The More We Learn, the Less Room There is for Evolution

[Weatherman2020]

For the past few decades most of the DNA was considered filler, and evolutionists claimed it was how DNA had the ability to become more diverse.

But now we know that everything within DNA has a purpose.

In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”

Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

 

[Weatherman2020]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

 

[hadit]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

Interestingly enough, the Bible and evolution agree on some very important points.

1. Light existed before stars.
2. Life began in the oceans.
3. Plants began before animals.
4. Man was far from the first life form on earth.

 

[miketx]

I know people who are still apes.

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

They should have included the periodic element table in the New Testament..

 

[miketx]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

They should have included the periodic element table in the New Testament..

The only element they had back then was gold. Everything else was either fire, water, earth or air.

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

They should have included the periodic element table in the New Testament..

The only element they had back then was gold. Everything else was either fire, water, earth or air.

That is no excuse for the most powerful entity in our known universe..

 

[Weatherman2020]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

They should have included the periodic element table in the New Testament..

Would that have helped your Salvation?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I know people who are still apes.

The polite term is Democrats.

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

They should have included the periodic element table in the New Testament..

Would that have helped your Salvation?

I would have done more than just look at the pictures as it was done.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

We will file that with Junk DNA of the OP. It does not exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

We will file that with Junk DNA of the OP. It does not exist.

We will file it the factual science studies. The far right evangelical take on Bible and evolution is hokeum. Always has been.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

We will file that with Junk DNA of the OP. It does not exist.

We will file it the factual science studies. The far right evangelical take on Bible and evolution is hokeum. Always has been.

You can't address the OP so you go on a hate filled rant. So typical.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

We will file that with Junk DNA of the OP. It does not exist.

We will file it the factual science studies. The far right evangelical take on Bible and evolution is hokeum. Always has been.

You can't address the OP so you go on a hate filled rant. So typical.

Science and Bible dovetail. Far right evangelicalism bases its hate on others who disagree with its principles of hatred and exclusion.

Yep, you can't refute the fact that evolutionists lost a huge chunk of their argument when we learned that junk DNA does not exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Science and Bible dovetail. Far right evangelicalism bases its hate on others who disagree with its principles of hatred and exclusion.

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder if it's interesting stuff, or dull stuff?
The theory of evolution had it's time, but that was long ago..Today's kids know of it's fallacies..

The more we learn the more science moves towards the Biblical accounts.

You mean the more that people who believe in fairy tales learn about science the more you deny science.

 

[Syriusly]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

We will file that with Junk DNA of the OP. It does not exist.

We will file it the factual science studies. The far right evangelical take on Bible and evolution is hokeum. Always has been.

You can't address the OP so you go on a hate filled rant. So typical.

Science and Bible dovetail. Far right evangelicalism bases its hate on others who disagree with its principles of hatred and exclusion.

Yep, you can't refute the fact that evolutionists lost a huge chunk of their argument when we learned that junk DNA does not exist.

Since that was never a part of the evolution argument- there really isn't anything to lose, other than to watch you fairytalists flail around and deny science.

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are.


While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.


Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.


No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.


The strong similarities between humans and the African great apes led Charles Darwin in 1871 to predict that Africa was the likely place where the human lineage branched off from other animals – that is, the place where the common ancestor of chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas once lived. The DNA evidence shows an amazing confirmation of this daring prediction. The African great apes, including humans, have a closer kinship bond with one another than the African apes have with orangutans or other primates. Hardly ever has a scientific prediction so bold, so ‘out there’ for its time, been upheld as the one made in 1871 – that human evolution began in Africa.


The DNA evidence informs this conclusion, and the fossils do, too. Even though Europe and Asia were scoured for early human fossils long before Africa was even thought of, ongoing fossil discoveries confirm that the first 4 million years or so of human evolutionary history took place exclusively on the African continent. It is there that the search continues for fossils at or near the branching point of the chimpanzee and human lineages from our last common ancestor.

 

[Syriusly]

I fixed it: the more we learn, the more we support evolution. The Bible supports evolution.

Interestingly enough, the Bible and evolution agree on some very important points.

1. Light existed before stars.
2. Life began in the oceans.
3. Plants began before animals.
4. Man was far from the first life form on earth.

Of course it disagrees on some very important points.

1) LIght on earth existing before the Sun
2) Plants came into being the same day as the oceans.
3) That plants existed before the Sun.

I do not understand why people of faith feel a need for science to validate your faith.