A very BIG and WEIRD twist if you ask me.

I certainly wouldn't want my kids being taught this garbage and my youngest daughter who is very religious, with a bit of a sexual twist (I still love her and respect her ways anyway) agrees, and her opinion is that the people who are supporting the "intelligent design theory" out there are just trolls looking to entice discord and very similar to those in the KKK.

Cheers.

let's call ID what it is. Creationism with a twist

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Only if you believe in the "Intelligent Design" theory.

The fact that something has not been identified as having a function does not prove that it has been designed, or created, or evolved - it ONLY means its FUNCTION has not been identified.

And this would be the same scientific method used in Intelligent Design.

There is no such thing as junk DNA, it all has a purpose--design. A design that looks a lot like computer code. If you was to remove part of the code the computer will not work correctly just as a human would not work correctly. I may or may not know the FUNCTION of some computer code and IF I randomly remove some of it I will later find part if not all of my computer will not work correctly.

We have just applied the scientific method...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Only if you believe in the "Intelligent Design" theory.

The fact that something has not been identified as having a function does not prove that it has been designed, or created, or evolved - it ONLY means its FUNCTION has not been identified.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Sorry, your posts are all newer than the fist use of "junk DNA" as a lazy shorthand so are just as irrelevant as the Independent's article.
(I fist heard the term "junk DNA" about 30 years ago, by a genetics researched I worked with who was answering a question which went along the lines "What do you call the rest of the genome?" answer "Junk DNA, because we haven't worked out what it does yet, but it almost certainly does something".)
So, go back and read PRIME sources, rather than UK mass media, or your usual selective reviews.

Ah, so you finally come to a point. If it's not junk then it's designed. Correct?

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Sorry, your posts are all newer than the fist use of "junk DNA" as a lazy shorthand so are just as irrelevant as the Independent's article.
(I fist heard the term "junk DNA" about 30 years ago, by a genetics researched I worked with who was answering a question which went along the lines "What do you call the rest of the genome?" answer "Junk DNA, because we haven't worked out what it does yet, but it almost certainly does something".)
So, go back and read PRIME sources, rather than UK mass media, or your usual selective reviews.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Not at all. And you have not had time to watch and listen to the above links I posted.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

OK, my point is, you (and, by inference, other protagonists of the Intelligent Design Theory) are attempting to create a story from a bit of (very poor) shorthand.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Intelligent Design

is unscientific, because it is not testable or
falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not
observed and can never be re-created.

...Sci-Am.

Pssst. THAT thread is over <=== here.

Pssst. THAT is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

Pssst. and is over <=== here.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Intelligent Design

is unscientific, because it is not testable or
falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not
observed and can never be re-created.

...Sci-Am.

Pssst. THAT thread is over <=== here.

Please let me know when you come to a point. Yawn...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Yawn...

This has rattled around for some considerable time. "Junk DNA" was so called because nobody had found a use for it, or what its function was. Progressively functionality bits were identified, and so there was less "junk" than there was. The word "junk" was/is a short hand for "We don't know what it does, we don't know if its got a function and we are going to carrying on looking to see if really does something, or is really and truly garbage". The popular press (like The Independent, and many others) picked up on this rather lazy word as it made for a short headline. I doubt that many, if any, in the fields studying the function genomes actually believed much of that DNA which was functionally unassigned believed that it really was "junk", rather was in the huge bucket of "Tuit DNA" (which might have been a better word to have used?).

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

What predictions does "intelligent design theory" make, that can be tested?
If the designer is no longer actively meddling in this Universe does that mean that she's dead?

One of their predictions is "there will be no junk DNA" (and, perhaps, no vestigial organs/appendages?).

If we remove a vestigial tail, does a human no longer function?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-debunk-junk-dna-theory-to-reveal-vast-majority-of-human-genes-perform-a-vital-function-8106777.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/why_we_call_the063041.html

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

What predictions does "intelligent design theory" make, that can be tested?
If the designer is no longer actively meddling in this Universe does that mean that she's dead?

One of their predictions is "there will be no junk DNA" (and, perhaps, no vestigial organs/appendages?).

If we remove a vestigial tail, does a human no longer function?

Here...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Return to topic....

Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

The answer is yes, the theory sure would be using the scientific method.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It is poor netiquette to have 3 separate threads on the same topic all coming from the same poster.

But that is standard behaviour at Seti on Friday nights :-)

Here's a scientific fact for you. The world does not work Monday to Fridays. You really need to do two things. Go to bed earlier so that your brain can wake up properly refreshed.

If it doesn't just hit that reset switch.

---

It is poor netiquette to have 3 separate threads on the same topic all coming from the same poster.

But that is standard behaviour at Seti on Friday nights :-)

Have you ever googled the topics that you post and have you read the links that have nothing to do with any part of the Discovery Institute's many offshoots?

If you ever have then you'll see that your theology theories are all either shot down and I've yet to find any other Scientific Organization backing that intelligent design is in any form related to science of any type.

Here's another good quote,

Intelligent design and scientific method
Posted on January 7, 2008 | 15 Comments

The intelligent design movement (ID) is not a school of scientific research – more a political, social and religious movement. IDs initiator and main theological guru, Phillip Johnson, admitted this in 1996 when he said: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science . . . It’s about religion and philosophy.”

Cheers.

So, as we see in my previous post, first bullet point: circular reasoning is NOT science.