More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, January 24, 2022, 16:04 (794 days ago) @ dhw

Pseudogenes

DAVID: this is a review from non-ID source material. Who named pseudogenes? Darwinists!! Who named junk DNA? Darwinists!! Note current research, not done by IDers, is demolishing false conclusions by Darwin defenders. Almost all DNA is shown to function. Nothing seems accidental from chance mutations. With no evidence of chance, design emerges as required.

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that this has nothing to do with Darwin, who would have had no idea about the importance of DNA, and more importantly, that the case against junk-DNA can in fact be used in support of Darwinism, which tells us that generally things only survive if they are useful.

You really don't understand the import of junk DNA, which was invented by Darwinists to show that chance would produce junk in DNA. The howls from Moran and Graur over ENCODE prove the point. Graur went so far as to say if junk disappears so does Darwin's theory. No, Darwin didn't invent junk, Darwinists did!


Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: That quark-gluon plasma made up all of the matter of the eventual universe and contained enormous heat. From nothing? Not likely. The physicists act as if they really believe the hot Big Bang is real if they run experiments mimicking it. Guth et. al. proved to all at Hawkins' 60th birthday party celebration the BB had no past, so it had a mysterious start. God or ?.

dhw: Please don’t try to revive this nonsense about Guth “proving” that the BB had no past. He didn’t. Nobody can know what preceded the BB, if it happened. You and I have agreed that “before” may have been a sourceless supermind called God, who might have created earlier universes too during his eternal existence, or an eternal mish-mush of mindless materials and energy forming endless combinations. You dismiss the latter possibility.

I sure do dismiss the latter bolded point of yours. So do all the theorists who look for a bouncing universe or other similar eternal theory. And I just read an article the other day by a physicist who stated Guth was fully accepted by his scientific community. I should have produced it here but didn't. Guth simply implies a spontaneous appearance with no past history.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum