Search results

Some transposons are junk, some are not. Mostly, they're junk.

When creationists refuse to define their terms, I have decided to do it for them. They always refuse to define new, so here I will do it for them: If it's different from what it was before, then it's new. If it's slightly bigger, slightly smaller, slightly darker, slightly longer, slightly...

No, that isn't universally accepted. In fact that very point is directly contested by experts in information theory, such as Jeffrey Shallit: http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/01/test-your-knowledge-of-information.html Case closed, game over.

Anyone find it ironic that these creationists say that most mutations are destroying function and are deleterious, yet simultaneously claim that it just cant' be the case that most DNA is junk? Junk created by an accumulation of mutations resulting in dead retrotransposons, degrading retrovial...

In the same way, there are no objective moral values other than as the moral feelings, thoughts, and intuitions of sentient beings such as ourselves. A moral value is just a thought in your head. While we all certainly have moral thoughts, and so in that sense it is an objective fact that we...

There is no objective purpose to anything other than in the sense that sentient beings such as ourselves have intentions in our minds. In no other way does it make sense to speak of anything having meaning or purpose, than as something we sentient beings strive to achieve for things/ourselves...

Here we see that it is actually you who is looking only at a part of the process, but not the whole. And your delineations of beginnings and ends is at bottom arbitrary. You can just as well put the beginning at where a sapling as spawned, and the end at when the acorn is dropped from an adult...

Yeah that all sounds like nonsense to me. Why isn't the acorn the apex, the "highest development of its potential" to which the tree naturally develops? Or the sapling? Or the rotting detritus a dead tree leaves behind? It's just some arbitrary subjective interpretation of the cycle of life...

Heh, this is also a point I've raised before to Sanford and his fans. You will find his response hilarious, paraphrasing: The ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations in the particular species of bacteria used in the experiment under the unique experimental conditions, is different from...

Outstanding post Nesslig.

They are everywhere in the Earth. From it's core to inside your body.

At this point he has conclusively proven that he is an idiot who only wants to troll, not to listen to what you believe, or why, or to try to persuade you. He's just a trolling moron who wants to make himself feel good that he trolled an atheist.

That's not a unit of measurement, that's a subjective evaluation. So please calculate how much heat would be required. Also please provide links to experiments where large amounts of electrical current was generated by shooting water on rock so thermonuclear fusion took place.

Yes it could, but it is incredibly incredibly unlikely. It is hyperastronomically more likely to be the product of genuine common descent.

Good for you that you believe the made-up shit you believe that nobody has done any work to show could ever possibly work. What experiments have been done where they created heat from "voltage" by blowing water really hard at granite until it mysteriously happened to create a particular...

And it would have completely vaporized the rocks down to it's naked elemental form, stripped all the atoms of their electrons, annihilated the water molecules and stripped those atoms too of their electrons, and left the Earth's crust and atmosphere an incandescent plasma. It'd be like the...

How about you answer the question you skipped? How do you know that what the bible claims about God's views on unbelievers is correct? This whole rationalization (aka after-the-fact excuse to shield faith from falsification) about God hiding from unbelievers because they don't sycophantly...

What the fuck am I reading here? Radioactive isotopes aren't created by "voltage".

Oh and the term has apparently been tracked all the way back to the early 1960's in publications there (as seen in the comments, perhaps as early as 1959): http://judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/64504735261/the-origin-of-the-term-junk-dna-a-historical

This is actually incorrect both what thenexttodie and you write in response. While your post makes it clear you do know some of the history, and the facts about gene-expression and transcription, I think you have still gotten it mixed up a bit about what junk-DNA was historically used to refer...