need to in order to not acknowledge your original argument was fatally flawed.

    Let's actually do a recap of that, shall we?

    To start this thread, you quoted someone as saying "the days of junk DNA are over", and then said: "So a major source of argument for evolution is defunct, if this analysis is correct, and common design instead of common descent becomes more reasonable."

    This had nothing to do with trends; you were clearly accepting the quoted statement as being definitive, and drew the conclusion that junk DNA evolutionary arguments were "defunct". Not trending towards less probable, not becoming increasingly unlikely over time - defunct. That was the argument you made.

    You only shifted to suggesting "a trend" after i pointed out that the person you were quoting hadn't actually bothered to do the work needed to support his statements. In other words, you only started talking "trend" after it was clear that the original argument - the one you actually wanted to make - was inviable.

    Even if "trending" had been your original argument, it suffers a fatal problem: the person you're quoting doesn't say anything whatsoever about trends. Almost everything he says is about his current research - which, as he himself admitted (and i elaborated on), hasn't actually included generating the evidence needed to actually say anything definitive about the existence of junk DNA at all. So, for him to talk about a trend, he would have to talk about other people's research. Which he doesn't. So, the article you linked to to start this thread cannot possibly be talking about trends, either. *

    So, in addition to not being your original argument, the idea that this is about trends had to be a completely made up fantasy, since there's no basis for it in the research you were talking about or the quotes from the researcher behind it. I can't tell whether it was meant to distract us from your original flawed argument, meant to make you feel better about having made a terrible argument to start with, or done just because you like arguing and would do anything to prolong one. But it's clear that, by acting as if that was the argument all along, you're being phenomenally dishonest.

    It's also clear that this whole episode demonstrates your profound laziness. You didn't bother to read far enough into the original argument to determine that no work had been done yet to support the "junk DNA is dead" contention. And, when you switched to "it's talking about a trend", you didn't bother to look at whether there was any mention of a trend at all.

    Far from not being able to see your points, i clearly pay them far more attention than you do.

    * The person being quoted does contrast current knowledge with what they believed was in their textbooks about non-coding DNA, which i suppose could be viewed as a trend of some sort. But as Rogue hinted at, non-coding regulatory DNA got a Nobel Prize about 60 years ago, which means this person would need to be in their 80s for their textbooks not to have included it. And, well, he's not.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."


    Related Threads


    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 04:36 PM
    0 responses
    Last Post TheLurch  
    Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:37 AM
    14 responses
    Last Post Christianbookworm  
    Started by lee_merrill, 01-07-2022, 08:37 PM
    2 responses
    Last Post Cow Poke  
    Started by shunyadragon, 01-07-2022, 08:59 AM
    23 responses
    Last Post TheLurch  
    Started by rogue06, 01-02-2022, 01:44 PM
    7 responses
    Last Post rogue06
    by rogue06