What Makes Us Human? The Answer May Be Found in Overlooked “Junk” DNA

a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

So, incredulity is your best defence against science? Your very best effort is 'I don't know how this happened so my conclusion is that it didn't'.

No, my best defense against a natural interpretation of evolution is that it's impossible to occur. This isn't I don't know so God did it. This is, I do know it's impossible without intelligence.

Those who support a natural interpretation of evolution use human intelligence to describe a process they say occurred without intelligence. If that's the case, tell us how it occurred without human semantics. Like I said, transposes and transposons are human inventions. We give them meaning and it sounds like these things were designed to work together. That's the impression they wanted to give and that's why they have similar names. A natural interprepation knows nothing about semantics and the meaning we give these things. So a believer in this fantasy should be able to explain this without the semantics that come from human intelligence.

The paper says IRREDUCIBLE ORGANIZATION!

Where do you have to conflate anything?

This means there's correlation between the digital and analog information that can't be reduced. The correlation of information is IRREDUCIBLE! This is from the paper:

Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer. These two DNA information types are intrinsically coupled in the primary sequence organisation, and this coupling is directly relevant to regulation of the genetic function. In this review, we emphasise the critical need of holistic integration of the DNA information as a prerequisite for understanding the organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system.

What's there to conflate!! This explains it beautifully.

These two DNA information types are intrinsically coupled in the primary sequence organisation, and this coupling is directly relevant to regulation of the genetic function.

I can see why you don't answer any questions. Either you don't know what's being said and you're just blindly posting or threads like these shatter your belief in the myth that is a natural interpretation of evolution.

It also says:

Genetic regulation is crucial not only for sustaining the self-reproduction of a cell but also for substituting its worn-out constituents. This implies that a genetic regulation system, as a system consisting of physical elements, must be able not only to perform its primary function but also to perceive any internal changes of state so that it retains the potential, for example, to replenish its own components. In other words, it has to be self-referential. This peculiarity of organisation becomes conspicuous when compared to information coding in natural language, the syntactic and semantic properties of which provide logically different types of information. Syntax determines the structure of the rules of language and, thus, the way in which the words are assembled in sentences, whereas semantics determine the meaning of the words and so the available vocabulary. However, the structural rules of language cannot determine the meanings of the words, and nor is the vocabulary determinative for the structural rules of the language (we do not concern ourselves with any generative mechanisms relevant to the formal language theory here). Therefore, viewed as a coding system composed of two non-convertible types of information, natural language is not self-referential. By the same token, the Jacob-Monod paradigm separating the gene regulatory context from the genetic information is at variance with self-referential organisation. Notably, we do not use this term in the sense of elaborated mathematical concepts of distinction, circulation, feedback, re-entry, recursion, etc. Self-referential organisation, as we put it here, implies inter-conversion of information between logically distinct coding systems specifying each other reciprocally. Thus, the holistic approach assumes selfreferentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the different codes) as an irreducible organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell.

Put another way, this implies that the structural dynamics of the chromosome must be fully convertible into its genetic expression and vice versa. Since the DNA is an essential carrier of genetic information, the fundamental question is how this self-referential organisation is encoded in the sequence of the DNA polymer.

link.springer.com...

Here you have a correlation of information that you see in any car or factory that builds the car or a computer and the languages that code the websites you visit.

So, would you please answer the questions. You're the one that accepts a natural interpretation of evolution so you should be able to explain these things without the input of semantics created by human intelligence.

This is a problem of semantics. We name these things in evolution and give it an intelligent meaning. I say because it was designed by intelligence. If you're going to say this occurred naturally then you have to remove human intelligence and explain it without the semantics. So transposons and transposase sounds like they're connected but that's because we name them in a way that makes them sound connected. We impart our own intelligence onto something people say is a random and natural process. So from a natural standpoint, transposons and transposase has nothing to do with each other. There just two separate elements that were encoded separately and just by dumb luck they happen to work together perfectly. When you remove human semantics which gives the process meaning, then it shows how ASININE a n natural interpretation of evolution is.

Also, you didn't answer the questions in the OP.

Again, how did the regulation of information that's encoded on the sequence of coding regions of DNA evolve naturally? How did this correlation of information occur through a natural interpretation of evolution? Why is it so accurate when it occurs? If the organization of information occurs naturally and randomly why does it get it right every time and the right insertions to make hominids or the right insertions to make the genus canis or any other organism occur when it's needed? Where's the evidence of evolution trying to get it right blindly and naturally?

So stop obfuscating and answer the questions.

a reply to: neoholographic

If you'd like to read the whole paper let me know your email and I'll send it to you. You can then point out exactly where it refutes our understanding of evolution and/or supports intelligent design.

Some of what you've posted is the creationist interpretation of the paper, not the paper.

You are using this paper as evidence of intelligent design. Show me and everyone else which part of the paper you are using please.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: neoholographic

If you'd like to read the whole paper let me know your email and I'll send it to you. You can then point out exactly where it refutes our understanding of evolution and/or supports intelligent design.

Some of what you've posted is the creationist interpretation of the paper, not the paper.

You are using this paper as evidence of intelligent design. Show me and everyone else which part of the paper you are using please.

What are you talking about?

I quoted the paper and told you exactly what I was asking. Show me where I quoted the paper out of context. Exactly which part. You're debating me not the article. What I posted from the article is EXACTLY RIGHT! The fact that you haven't refuted anything I have said or you haven't answered any questions shows you're either trolling or you don't understand what's being said.

Show me the exact part that I took out of context then answer these questions. You haven't answered any questions or debated in any way. You just keep making these vacuous post that say nothing. Also, show me the part where the article took the paper out of context.

This is a problem of semantics. We name these things in evolution and give it an intelligent meaning. I say because it was designed by intelligence. If you're going to say this occurred naturally then you have to remove human intelligence and explain it without the semantics. So transposons and transposase sounds like they're connected but that's because we name them in a way that makes them sound connected. We impart our own intelligence onto something people say is a random and natural process. So from a natural standpoint, transposons and transposase has nothing to do with each other. There just two separate elements that were encoded separately and just by dumb luck they happen to work together perfectly. When you remove human semantics which gives the process meaning, then it shows how ASININE a n natural interpretation of evolution is.

Also, you didn't answer the questions in the OP.

Again, how did the regulation of information that's encoded on the sequence of coding regions of DNA evolve naturally? How did this correlation of information occur through a natural interpretation of evolution? Why is it so accurate when it occurs? If the organization of information occurs naturally and randomly why does it get it right every time and the right insertions to make hominids or the right insertions to make the genus canis or any other organism occur when it's needed? Where's the evidence of evolution trying to get it right blindly and naturally?

So stop obfuscating and answer the questions.

A person that blindly believes in a natural interpretation of evolution should be able to explain this process without human semantics. They should say:

How information for an enzyme(protein) was encoded in a sequence of DNA. How this enzyme evolved the ability to read sequences on the end of DNA that can be moved and how it evolved the ability to cut at those ends to remove the strand of DNA that can be moved. They then need to explain how separately, information was encoded in a sequence of DNA that can be moved and it's identified by sequences on each of it's ends.

Remember, these things have no purpose or design in a natural interpretation of evolution. So all of this happened for no reason and for some reason it's exactly right so many times we see all of the variation in species.

This is vs. saying:

The enzyme transposase recognizes the sequences at the end of transposable elements on a DNA strand and cut the strand to remove the transposable DNA at those points.

The second one sounds like design because it's described by semantics created by human intelligence.

A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. Human intelligence makes it sound good but the semantics we give these things have no meaning for a natural interpretation of evolution. They have to say:

How information for an enzyme(protein) was encoded in a sequence of DNA. How this enzyme evolved the ability to read sequences on the end of DNA that can be moved and how it evolved the ability to cut at those ends to remove the strand of DNA that can be moved. They then need to explain how separately, information was encoded in a sequence of DNA that can be moved and it's identified by sequences on each of it's ends.

Remember, these things have no purpose or design in a natural interpretation of evolution. So all of this happened for no reason and for some reason it's exactly right so many times we see all of the variation in species.

Every time I try to open my mind and contemplate the possibility of intelligent design, I come up against the invariable dead end where I have to wonder why any cosmic agency of above average intellect would communicate so poorly. Naturally, textbook narcissism would insist that humans are just too stupid to grasp common sense logic. It baffles me that the best evidence we have is genetic language secretly encoded with space magic that doesn't actually tell us anything useful.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Every time I try to open my mind and contemplate the possibility of intelligent design, I come up against the invariable dead end where I have to wonder why any cosmic agency of above average intellect would communicate so poorly. Naturally, textbook narcissism would insist that humans are just too stupid to grasp common sense logic. It baffles me that the best evidence we have is genetic language secretly encoded with space magic that doesn't actually tell us anything useful.

Tell your mind to get lost. God communicates very clearly. People's minds don't like what he says so pretend not to hear. People's minds are the enemy.

I think it's wise to pursue both Intelligent and Evolutionary approaches in a parallel manner.

a reply to: neoholographic

Your first post states, in your own words: 'Yet another blow to a natural interpretation of evolution.'
The next five paragraphs are a direct copy and paste from a science website that do not in ANY way support your opening statement. It says that the human genome is more complex than we assumed; nothing about religion or design. Nothing.

> Please explain the correlation between your opening statement and what you've copied and pasted.

Your next statement, in your own words are: "A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. An intelligent design interpretation of evolution is the only thing that makes sense."
You then link to a creationist website that has reviewed a scientific paper entitled "Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information".
This website changes one phrase in the document from 'irreducible organisation' which means that processes must have happened in a very specific and precise order, to 'irreducible complexity' which suggests an impossible natural occurrence, used almost exclusively by creationists. From the several thousand words in this document, creationists have hooked onto two words and changed one of them. This is dishonest and fraudulent.

> The paper reviewed does not suggest that evolution as we know it false, in fact it endorses evolution. It certainly does not suggest intelligent design is responsible. If you have evidence otherwise, please show it.

You then copy and paste from a medical website which reviews a paper entitled "A mouse-specific retrotransposon drives a conserved Cdk2ap1 isoform essential for development." At least this research is current! The review does not publish the complete paper, only excerpts for quoting. The paper is available to read online or as published. Have you read it?

> Still, this paper does not in any way support or endorse intelligent design. It is very much pro-evolution. Please show us how this paper supports intelligent design or refutes evolution.

You finish by posting a video, which I have not viewed, and then demonstrating your ignorance by incredulity.


> So, please, finally can you show how any of the source material you have quoted from and linked to support intelligent design and/or disproves evolution?

My guess is you have not read ANY of the papers, and I find it unlikely that you would understand them even if you had read them. What you have done quite deliberately is to use valid scientific research to further your creationist agenda. Unfortunately, had you actually read them you would find out they do not support your beliefs. All you have is the deception by the creationist website, changing a word in a single sentence to support their unfounded beliefs.

What does your god think of deceivers?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Every time I try to open my mind and contemplate the possibility of intelligent

Yet it's easier for you to suppose that chimpanzees lost 100,000,000 DNA base pairs in their random chance transition into human beings? It's just indoctrination at this point. You are given many facts that show the necessity of intelligence in the cosmos. You yourself are a person capable of intelligence, yet you deny intelligence as a source.

The info that Neo showed indicates that chromosomes and the genome as a whole act as a holistic interdependent system. This proves you could not have generated the information stored in the genetic code in a mutative piece-by-piece manner, because it requires the entirety to be intact to function.

Thread drift

a reply to: TerraLiga

Ill sum up the OPs idea in a few sentences.

We are intelligently designed by God through careful evolution of the DNA we are comprised of. In short we evolved but along a carefully designed plan.

That also allows for fossils and evolution as well as God. God is a Scientist as well as creator.

a reply to: TerraLiga

You're post is filled with the usual pseudoskeptic buzzwords but lacks any substance. You haven't responded to my posts or questions in any way. You keep saying I'm taking the papers out of context without posting exactly how I'm taking anything out of context. You said:

The next five paragraphs are a direct copy and paste from a science website that do not in ANY way support your opening statement. It says that the human genome is more complex than we assumed; nothing about religion or design. Nothing.

AGAIN, YOU'RE DEBATING ME NOT THE ARTICLES!

This shows you don't know what you're talking about. I post the articles and then I show IN MY OWN WORDS why this refutes a natural interpretation of evolution and supports an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. This is why you keep talking about the articles because you can't debate MY WORDS.

YOU CAN'T NAME ANYTHING I HAVE SAID THAT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PAPERS I POSTED.

If you could, you would answer questions and debate MY WORDS which are supported by the articles and papers I posted. You said:

You finish by posting a video, which I have not viewed,

Of course you haven't viewed it, just like you haven't refuted anything I said or answered any questions. This is because you have a closed mind. You can't respond or refute what I'm saying so you do the pseudoskeptic usual. You cry and complain about "creationist" websites but that silly tactic worked about 10 years ago on ATS but today people can plainly see that you have no argument. Here's the questions I asked in MY OWN WORDS that you ignore so you can say "creationist websites" like that's going to get people to stop thinking. Everything the website says is quotes from the article.

Here's some of MY OWN WORDS that you don't and can't refute or respond to.

This is a problem of semantics. We name these things in evolution and give it an intelligent meaning. I say because it was designed by intelligence. If you're going to say this occurred naturally then you have to remove human intelligence and explain it without the semantics. So transposons and transposase sounds like they're connected but that's because we name them in a way that makes them sound connected. We impart our own intelligence onto something people say is a random and natural process. So from a natural standpoint, transposons and transposase has nothing to do with each other. There just two separate elements that were encoded separately and just by dumb luck they happen to work together perfectly. When you remove human semantics which gives the process meaning, then it shows how ASININE a n natural interpretation of evolution is.

Again, how did the regulation of information that's encoded on the sequence of coding regions of DNA evolve naturally? How did this correlation of information occur through a natural interpretation of evolution? Why is it so accurate when it occurs? If the organization of information occurs naturally and randomly why does it get it right every time and the right insertions to make hominids or the right insertions to make the genus canis or any other organism occur when it's needed? Where's the evidence of evolution trying to get it right blindly and naturally?

A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. Human intelligence makes it sound good but the semantics we give these things have no meaning for a natural interpretation of evolution. They have to say:

How information for an enzyme(protein) was encoded in a sequence of DNA. How this enzyme evolved the ability to read sequences on the end of DNA that can be moved and how it evolved the ability to cut at those ends to remove the strand of DNA that can be moved. They then need to explain how separately, information was encoded in a sequence of DNA that can be moved and it's identified by sequences on each of it's ends.

Remember, these things have no purpose or design in a natural interpretation of evolution. So all of this happened for no reason and for some reason it's exactly right so many times we see all of the variation in species.

Those who support a natural interpretation of evolution use human intelligence to describe a process they say occurred without intelligence. If that's the case, tell us how it occurred without human semantics. Like I said, transposes and transposons are human inventions. We give them meaning and it sounds like these things were designed to work together. That's the impression they wanted to give and that's why they have similar names. A natural interprepation knows nothing about semantics and the meaning we give these things. So a believer in this fantasy should be able to explain this without the semantics that come from human intelligence.

The paper says IRREDUCIBLE ORGANIZATION!

THESE ARE THE WORDS YOU CAN'T REFUTE OR DEBATE AGAINST!

So you blindly yell "creationist website" because that's what pseudoskeptics do. But that's a 10 year old tactic that doesn't work anymore. People realize, this just means you can't debate the issue.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: neoholographic

***Spoiler Alert***

Mankind as we know it isn't from here.

We try to keep telling y'all, nobody listens....

~signed, the Hopi~

Well, I think its probably a combination of indigenous beings and off planet being genetic manipulation.

I still think the Terra papers are closer to the truth, than not.

a reply to: neoholographic

Your questions are stupid, which is why I'm not answering them. They're stupid because the article you're using to support your argument contains some of the answers to that research completed eight years ago. More recent research can answer all your questions. For example;
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm asking if you've read the papers you're using, and I'm making a big deal about asking, but I know that you haven't and if you did, you didn't understand them. Your questions are idiotic because the questioner is an idiot.

Read the papers and understand what you're posting, and especially what you're quoting.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Every time I try to open my mind and contemplate the possibility of intelligent

Yet it's easier for you to suppose that chimpanzees lost 100,000,000 DNA base pairs in their random chance transition into human beings? It's just indoctrination at this point. You are given many facts that show the necessity of intelligence in the cosmos. You yourself are a person capable of intelligence, yet you deny intelligence as a source.

The info that Neo showed indicates that chromosomes and the genome as a whole act as a holistic interdependent system. This proves you could not have generated the information stored in the genetic code in a mutative piece-by-piece manner, because it requires the entirety to be intact to function.

Exactly!

How an this correlation of information evolve in any natural or random way? The short answer is, it can't.

The authors describe the supercoiling (superhelicity) of the DNA, which affects levels of transcription in a rheostatic (analog) manner, is arranged in a gradient from the origin of replication to the terminus. Anabolic functions, which are expressed early in the cell cycle, show a preference to be on the leading strand (with regard to replication) and are organized close to the origin of replication, whereas catabolic functions are expressed late in the cell cycle, organized toward the terminal region of replication. Furthermore, the anabolic genes require high negative superhelicity for transcription, which is increased during rapid growth and therefore rapid replication of the DNA. So, during rapid growth, when anabolic functions become a limiting factor, a bottleneck if you will, the DNA replication generates more strain on the chromosome, i.e. more negative superhelicity, which is exactly the parameters for increasing anabolic functions. Brilliant.

How did these various independent levels of information become “coordinated”? Brilliance seems the best explanation for something brilliant.

evolutionnews.org...

This is intelligent design.

Why does nature need a code?

Chemical reactions occur naturally without the need of a code. Think of:

Aerobic cellular respiration.
Anaerobic respiration (including fermentation)
Oxidation (including rust)
Metathesis reactions (such as baking soda and vinegar)
Electrochemistry (including chemical batteries)
Burning wood.
Souring milk.

These are examples of chemical reactions. With DNA, you have the correlation of digital and analog information that's irreducible and a code that's a blueprint. This code instructs on how amino acids should assemble on a polypeptide chain. Why would nature work this way?

We know why intelligence works this way. We have built a modern civilization based on using codes, blueprints and instructions to assemble raw materials into houses, cars and computers.

The code in DNA has nothing to do with the production of amino acids. This is why we can encode it with PDF files, DVD's and more. Amino acids are produced in the body and by the food we eat. The order of amino acids on a polypeptide chain is determined by the code. Why would nature create a code of correlated information that tells amino acids how to assemble on a polypeptide chain like we do with our intelligence when we have codes that build machines or instructs people that tells a car how to assemble?

If you watch this simple video called from DNA to Protein, it's plain to see intelligent design.



Intelligence designs a code that tells things how to assemble whether those things are car parts or amino acids. Amino acids attach to transfer RNA and put in a sequence specified by the code.

Chemical reactions don't need a code to tell them how to assemble. A snowflake forms without a code, erosion on the side of a mountain occurs without a code, milk sours without a code, wood burns without a code. These things follow the laws of physics which also need intelligence, but that's another thread. These things occur based on interactions with the environment.

A code is designed by intelligence and is independent of the environment. The genetic code has been the same for billions of years. The genetic code doesn't interact with it's environment, it instructs and tells things how to assemble to build the organisms we see.

If the genetic code was something natural, it would be subject to the same wear and tear as everything else.

a reply to: neoholographic

As per usual, you didn't read the paper, only the abstract. Then you fit that information falsely into your cut-and-paste diatribe with equally false conclusions:

Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code
reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting
energy into information
Georgi Muskhelishvili · Andrew Travers

From the "Conclusion":

Communications between distinct molecular
components of the coupled system could be facilitated by
their consolidation in “hyperstructures” [89, 90], as suggested, for example, by the observed cooperation between
the nucleoid-associated protein HU and RNA polymerase
in forming the transcription foci [32]. We propose that the
interactions between the spatiotemporal gradients of the
global regulators and spatial gradients of the chromosomal
binding sites can specify the transient boundaries of the
FDs. Whereas different constellations of the FDs appear
to mediate the coordination of the chromosomal supercoil
energy with genetic function during the growth cycle, the
extent to which the FDs can retain their observed characteristics on transplantation into different chromosomal environments remains an open question. Overall, their organisational properties closely resemble those of the horizontally
acquired genomic pathogenicity islands [91], suggesting
variations on a common theme.

And what is the "common theme"? Evolution.

Note Reference #91:

91. Hacker J, Kaper JB (2000) Pathogenicity islands and the evolution of microbes. Annu Rev Microbiol 54:641–679

Natural evolution is EXACTLY what they're talking about. You're such a phony baloney, pompous ass - I don't expect you to read the paper much less understand it.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: neoholographic

Your questions are stupid, which is why I'm not answering them. They're stupid because the article you're using to support your argument contains some of the answers to that research completed eight years ago. More recent research can answer all your questions. For example;
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm asking if you've read the papers you're using, and I'm making a big deal about asking, but I know that you haven't and if you did, you didn't understand them. Your questions are idiotic because the questioner is an idiot.

Read the papers and understand what you're posting, and especially what you're quoting.

This again shows that you can't respond. You blindly post links and say go fish LOL.

You don't sat, here are the relevant portions from the links that refute what you're saying. TThis is because you can't and this is just more pseudoskeptic obfuscation.

For instance, let me show you why the first paper you posted supports what I'm saying. You lack any understanding and instead of trying to understand you blindly yell "creationist websites" and now are blindly posting links without any context. Do you expect people to read the paper and then become psychic to try and predict why you posted the link? It's absurd to blindly post links then say guess why I posted them. If you had any idea about what the links you posted actually say, you wouldn't have posted them because they support what I'm saying.

Here's more from the paper you posted:

Much of the diversity of prokaryotic genomes is contributed by the tightly controlled recombination activity of transposons (Tns). The Tn3 family is arguably one of the most widespread transposon families. Members carry a large range of passenger genes incorporated into their structures. Family members undergo replicative transposition using a DDE transposase to generate a cointegrate structure which is then resolved by site-specific recombination between specific DNA sequences (res) on each of the two Tn copies in the cointegrate.

First, using semantics created by human intelligence to make what's supposed to be a random and natural process sound intelligent and connected.

Secondly, it talks about SITE-SPECIFIC RECOMBINATION BETWEEN SPECIFIC DNA SEQUENCES!!

This supports exactly what I'm saying! This just explain the designed process not how this evolved naturally! It recombinates between specific sequences because of a code at the ends of each transposon that's recognized by transposase so the transposase will know where to cut. This is why I asked:

Again, how did the regulation of information that's encoded on the sequence of coding regions of DNA evolve naturally? How did this correlation of information occur through a natural interpretation of evolution? Why is it so accurate when it occurs? If the organization of information occurs naturally and randomly why does it get it right every time and the right insertions to make hominids or the right insertions to make the genus canis or any other organism occur when it's needed? Where's the evidence of evolution trying to get it right blindly and naturally?

Of course you didn't answer. You just blindly posted links without any context. There's more:

Toxin-Antitoxin Gene Pairs Found in Tn 3 Family Transposons Appear To Be an Integral Part of the Transposition Module
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

First, they use the semantics of human intelligence to give intelligent meaning to a process you and others claim occurred without intelligence.

These sites also carry promoters controlling expression of the recombinase and transposase.

CARRY PROMOTORS CONTROLLING EXPRESSION!

How did the ability to control the expression evolve? I asked this in the OP and of course you didn't answer. I said:

Again, a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. You're looking at a system that's highly organized through the correlation of information. The paper calls it ORGANISATIONAL COMPLEXITY OF GENETIC REGULATION! How does the regulation of information evolve naturally?

I also said:

What this shows is humans and mice share the same code but this code is regulated differently BY DESIGN! It's like if you take 1,000 websites coded by Python and HTML, you will find similar code in all of the websites and some of them will share more sequences than others. So you can say websites a, b and t are closely related based on the code. But these websites will look different from each other even though they share the same code. This is because an intelligent mind determined how the code was expressed.

Your links are using human semantics to explain a process without any explanation as to how a code naturally evolved that controls expression. There's more, obviously you didn't read your own links. You just blindly posted them.

In addition to the transposition module, Tn3 members often carry additional passenger genes (e.g., conferring antibiotic or heavy metal resistance and virulence), and three were previously known to carry a toxin-antitoxin (TA) system often associated with plasmid maintenance; however, the role of TA systems within the Tn3 family is unknown. The genetic context of TA systems in Tn3 members suggests that they may play a regulatory role in ensuring stable invasion of these Tns during transposition.

It ends by explaining nothing. It uses human semantics to explain the process not how this process could have evolved naturally to play a regulatory role. Saying something played a regulatory role is human semantics. We know why something designed plays a regulatory role because that's what intelligence designed it to do. This regulatory role is in a "genetic context" as the paper YOU POSTED says. Where's the evidence that a regulatory role evolved randomly or naturally?

I suggest that you start reading what you're posting instead of blindly posting links and saying go fish. You're bringing out all of the old pseudoskeptic tactics that don't work anymore.

I suggest you actually read the links you post to save yourself from embarrasment.

a reply to: neoholographic

I am embarrassed Neo, I'm embarrassed for you.

There is no way anyone could read, understand and digest those three articles in 1.5 hours unless you know the subject intimately - which you demonstrably don't. I deliberately chose them because they are free to read in their entirety and they either contain all your answers or they reference material that does.

READ THE PAPERS.

a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

READ THE PAPERS.

First, I showed you why the paper you posted supports what I'm saying.

Secondly, saying READ THE PAPERS is asinine.

Why should I read the papers to make your argument? You don't understand what you're reading. You're just blindly posting links. I saw this old pseudoskeptic tactic once years ago and the person was laughed out of the thread.

When I post articles or papers, I paste the relevant portions that support my argument and then I post in MY OWN WORDS my argument. I don't just say go fish.

You can't paste revelant portions from the links you posted to refute what I'm saying because you have no argument. Who just posts links and says go fish? You said:

I deliberately chose them because they are free to read in their entirety and they either contain all your answers or they reference material that does.



You have to see how nonsensical that statement is. You're saying these links have all the answers to my questions BUT YOU DON"T EXPLAIN HOW!

Are we supposed to read through the papers and guess why you think they answer the questions LOL! You can't make this stuff up. First you blindly yell "creationist websites" and then you blindly post links without any context.

When you debate, you're supposed to say:

You said this.......but this paper refutes what you said when it says..... You then paste the revelant portions from the article that refute what I'm saying. THIS IS JUST BASIC COMMON SENSE!

Imagine being in a debate. One person finishes debating and sits down. The other person stands up, walks to the podium and says:

"Everything you said is refuted in my book. Just read my book."

He then sits down. The audience would think they're insane. How can they read the book and guess why he thinks it refutes what the other person was saying?

I truly couldn't believe what I was reading when I read your post.

We're debating in a thread. Am I supposed to read the links then come back to the thread and try to guess why you posted the links? Again, THAT'S ASININE!

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: TerraLiga

Ill sum up the OPs idea in a few sentences.

We are intelligently designed by God through careful evolution of the DNA we are comprised of. In short we evolved but along a carefully designed plan.

That also allows for fossils and evolution as well as God. God is a Scientist as well as creator.

Replace “God” with “Extraterrestrial Biological Entities” and this has a chance of being spot on.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

READ THE PAPERS.

First, I showed you why the paper you posted supports what I'm saying.

Secondly, saying READ THE PAPERS is asinine.

Why should I read the papers to make your argument? You don't understand what you're reading. You're just blindly posting links. I saw this old pseudoskeptic tactic once years ago and the person was laughed out of the thread.

When I post articles or papers, I paste the relevant portions that support my argument and then I post in MY OWN WORDS my argument. I don't just say go fish.

You can't paste revelant portions from the links you posted to refute what I'm saying because you have no argument. Who just posts links and says go fish? You said:

I deliberately chose them because they are free to read in their entirety and they either contain all your answers or they reference material that does.

You have to see how nonsensical that statement is. You're saying these links have all the answers to my questions BUT YOU DON"T EXPLAIN HOW!

Are we supposed to read through the papers and guess why you think they answer the questions LOL! You can't make this stuff up. First you blindly yell "creationist websites" and then you blindly post links without any context.

When you debate, you're supposed to say:

You said this.......but this paper refutes what you said when it says..... You then paste the revelant portions from the article that refute what I'm saying. THIS IS JUST BASIC COMMON SENSE!

Imagine being in a debate. One person finishes debating and sits down. The other person stands up, walks to the podium and says:

"Everything you said is refuted in my book. Just read my book."

He then sits down. The audience would think they're insane. How can they read the book and guess why he thinks it refutes what the other person was saying?

I truly couldn't believe what I was reading when I read your post.

We're debating in a thread. Am I supposed to read the links then come back to the thread and try to guess why you posted the links? Again, THAT'S ASININE!

I was wondering how people would respond to your argument about semantics. It's a very good argument.