Theoretical model of evolution completely collapses...

Production Phase Results[edit]
In September 2012, the project released a much more extensive set of results, in 30 papers published simultaneously in several journals, including six in Nature, six in Genome Biology and a special issue with 18 publications of Genome Research.[17]

The authors described the production and the initial analysis of 1,640 data sets designed to annotate functional elements in the entire human genome, integrating results from diverse experiments within cell types, related experiments involving 147 different cell types, and all ENCODE data with other resources, such as candidate regions from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and evolutionary constrained regions. Together, these efforts revealed important features about the organization and function of the human genome, which were summarized in an overview paper as follows:[18]

  1. The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA and/or chromatin associated event in at least one cell type. Much of the genome lies close to a regulatory event: 95% of the genome lies within 8kb of a DNA-proteininteraction (as assayed by bound ChIP-seq motifs or DNaseI footprints), and 99% is within 1.7kb of at least one of the biochemical events measured by ENCODE.
  2. Primate-specific elements as well as elements without detectable mammalian constraint show, in aggregate, evidence of negative selection; thus some of them are expected to be functional.
  3. Classifying the genome into seven chromatin states suggests an initial set of 399,124 regions with enhancer-like features and 70,292 regions with promoters-like features, as well hundreds of thousands of quiescent regions. High-resolution analyses further subdivide the genome into thousands of narrow states with distinct functional properties.
  4. It is possible to quantitatively correlate RNA sequence production and processing with both chromatin marks and transcription factor (TF) binding at promoters, indicating that promoter functionality can explain the majority of RNA expression variation.
  5. Many non-coding variants in individual genome sequences lie in ENCODE- annotated functional regions; this number is at least as large as those that lie in protein coding genes.
  6. SNPs associated with disease by GWAS are enriched within non-coding functional elements, with a majority residing in or near ENCODE-defined regions that are outside of protein coding genes. In many cases, the disease phenotypes can be associated with a specific cell type or TF.
 
The most striking finding was that the fraction of human DNA that is biologically active is considerably higher than even the most optimistic previous estimates. In an overview paper, the ENCODE Consortium reported that its members were able to assign biochemical functions to over 80% of the genome.[18] Much of this was found to be involved in controlling the expression levels of coding DNA, which makes up less than 1% of the genome.
 
I have a funny feeling that somebody with an agenda that isn't a scientist created this thread...You have an alternative to say, god spontaneously just pulled the universe from out of his...sleeve?
I presented scientific evidence.. can you refute it? I may not be a scientists. Doesn't matter. What I posted is what scientists have discovered. Now, if you think you are smarter than they are, feel free to refute what they say, rather than engaging in childish insults.
You did? I wasn't born yesterday. Evolution is a theory, a flawed one. But so far, it's the best one that fits the models. If you have one that explains everything, and fits, and ISN'T flawed, I am all ears. So is the scientific community.
It is painfully obvious that you didn't read the article.
Nope, I stopped at the whole "Atheist" thingy. Which tainted this thread. Why...? You seriously want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin now?
Actually, I would be tickled pink if you would actually discuss the scientific findings presented in the article. But you refuse to do because it goes against your atheist religion.
Actually, I am not an atheist. Worse. Agnostic. So, bubba, when did you get your degree in genetics? And where? Oh you want a serious scientific debate? In a pigs eye you do.
 
The theoretical model of evolution is flawed. Yep. Science is like that, and researchers and science theorists will eventually find a resolution. Electronics had flaws, it led to computers and microchips. You can argue that the superhetrodyne receiver was the penultimate in human achievement, accept, it wasn't. Now we have this...
 
The theoretical model of evolution is flawed. Yep. Science is like that, and researchers and science theorists will eventually find a resolution. Electronics had flaws, it led to computers and microchips. You can argue that the superhetrodyne receiver was the penultimate in human achievement, accept, it wasn't. Now we have this...
That is why they are constantly reevaluating information..The Bible not so much...
 
The theoretical model of evolution is flawed. Yep. Science is like that, and researchers and science theorists will eventually find a resolution. Electronics had flaws, it led to computers and microchips. You can argue that the superhetrodyne receiver was the penultimate in human achievement, accept, it wasn't. Now we have this...
That is why they are constantly reevaluating information .The Bible not so much...
Exactamundo, mon frère. The theory of evolution is just that, it's a theory, it has flaws. Now if there is an alternative and makes sense and scientifically explains human presence and the author of this thread can verify it, by all means, do so.
 
The theoretical model of evolution is flawed. Yep. Science is like that, and researchers and science theorists will eventually find a resolution. Electronics had flaws, it led to computers and microchips. You can argue that the superhetrodyne receiver was the penultimate in human achievement, accept, it wasn't. Now we have this...
That is why they are constantly reevaluating information .The Bible not so much...
Exactamundo, mon frère. The theory of evolution is just that, it's a theory, it has flaws. Now if there is an alternative and makes sense and scientifically explains human presence and the author of this thread can verify it, by all means, do so.
We'd all love to know, but...
 
The theoretical model of evolution is flawed. Yep. Science is like that, and researchers and science theorists will eventually find a resolution. Electronics had flaws, it led to computers and microchips. You can argue that the superhetrodyne receiver was the penultimate in human achievement, accept, it wasn't. Now we have this...
That is why they are constantly reevaluating information .The Bible not so much...
Exactamundo, mon frère. The theory of evolution is just that, it's a theory, it has flaws. Now if there is an alternative and makes sense and scientifically explains human presence and the author of this thread can verify it, by all means, do so.
We'd all love to know, but...
I know...
 
I have a funny feeling that somebody with an agenda that isn't a scientist created this thread...You have an alternative to say, god spontaneously just pulled the universe from out of his...sleeve?
I presented scientific evidence.. can you refute it? I may not be a scientists. Doesn't matter. What I posted is what scientists have discovered. Now, if you think you are smarter than they are, feel free to refute what they say, rather than engaging in childish insults.
You did? I wasn't born yesterday. Evolution is a theory, a flawed one. But so far, it's the best one that fits the models. If you have one that explains everything, and fits, and ISN'T flawed, I am all ears. So is the scientific community.
It is painfully obvious that you didn't read the article.
Nope, I stopped at the whole "Atheist" thingy. Which tainted this thread. Why...? You seriously want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin now?
Actually, I would be tickled pink if you would actually discuss the scientific findings presented in the article. But you refuse to do because it goes against your atheist religion.
So funny

She said atheist religion
 
The theoretical model of evolution is flawed. Yep. Science is like that, and researchers and science theorists will eventually find a resolution. Electronics had flaws, it led to computers and microchips. You can argue that the superhetrodyne receiver was the penultimate in human achievement, accept, it wasn't. Now we have this...
That is why they are constantly reevaluating information .The Bible not so much...
Exactamundo, mon frère. The theory of evolution is just that, it's a theory, it has flaws. Now if there is an alternative and makes sense and scientifically explains human presence and the author of this thread can verify it, by all means, do so.
Evolution is a Fact
God is a theory
 
Have all the universities in America closed the doors of their Biology Departments?

I'm pretty sure I would have read about that.
 
I presented scientific evidence.. can you refute it? I may not be a scientists. Doesn't matter. What I posted is what scientists have discovered. Now, if you think you are smarter than they are, feel free to refute what they say, rather than engaging in childish insults.
You did? I wasn't born yesterday. Evolution is a theory, a flawed one. But so far, it's the best one that fits the models. If you have one that explains everything, and fits, and ISN'T flawed, I am all ears. So is the scientific community.
It is painfully obvious that you didn't read the article.
Nope, I stopped at the whole "Atheist" thingy. Which tainted this thread. Why...? You seriously want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin now?
Actually, I would be tickled pink if you would actually discuss the scientific findings presented in the article. But you refuse to do because it goes against your atheist religion.
Actually, I am not an atheist. Worse. Agnostic. So, bubba, when did you get your degree in genetics? And where? Oh you want a serious scientific debate? In a pigs eye you do.
YOU are the one who refuses to debate. If I'm so ignorant, you should be able to mop the floor with me. What are you afraid of?
 
I presented scientific evidence.. can you refute it? I may not be a scientists. Doesn't matter. What I posted is what scientists have discovered. Now, if you think you are smarter than they are, feel free to refute what they say, rather than engaging in childish insults.
You did? I wasn't born yesterday. Evolution is a theory, a flawed one. But so far, it's the best one that fits the models. If you have one that explains everything, and fits, and ISN'T flawed, I am all ears. So is the scientific community.
It is painfully obvious that you didn't read the article.
Nope, I stopped at the whole "Atheist" thingy. Which tainted this thread. Why...? You seriously want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin now?
Actually, I would be tickled pink if you would actually discuss the scientific findings presented in the article. But you refuse to do because it goes against your atheist religion.
Actually, I am not an atheist. Worse. Agnostic. So, bubba, when did you get your degree in genetics? And where? Oh you want a serious scientific debate? In a pigs eye you do.
Welcome to my ignore list, you clueless twit.
 
So, here is yet another thread started by religionists wanting to deride science, reason and rationality that comes crashing to the ground in flames.

In particular, biological evolution is the subject of attack by Christian fundamentalists because it directly refutes the notion of a 6,000 year old planet. And, make no mistake. Outside of Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, there does not exist an organized anti-science movement.
 
I have a funny feeling that somebody with an agenda that isn't a scientist created this thread...You have an alternative to say, god spontaneously just pulled the universe from out of his...sleeve?
I presented scientific evidence.. can you refute it? I may not be a scientists. Doesn't matter. What I posted is what scientists have discovered. Now, if you think you are smarter than they are, feel free to refute what they say, rather than engaging in childish insults.
You did? I wasn't born yesterday. Evolution is a theory, a flawed one. But so far, it's the best one that fits the models. If you have one that explains everything, and fits, and ISN'T flawed, I am all ears. So is the scientific community.
It is painfully obvious that you didn't read the article.

You know, I actually DID read the article. I decided it was biased when this was the last 2 paragraphs.................note the Bible verse references, as well as the "oops, so much for evolution" remark...............

From the OP's link...................

However, just as the Bible says in Psalm 9:15, “In the net which they hid, their own foot is caught,” so has it happened to the theoretical evolutionists. Global data among diverse people groups for DNA sequence variability across the human genome was inputted into a statistical model of neutral evolution. It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, “What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’” Oops, so much for human evolution!

This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions. The elaborate deceptions of today’s theoretical evolutionists are best described by Ecclesiastes 7:29 that says, “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”
 
I have a funny feeling that somebody with an agenda that isn't a scientist created this thread...You have an alternative to say, god spontaneously just pulled the universe from out of his...sleeve?
I presented scientific evidence.. can you refute it? I may not be a scientists. Doesn't matter. What I posted is what scientists have discovered. Now, if you think you are smarter than they are, feel free to refute what they say, rather than engaging in childish insults.
You did? I wasn't born yesterday. Evolution is a theory, a flawed one. But so far, it's the best one that fits the models. If you have one that explains everything, and fits, and ISN'T flawed, I am all ears. So is the scientific community.
It is painfully obvious that you didn't read the article.
It did, it provides no evidence whatsoever. Merely an opinion.
 
...
Evolution is a Fact
God is a theory

The existence of God is revelation and belief. Evolution is the phylogenetic history of life. And science ís the complex process never really to know what someone likes or needs to know. I read two or three weeks ago an interesting essay of a German scientist. She works with substances where the evolution needed 6-7 changes to produce them. Some changes were very old, some young - and they all never made a big sense on their own. Only all changes together make sense. If this genetic mutations would not had existed then to find them in theory or experiments or any planful variation of genetic material or to find a recognition for such a form of matter with any software - AI or not - is impossible. So perhaps god is much less theory than you think. All mankind knows nearly nothing about what's really going on in the world all around. And what's really superflous or unimportant knows no one.

-----
“Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet.
-----

-----

With every killed species we'll lose a language of god.

Pope Francis
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top