mitschlag
Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 16 2007,18:50) | One thing I find interesting here is that most of you have shown no interest in any of the various papers I've cited from the ENCODE project.
These papers clearly show a multi-layered, overlapping, multi-directional "coding" scheme within the human genome. (I put "coding" in quotes since most of the genome "codes" for things other than proteins and so is currently classified as "non-coding").
They also show quite clearly that most of the human genome is transcribed and functional.
These scientists are suggesting that a re-defining of the most basic term in genetics - the gene - is necessary.
I'll ask again: When did any of your various theories or hypotheses predict such a complex interwoven tapestry within our genome (or any other)?
And...
Is that why none of you want to talk about it? Does it cause difficulties for you? |
One thing I find interesting is that when he can't provide answers to standing questions, Daniel changes the subject.
It's not that we are afraid to talk about it. We just don't see it as being a problem. And especially not as evidence for a Designer.
Why should we be shocked to learn something new? That's the way it goes in science, in which empirical data trump previous belief. And the pace of discovery keeps accelerating.
So it is irrelevant whether anyone predicted or did not predict new findings. The excitement is in learning new things and in overthrowing the existent paradigm...whenever possible.
You might understand better if you would read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)
|
