The encode project

[bippy123]

I don't know what possessed me to go through Hugh Ross's site at 4:30 in the morning but I found a fascinating article there about the encode project which talks about how the human Genome has more evidence for design then we ever thought possible . Amazing stuff folks
This is is really new stuff as its from sept of 2012
Have at it

http://www.reasons.org/articles/respond ... e-skeptics

[DRDS]

Very nice, I'll check that out sometime.

[bippy123]

Very nice, I'll check that out sometime.

Cool bro
It just seems like the more science learns about life the more they find out what I and others see that is obvious, that design is everywhere within the cell and DNA . I never saw this when I was into evolution but the evidence keeps piling on every year that its impossible for me to deny anymore.

[1over137]

Interesting. Now I wish I was biochemist.

Also this caught my eye:

Dr. Fazale Rana
In 1999, I left my position in R&D at a Fortune 500 company to join Reasons To Believe because I felt the most important thing I could do as a scientist is to communicate to skeptics and believers alike the powerful scientific evidence—evidence that is being uncovered day after day—for God’s existence and the reliability of Scripture. Read more about Dr. Fazale Rana

Interesting guy.

[1over137]

From the references:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140913.htm
http://www.nature.com/encode/#/threads

I know sciencedialy as a very trustable magazine and nature as top scientific magazine. Cool stuff.

[KBCid]

"During the early debates about the Human Genome Project, researchers had predicted that only a few percent of the human genome sequence encoded proteins, the workhorses of the cell, and that the rest was junk. We now know that this conclusion was wrong," said Eric D. Green, M.D., Ph.D., director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), a part of the National Institutes of Health. "ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome is involved in the complex molecular choreography required for converting genetic information into living cells and organisms."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140913.htm

No really? another evolution based prediction failed? nature god forbid...

Study Challenges Notions Of How Genes Are Controlled In Mammals (I wonder where the notion came from)
An international consortium of scientists has probed further into the human genome than ever before. They have discovered how genes are controlled in mammals, as well as the tiniest genetic element ever found.

"FANTOM4 has shown that instead of having one or a few 'master regulator' genes that control growth and development, there is a sophisticated network of regulatory elements that subtly influence the ways in which genes are expressed in different cells in the body," Professor John Mattick said.

One of the papers describes the discovery of tiny RNAs, the smallest genetic elements yet known, which are linked to the expression of individual genes. Tiny RNAs are 18 nucleotides long, 100 times smaller than an average gene.
"Researchers had previously noticed small lengths of RNA in the genome, but thought that they were degraded segments of larger genetic elements," Mr Taft said.
"We found that they were too common and too specifically distributed to be rubbish. They are widely associated with promoters that switch on genes, and we believe they may have a role in gene activation. Once we understand their role more explicitly, we hope to use tiny RNAs to artificially control gene expression."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 103549.htm

I wonder how specific distribution occurs? 3 dimensional positioning is quite a complex and irreducible topic to delve into.

[bippy123]

"During the early debates about the Human Genome Project, researchers had predicted that only a few percent of the human genome sequence encoded proteins, the workhorses of the cell, and that the rest was junk. We now know that this conclusion was wrong," said Eric D. Green, M.D., Ph.D., director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), a part of the National Institutes of Health. "ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome is involved in the complex molecular choreography required for converting genetic information into living cells and organisms."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140913.htm

No really? another evolution based prediction failed? nature god forbid...

Move that goal post back and back and back and back

Study Challenges Notions Of How Genes Are Controlled In Mammals (I wonder where the notion came from)
An international consortium of scientists has probed further into the human genome than ever before. They have discovered how genes are controlled in mammals, as well as the tiniest genetic element ever found.

"FANTOM4 has shown that instead of having one or a few 'master regulator' genes that control growth and development, there is a sophisticated network of regulatory elements that subtly influence the ways in which genes are expressed in different cells in the body," Professor John Mattick said.

KBCID,how dare you use the word controlled in biology, everyone knows they were only talking figurately

One of the papers describes the discovery of tiny RNAs, the smallest genetic elements yet known, which are linked to the expression of individual genes. Tiny RNAs are 18 nucleotides long, 100 times smaller than an average gene.
"Researchers had previously noticed small lengths of RNA in the genome, but thought that they were degraded segments of larger genetic elements," Mr Taft said.
"We found that they were too common and too specifically distributed to be rubbish. They are widely associated with promoters that switch on genes, and we believe they may have a role in gene activation. Once we understand their role more explicitly, we hope to use tiny RNAs to artificially control gene expression."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 103549.htm

I wonder how specific distribution occurs? 3 dimensional positioning is quite a complex and irreducible topic to delve into.

Isn't it amazing how chemicals can create miracles. It almost seems like There is an intelligence and a purpose behind it, but then again its only an illusion

[KBCid]

No really? another evolution based prediction failed? nature god forbid...

Move that goal post back and back and back and back

wouldn't need to move anything if they would have simply not made assumptions beyond the evidence. In my world when we make an assumption we also provide a method to test it.

KBCID,how dare you use the word controlled in biology, everyone knows they were only talking figurately

I forgot my decoder ring of evolutionist meaning.

I wonder how specific distribution occurs? 3 dimensional positioning is quite a complex and irreducible topic to delve into.

Isn't it amazing how chemicals can create miracles. It almost seems like There is an intelligence and a purpose behind it, but then again its only an illusion

You know the foundational rules / doctrine of this game Bip;

Naturalism
Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Adherents of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

the unscientifically backed and untestable assumption that rules the limits of scientific inquiry....

[bippy123]

""Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] ""

Talk about a pure faith based philosophical assumption lol.

I was once on a near death experience blog and there was a debate going on about the Pamela Reynolds nde.
I could rememeber there being one guy that has a skeptic blog arguing that Pamela could have overheard the doctor and the nurses talking about her after she was put under anasthesia while she had specially molded ear plugs and a device in her ear that was clicking at 100 decibels , plus she viewed things from a viewpoint that she could have only viewed from a position of being on top of her body.

As I watched the skeptic try to explain this all away, it reminded me of the arguments that someone from the modern flat earth society would make.


No matter how strong the evidence he refused to let a supernatural explanation into the door.
Naturalism not only isnt science but it holds science back.

It is a philosophical position of pure blind faith.

[bippy123]

KBCID, what do you think about this man. I'm loving every second of it

Looks like the encode project has become a living nightmare for neo-Darwinian evolutionists, and they are scrambling to do damage control. Neo-Darwinian evolutionist Larry Moran seems ticked off the most as he says that "the. Reaction it's are going to love this."

I'm gonna start exercising to live a long life to finally see Darwinian evolution destroyed and studies like ENCODE have me believing that it will start to happen within my lifetime. Bye bye Darwin

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/wh ... 64101.html

What a Darwin Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Darwin Debate

University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." Other Darwin-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype".

Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet Darwin-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.

Moran, for his part, thinks that all these other scientists aren't just wrong, but that they are misrepresenting the evidence -- with dire consequences for the public scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. Over on his blog, he's been filling pages with words, pleading with the ENCODE project researchers, and their friends in the media, to tone down their discussions of these results so as not to lend support to intelligent design (or as Moran unendingly puts it, "the creationists"). He writes, in various posts:

"The creationists are going to love this. You blew it Ed Yong. ... 'Almost every nucleotide ...'? Gimme a break. Don't these guys read the scientific literature? This is going to make my life very complicated." (Larry Moran, "ENCODE Leader Says that 80% of Our Genome Is Functional")
"[ENCODE's previous] results were widely interpreted as proof that most of our genome has a function and the result featured prominently in the creationist literature. ... Responsible science journalist should have dug deeper to find out whether the new ENCODE data was any better than the earlier data and whether their interpretation of the results is being widely accepted in the scientific community. They don't have an excuse this time." (Larry Moran, "The ENCODE Data Dump and the Responsibility of Science Journalists")
"I'm not letting the science journalists off the hook but I reserve my harshest criticism for the scientists, especially Ewan Birney who is the lead analysis coordinator for the project and who has taken on the role as spokesperson for the consortium. Unless other members of the consortium speak out, I'll assume they agree with Ewan Birney. They bear the same responsibility for what has happened. ... The public now believes that the concept of junk DNA has been rejected by scientists and that our huge genome really is full of wonderful sophisticated control elements regulating the expression of every gene. It's going to take a lot of effort to undo the damage caused by scientists like E[w]an Birney." (Larry Moran, "The ENCODE Data Dump and the Responsibility of Scientists")

Aside from the fact that Larry Moran is very bothered by the prospect that our genome is "full of wonderful sophisticated control elements" and now sees his mission as controlling the "damage" done by scientists talking about that evidence, what else do Moran's words tell us?
First, they show that Darwin-activists are susceptible to letting sociopolitical concerns influence their words and behavior. They might treat a study one way, or another because of the feared implications of the evidence, not because of the evidence.

Second, Moran's writing shows how the implications that proponents of Darwinian evolution fear most are those which lend support to intelligent design (or as they often put it, "the creationists"). They claim their pages and pages of rebuttal-text are simply about enforcing "accuracy," but I suspect Moran et al. wouldn't be so up in arms if there weren't implications here that they fear lend credence to ID. It's not hard to understand why Moran and his colleagues are coming out and forcefully attacking this ENCODE paper.

Third, this shows that many advocates of Darwinian evolution would like to believe the mainstream news media are generally on their "side," and will respond favorably to requests, pleas, and demands to not print statements friendly to intelligent design. Based upon years of personal experience working with the mainstream media, I have to say that this assumption is mostly valid. In this case, however, it seems like folks in the media were largely oblivious to the implications regarding intelligent design, and the fact that ID proponents have been predicting the demise of junk DNA for years. The media certainly haven't mentioned ID at all in the flurry of stories on this paper. These new ENCODE papers, and their coverage in the media, appear to have been driven by the fact that hundreds of leading researchers from around the world are now convinced by massive amounts of data that junk DNA is essentially wrong.

So we're left in a situation where Darwin-activists are castigating the ENCODE project and the news media for allegedly "overstating" their findings with "hype" because "[t]he creationists are going to love" this research. But we're given no persuasive motive explaining why these scientists and reporters would overstate anything here. If the scientists and reporters allegedly promoting the "hype" are not friendly to intelligent design, what reason would they have to overstate evidence that's friendly to that position? These scientists involved with ENCODE already have all the funding, prestige, and CVs filled with publications that they need.

Whatever the case, what Larry Moran and others clearly show us is that they want, and expect, the news media and other scientists to dramatically tone things down when the evidence might be seen as lending support to intelligent design. Even the notably unsuspicious (and genuinely "creationist") biologist Todd Wood says this behavior is "starting to sound like an anti-creationist conspiracy." Wood, who is well known for his decidedly non-alarmist persona, writes:

What bothers me more this time is this undercurrent I'm seeing that basically perceives this latest hyperbole as especially egregious because creationists will misunderstand the results and use them for propaganda purposes. I hope no one is actually suggesting that scientists ought to modify the presentation of their results to prevent creationists from misusing them? Perhaps even ... dare I say it? ... censor themselves to prevent creationists from taking advantage? Because that really is starting to sound like an anticreationist conspiracy.
As I recently explained here, I don't believe in such conspiracies. But I do believe that Darwin activists are human beings who can be susceptible, whether consciously or subconsciously, to thinking like Larry Moran. That thinking is motivated by sociopolitical and philosophical concerns rather than a desire to follow the evidence where it leads.

[bippy123]

Dawkins reminds me of the abbot and Costello scene from whose on first.

Is DNA junk or isn't it junk.
Found a good post by bornagain777 under a blog article about the encode project.


4
bornagain77February 22, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”

Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”

It's not full of junk, it is full of junk, it's not full of junk, it is full of junk. Evolution predicts it all