@Edgar_Tamarian welcome to the forum. You are an ID advocate. Nice to meet you. Man can’t live on arguments alone. Tell us some interesting things about your self so we can get to know you. Peace.
@swamidass Thanks, Dr. Swamidass for the warm welcome. Actually, I am a student, but not in biological science, strange a bit, I am a master student at the Technical University of Berlin, Geodesy and Geoinformation Science. However, I got interested in ID debate since 2010, so i got so interested in the debate that through time I become self-educated in Biology, and now I can understand all the concepts in biology, read the papers and understand independently, even debate, whose arguments are strong. Certainly, I am not creationist, I am against it, I am for scientific integrity, yeah, from that follows, that I do believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I always get frustrated, when ID is confused and mixed up with creationism in order to be easy to refute ID. ID has presented many real challenges to conventional evolutionary theory, instead of responding to these challenges, some scientists find an easy way to ignore challenges by mixing up with creationism, so, that strategy works for uneducated masses, but not for me. I always will look question in details
2 Likes
Are you acquainted with the term “cdesign proponentsists”?
4 Likes
ID proponent, “design proponent” are just terms, I do not buy into the terms, terms are created in order to box people in, and view yourself as a biased person, but in fact, I am open to evidence, arguments, but until now the evidence is in favor of design, when I started to be interested in ID debate in 2010, at that time, arguments for ID was interesting, but also seemed to me shaky, in my eye I have seen how the evidence for ID grew year by year in mainstream scientific journals. I do not know, call it “design proponent” whatever, I will follow wherever the evidence leads, not where people will box me in.
You completely missed the point of John Harshman’s question. Note that it did not include either of those terms.
Really? I haven’t seen any. Can you cite one such paper without referring to any hearsay about it?
1 Like
really, untill 2012 there was «strong evidence» against ID, the idea of Junk DNA, but from 2012 it disapeared, why, because ENCODE project provided evidence for functionality of so called "Junk DNA՛՛ , since the the evidence for funcionality grew year by year, and in fact, ID proponents had predicted in 2005 that Junk DNA will be one day be found as functional, and this shows that ID theory also makes sucessfull prediction in Science
Richard v. Sternberg and James A. Shapiro, “How Repeated Retroelements format genome function,” Cytogenetic and Genome Research, Vol. 110: 108–116 (2005).
Yes. This is a perfect example of what he was talking about.
. First things first, why in the world does ID predict no junk DNA?
Secondly, ENCODE got it wrong. So I guess ID is still in trouble. But not really though because ID makes no predictions. It’s proponents making predictions isn’t the same thing as the hypothesis making predictions.
Thirdly, strict Darwinism would predict no junk DNA as well
1 Like
You will need to explain that one.
Edgar, it would be good to search for ‘junk DNA’ in previous discussions on this forum. Or ‘Larry Moran Sandwalk Junk DNA’. That’s because the ENCODE results and other arguments you may have seen really don’t hold up.
And FWIW - ID has no model for predicting whether junk DNA should arise or not. It’s not a prediction as ID is not refuted with the existence of junk DNA.
3 Likes