Piltdown Superman

“I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em” — Foghorn Leghorn Listen up, folks, we need to have a talk. Ready? Proponents of fish-to-fool evolution have several things they throw at us as proof of evolution, hoping we'll believe them. Unfortunately, they are poor, and people believe these bits of "evidence" anyway. Why? Because they want to. One of these is the concept that DNA has "junk" in it. Assembled from components at Clker clipart Evolutionists thought they had a home run with that one! Some of the human genome was sampled, and looked for one function in DNA. With astonishing arrogance, scientists decided that if they could not understand the parts of the genome that they tested for protein coding, the rest must be "junk". Not hardly! They "saw" what they wanted to see based on a junk theory that gives junk predictions, including "junk" DNA. (Of course, Darwin's Drones that rely on biase

Naturalistic presuppositions and scientific laziness — we must call them what they are — have been major factors in ugsome research. These contributed to cheating, such as the Miller-Urey experiment  and the fake human-chimpanzee similarities . Such practices and dubious ethics have hindered medical science for decades . A good deal of the problem is arrogance on the part of scientists who let their assumptions hinder medical science. This happened with "vestigial" organs , and is part of the reason for the harmful assumption of "junk" DNA. Mostly made at Yukki tombstone maker Like with "vestigial" organs/structures, large sections of DNA were considered useless leftovers of our evolutionary. These presumptions were past based on ignorance  as well as hubris. Scientists didn't understand them, so they made pronouncements about DNA: It wasn't worth investigating. Fortunately, some scientists still believe in doing science despite the narrative of th

A few days ago, Jacqueline Hyde, the lady friend of Rusty Swingset from the Darwin Ranch, wanted to meet up with me over at Gravel Gulch. Although an evolutionist, she has some doubts. She also was not happy about recent dishonesty regarding so-called junk DNA. If interested, you can find the original 1895 photo at  Wikimedia Commons , Papa Darwin's image is found all over the web, and the source of the DNA image is at openclipart Evolution is essential for making an evolutionary worldview appear rational. Its adherents despise anything that even hints at design, since they are committed to time, luck, time, chance, time, mutations, and especially time. They make up ridiculous dysteleology arguments that our Creator is a bad designer, therefore he must not exist. However, their specious arguments have been clearly refuted in creation science, the Intelligent Design organizations, and the secular science industry. Pre-refuted for your convenience. Who do they think they are, Bill Ny

Joe Nexnelsrent dropped by the Darwin Ranch (out Folly Road near Deception Pass) for a symposium on "junk" DNA. It did not go well. Some of these owlhoots still cling to the notion that the human genome has vestiges from our evolutionary past, even though that nonsense has been debunked. Parasites (the Greek root word essentially means "eating at the table of another") are a poor comparison. Non-coding DNA can resemble parasitic behavior in the way it spreads, but it does not drain a host. The science and logic involved should bemarrass serious scientists. DNA background image: RGBStock /  Tomislav Alajbeg People in the secular science industry need  to find ways to protect their evolution narrative, so they make proclamations when they really don't understand enough about the subjects under consideration. This is based on a naturalistic mindset, viewing things through Darwin spectacles, then confirming their biases. Arguing from insufficient evidence occurs fr

Last month, we examined the "junk" DNA concept in Part 1 , and we're fortunate to have the second exciting episode. Darwinists claimed that the little bit of DNA they studied has a great deal of "junk" leftover from our assumed evolutionary past, and creationists claimed that there is no junk, what is there exists for a purpose.  Assembled and modified from components at Clker clipart Darwin's disciples have a high level of unscientific hauteur, dismissing what they do not understand. The uninformed proselytizers of evolutionism will continue to ignore scientific facts and browbeat those who disagree with them — especially those who know more about science and reason than they do. What's that cacophony in the science lecture hall? Big fight going on. To declare that DNA does have a purpose is anathema to many fundamentalist evolutionists. If you take out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll see that having a purpose (and not

It is bad enough when minerals-to-microbiologist proponents use faulty arguments to put the spurs to their beliefs, but it is far worse when they hinder science. Especially medical science. We have seen the harmful results of this with so-called vestigial structures , and evolutionary reasoning has given us "junk" DNA. This embarrassing concept is based on ignorance as well as presupposing evolution. Basically, "We can't find a use for what we see, so it must be useless leftovers from evolution". Creationists have said all along that the Master Engineer puts things in their places for definite purposes, and subsequent findings for non-coding DNA have shown it to be essential. Yippie ky yay, secularists! However, medical science has been held back by such evolutionary foolishness. The term ‘junk DNA’ became popular in the 1960s. It was used to support neo-Darwinism, since it is widely known that recessive mutations accumulate relentlessly in sexually repr

morgueFile/JulesInKY So let me get this straight: A certain section of DNA was studied, some of it was understood, and then whatever else that was not analyzed or not understood was classified as "junk". Got it. Pretty arrogant, innit? We have seen that so-called "junk DNA" has clawed its way out of its premature grave and is humiliating evolutionary scientists who are finding out that the "junk" is useful after all . As proponents of Intelligent Design as well as biblical creationists have said all along, there is a purpose for it. Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.” A large-scale international research effort,

Proponents of microbes-to-monkey evolution have been embarrassed by the concept of "junk" DNA. Bad science led to the classification of a sample of DNA that scientists didn't understand, so they classified it as useless leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past. When serious research was conducted, it turned out that there is no such thing as "junk" DNA, the stuff is actually important . Also, circular RNA has lost its "junk" status . Of course, some fundamentalist evolutionists can't handle the truth, and persist in clinging to their irrational faith in the junk concept . Image assembled from components at Clker clipart According to evolutionary speculations, life is the product of time, chance, natural selection, and beneficial mutations — a whole wagon load of mutations. (Of course, "beneficial" mutations are debatable because a benefit here  often causes a detriment there. ) And "adding information"? Only if you

Up yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been caught several times doing sloppy science and lying for the Bearded Buddha about DNA. Their viperine tactics fooled many, especially those who are willingly deceived. Remember the now-debunked claim that the chimpanzee genome is 98 percent similar to humans ? It which was stitched together and contaminated. This refuted statement is still being proclaimed. Our main topic today is the duncical declaration that humans are saturated with "junk" DNA. Illustration by Sidney Paget , 1904, modified (find the DNA) Using science and reasoning that thinking scientists should find opprobrious, researchers decided that parts of the human genome did not code for proteins and such. Therefore, DNA parts were useless leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past. This was based on their preconceptions, not exhaustive research. Like vestigial organs, "junk" DNA concepts have been quirted into submission for the mo

You would think that evolutionists would learn from their mistakes regarding "vestigial organs" (claiming that if they could not see a use for them, well, they must be leftovers from our evolutionary past), then finding out that things considered "useless" and "leftover" are not so useless after all. Similarly, Intelligent Design proponents and creationists have been saying for years that the claim that "junk DNA" exists is absurd. Can you imagine the scientific and medical advances that would have been possible if people had a proper view of DNA instead of assuming that evolutionism is true? Both the "vestigial organs" and the "junk DNA" beliefs are base based on arrogance and assumptions. First, that scientists know enough about the extreme complexity of life to be able to declare something "useless". Second, they are interpreting the data through their fundamentally flawed evolutionary worldviews. When

When scientists first sequenced the human genome, they were working from their evolutionary presuppositions and using inferior equipment. They also made mistakes, and there is a problem with inaccurate results from contamination. Their "junk DNA" assumptions have been debunked. Credit: CSIRO/ Garry Brown  ( CC by 3.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Since scientists could not find a use for some parts of the genome, they called it "junk", leftover from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said all along that the stuff is not junk, and eventually were proved right because many functions have been discovered. Sad for Darwinists, because they need  the so-called junk to support their ideas. The usefulness of introns  has also been doubted. How about going to something simpler for testing? Yeast is good for this. The genome only has 295 introns, after all, so yeast is easier to study. Research showed that introns are also valuable. B

Do evolutionary scientists have ego problems? I've encountered a few that were not above abuse (and even libel) when called out on their faulty reasoning or shown where scientific evidence does not support the falsehoods that they are gleefully teaching. Wouldn't you reckon that, since they've made so many pronouncements that have been shown to be false, they'd learn a bit of humility? Especially when they declare things in the human genome to be "junk" DNA , and are proven wrong. Again. Image assembled from components at  Clker  clipart DNA is comprised of four bases that are abbreviated A, C, G, and T. When Darwinists examined DNA, they did not understand much of their limited samples, so they declared it to be "junk". Sure, makes perfect sense to examine a little and write it off, right? Not hardly! I reckon that a scientist that did halfhearted work and made assertions would be run out of Dodge for lousy work, especially when "junk&q

Evolutionary scientists used their presuppositions, studied some DNA, ignored the rest, and then said that the parts they did not understand were arrogantly declared "junk" left over from our alleged evolutionary past. Things became interesting when DNA was properly studied, and the "junk" DNA turned out to have vital functions. With sloppy science, preconceptions and so forth, evolutionists declared that the human genome was 98% similar to the chimp genome. Creationist researcher Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has delved more deeply into the human-chimp genetics argument and found that the former "junk" gives further evidence against our alleged relationship to chimpanzees. It was once thought that the areas between protein-coding genes located around the genome were vast purposeless wastelands of alleged “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are literally teeming with functional activity that is key to life. Not only

It seems that scientists would learn from their mistakes, especially after being humiliated for decades over the insipience of referring to some parts of DNA as "junk". New research demonstrates even more how sufficient research is needed before waving off things that are not understood. Image assembled from components at  Clker  clipart Not only did the assumption of evolution hinder research, but they married that idea up with the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Essentially, "We don't know what this part of the genome does, it doesn't code for proteins, so it must be junk from our evolutionary past. Because evolution." An important thing for them to learn is that the Master Engineer puts things in place for specific purposes. Recent research from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST) continues to highlight how evolutionary theory influenced scientists to foolishly conclude that DNA in organisms not used to co

Secular scientists declared sections of DNA to be "junk" — leftovers from our so-called evolution. Actually, it was from evolutionary assumptions and bad science that caused this . They did not see what they were looking for, so they did not bother to investigate further and wrote it off. Creationists rejected the "junk DNA" designation. After further investigation, creationists were proved right, it's not  junk .  Further genome studies add to the problem for evolutionists. More functions are found that are very complex and essential for life. Although evolutionists want to live in their fantasy world and pretend that there is no Creator, their own studies clearly show that the opposite is true. It would be in their best interests to find out what our Creator has to say. It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously m

As we have pointed out before, pompous Darwinists studied some of the human genome, did not understand certain aspects, and labeled them as "junk" DNA — especially if they did not code for proteins. This reaction became zombified, reappearing time and again to make strong men faint and women scream. And this is in the science lab. Okay, so I exaggerate a mite, but with additional research comes additional embarrassment for arrogant evolutionary scientists who spoke from evolutionary assumptions and without knowledge. The transcription of information into RNA is pervasive. There are different sections with different functions, including long non-coding RNA, lncRNA. There's a heap of the stuff, and it has very precise functions that are being analyzed. No, scientists do not understand the genome yet, but progress has been made. The genome testifies of the ingenuity of our Creator, and frustrates evolutionary speculations. In addition, some scientists in biomedical gen

Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) started the science of genetics, researchers have been lassoing a lot of fascinating information. Especially in recent years. Advances in science and technology, research in creation science, and other factors have contributed to amazing information regarding DNA. Proponents of universal common descent have been embarrassed by their previous weak research in the human genome and their labeling of things they do not understand as "junk" DNA. Now we learn that some of that so-called junk is a part of a kind of EMS — emergency medical service. Credit: RGBStock / Robert Linder Seems that there are some good Samaritans in each cell that deal with the extreme amount of damage incurred by DNA. "You don't look so good, old son. Let me get you to a place that will fix you up." This is going on in each cell, and we have trillions of cells. And evolutionists called it junk, but they should be realizing that the Master Engineer puts t

Adherents of Big Bang-to-banker evolution, whether cosmic or biological, often resort to hidden causes. Since the Big Bang does not work, cosmologists bring in fudge factors and occult cosmology like dark matter, dark energy, and more to make their speculations seem plausible. Other riders for the materialist brand are using related terms to prop up Darwinism. Background image furnished by Why?Outreach In biology, these "dark" things are not just made up to make evolution look good. Instead, secularists are speculating about things they do not understand. "Junk" DNA , for example, was something that scientists did not understand, so they arrogantly declared significant parts of DNA to be leftover junk from our alleged evolutionary past. It's a natural fact that their hubris is vexatious. Now they are appealing to other "dark" things in biology, including DNA: dark DNA is the driving force of evolution. Of course, these owlhoots are presenting

We need some background information before continuing in today's post. Evolutionary scientists selected an area of DNA to study. The areas that they could not find a use for were labeled "junk DNA", and assumed to be leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said, essentially, "Not so fast", and were proven right, it is not junk . But Darwin's Cheerleaders are determined to promote their faith, even though science shows it to be false. FreeDigitalPhotos / sheelamohan When microRNA was found, it was attributed to evolution. Then circular RNAs were added, and evolution was again given credit . The more it is studied, the more DNA shows the speculations of evolution to be increasingly risible. A completely new category of circular RNAs has been discovered, adding another layer of amazing complexity to human genetics. These circular RNAs are formed from the intron regions inside a gene that were once thought to be nothing but ju

In discussions about subjects that have more than one definition, it is important to define your terms so you're not explaining one thing and the other party has a different understanding. Changing definitions is a form of special pleading, often called " moving the goalposts ". DNA was somewhat investigated, but since evolutionists didn't understand it, they called large portions of it "junk" —  leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past, and then plopped it on the well-worn trail of scientific incompetence. When DNA was given more thorough investigation, more and more of it was found to be very important . On a side note, this is similar to so-called "vestigial organs" — they didn't know the purpose of some organs, so they declared them useless leftovers from evolution. Many were removed, and did harm to people because yes, they do have functions after all. After that scientific self-humiliation, the word "vestigial" was