Designed Virus

Since the Dover decision, ID seems to be a dying breed. Still kicking, but hopefully in it's death throws.

Hi Faith, Well, in the first place, I have substantial issues with the term "junk DNA". Since that discussion would be way off topic for this thread, I'll be brief. In a nutshell, IIRC some 75-80% of the genome represented non-coding sequences. I'll have to dig around to find the actual reference if you want me to. Whether "non-coding" = "non-functional" is another issue, and one that has yet to be resolved. My personal opinion is that functionality of most of what we call "junk DNA" will be determined through more study. Some, of course, represents true junk: left over bits and pieces from broken genes, viral retrotransposons, etc. Some is possibly structural, some appears to have a role in mutation/variation (eg. evolution) and some of what we used to call junk is actually implicated in early embryonic development. It's still a hot issue in genetics.Hope that satisfies your curiosity.

At a time when global warming trends are changing habitats around the world and while human effort is causing massive habitat destruction on an equally global scale, to the point where species extinction rates have risen noticeably?Maybe they just want to get rid of failed experiments (gets back to competence issues)?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

yes, but did he publish?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Sorry about the lack of follow-up. My computer got "virused" - a human designed one in this case - and I had to wipe the HD losing all data, files, email addresses, etc. If you could email me again, I'll send you the info. Again, thanks for the offer - and I stand ready to answer your questions so fire away...

I know there are problems understanding what junk DNA is, I did just want to know how much of this non-coding stuff this bug has, in comparison with the proportion in other genomes that have less of the coding stuff than this highly genetically endowed bug has. So if you do run across the actual number, I'd like to know. Thanks.

I'm not trying to beg the question, but the reality is that nearly every organism varies in the amount of non-coding DNA, etc, they have in their genome. For example, pufferfish and onions, which have just about as many actually coding genes as humans do, are vastly different in the amount of non-coding DNA they have in their genomes. The onion has about ten times as much as humans, pufferfish almost none. Beyond that, we'll need a thread (or two) of our own to go much deeper.

These seem to be very human (or maybe Earth) centric concerns. How do we know they are of concern to the designer? For all we know they could be the whole point of the exercise!

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Well now, this may be the biggest problem in the whole concept of ID, eh? What is the probability that a designer would be interested in this little backwater world on the outer arm of a rather insignificant galaxy?It's certainly not the center of the universe eh? Certainly there is no major "universety" nearby for aspiring designers to have their abilities improved, honed and tested ... refined.Or is this where the rejects go? (which explains the incompetence ...)Adding to the list started in Message 30 we now have:

1. incompetent {supreme of some kind} being(s)
2. {supreme of some kind} being(s) that no longer are involved in the minutae of daily human life (a deist position btw)
3. {supreme of some kind} being(s) that were just never really interested in this backwater corner of existence, or
4. the old faithful fallback - "we can't know" - as the essence of ID "scientific" input

Perhaps it's all some kind of "designer bingo" game - in which case it is more in line with The Silly Design Theory.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*10*2006 08:43 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi RAZD, Isn't it possible that the designer singled out, as you said, "this little backwater world" in order to prove his own existence to the beings he/she/it created? If there was life existing as obviously as it does on Earth in numerous other planets, wouldn't that be very strong evidence for evolution, because it proves that the existence of life is complete random chance, there for it should be able to occur elsewhere besides earth?

How does that work? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just walk up and introduce yourself, and then do a few miracles? No.It would just be harder for the IDests and Creatortionistas to make the silly (and invalid) probability argument. Identical life forms on planets around different stars that had no means of communication would be strong evidence of interference in natural processes (whether alien or supernatural would be the question then eh?)I would think it would be better evidence of a creative universe if life existed on virtually every single little rock in the universe and a lot of really diverse environments (acidic atmosphere anyone?). And if it's built into the way materials come together in the right environment there may be little "random chance" about it ... other than finding the right environment, eh? Look at all the organic molecules in deep space: {Building Blocks of Life} column.It's like the difference between me winning the lottery and someone winning the lottery: one has low probability, the other has high probability.Welcome to the fray,Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't have the foggiest idea - and neither do you or anyone else Perhaps we are part of some sort of weapons development project and our isolated location away from prying tricorders is a big attraction. Then again I could have watched too much Star Trek. Maybe, maybe not. It would seem that if our designers/implementers can get from wherever they hang out to here they are capable of travelling at least inter-stellar distances (if we're going the alien ID route) - in which case 'nearby' may not be a meaningful concept.Maybe I'm not getting my real point across very well.Personally I think that ID as currently espoused has little to no scientific validity and is ultimately just a political and/or religious movement to get around the separation of Church and State in the US.However it seems to me the sort of arguments you are advancing rely on a level of knowledge of the goals of the putative IDer that simply isn't available and as such don't hold too much water.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

I think of it more as looking at the concept of ID (and the assumption of interest in life here) and seeing where the conclusions lead.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Spam deleted.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.