It is your hypothesis. Why should I elaborate on it?
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something.
Some indications of design or directed purposes then please?
Like this :P
How very apt seeing what you sprout ;D
You say science would have picked it up.
Yes. Science measure things that can be... measured.
I will ask you again how you would propose science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human)? How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward?
Can we first clarify what you mean with minds other than human minds? When birds build a nest, is that design by mind? When aliens build UFO's, is that design by mind? When Gods create universe by speaking words, is that design?
The onus remains on you you give an example of your hypothesis. Don’t shift the burden of proof yo!
So... how about you apply your "I don't know" hypothesis to "junk DNA"?
Oh do elaborate if you can… What is this hypothesis? That intentions are real and we are not delusional? That intentionality, chance and necessity are three ways of describing modes of being? That reason, logic and science depends on intentional agents and not delusional, self-refuting zombies? Do elaborate here if you want.
What would you take as an indication? An indication that you are the author of your intentions? I am curious how science will be able to provide you with these “indications”, whatever you believe them to be.
So science can measure design and detect minds? Do elaborate on this wonderful concept of yours.
Minds other than humans? How about any entity that can create something… change matter from one form to another reflecting the intentions of the author.
Well, these would reflect the intentions of the authors don’t you think.
Birds building/making nests in order to house eggs perhaps?
Aliens building UFOs to… I don’t know fly perhaps? If aliens exist that is…
How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind? Say an alien discovered this human-made artifact on planet X but has no knowledge of the human race, how would you conclude this object is the product of an author{s} with intentions.
How about the fact that you have intentions and you can think about and towards things? You do believe you are thinking not?
Not so easy there. You made a few interesting assertions. Now support them if you can. Here they are again for ALL to see.
You say:
If there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up.
I say:
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something. You say science would have picked it up.
I ask you again:
How you would propose science to scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human) when indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something?
How do you think science can do that?
Which methods would you put forward?
What would you take as an indication?
Can science measure design?
How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind?
You say science would have picked up indications of design or directed purposes… your turn to back up that assertion!
I asked the question whether science would proceed better and if it is better to assume function and design and then try and figure out what it is and how it works than to assume junk that accumulated for no reason.
Also, is the null hypothesis as stated (without reference to any peer-reviewed literaure, still waiting) still valid according to you? Why?
It would. It will. It didn’t and it doesn’t. Evolution adequately explains how we get here without a designer. QED.
You are asking me to explain something to you that doesn’t exist. :o Not about to do it mate. If you want to accept that as an assertion not backed up, I’ll not try to convince you otherwise. I accept that the scientific method works and I think that it would, if it existed, be able to identify design. It does an adequate job in birds’ nests and beavers’ dams and ants’ heaps for instance.
If we speak about specifics, I’ll easily answer “I don’t know” which is not a nod to design. I can’t help that you don’t accept “I don’t know”. The fault, I submit, lies entirely with you.
I asked the question whether science would proceed better and if it is better to assume function and design and then try and figure out what it is and how it works than to assume junk that accumulated for no reason.
This has been explained to you. Above. Not very far up. None as deaf as they who will not hear or blind as they who will not see.
You made a few interesting assertions. Now support them if you can. Here they are again for ALL to see.
You say:
If there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up.
I say:
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something. You say science would have picked it up.
I ask you again:
How you would propose science to scientifically prove the presence of other minds (other than human) when indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something?
How do you think science can do that?
Which methods would you put forward?
What would you take as an indication?
Can science measure design?
How would science detect the workings a mind without empirical proof of the existence of that mind?
ScienceDaily (June 6, 2009) — What was once thought of as DNA with zero value in plants--dubbed "junk" DNA--may turn out to be key in helping scientists improve the control of gene expression in transgenic crops.
That's according to Agricultural Research Service (ARS) plant pathologist Bret Cooper at the agency's Soybean Genomics and Improvement Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and collaborators at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md.
For more than 30 years, scientists have been perplexed by the workings of intergenic DNA, which is located between genes. Scientists have since found that, among other functions, some intergenic DNA plays a physical role in protecting and linking chromosomes. But after subtracting intergenic DNA, there was still leftover or “junk” DNA which seemed to have no purpose.
Cooper and collaborators investigated “junk” DNA in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, using a computer program to find short segments of DNA that appeared as molecular patterns. When comparing these patterns to genes, Cooper’s team found that 50 percent of the genes had the exact same sequences as the molecular patterns. This discovery showed a sequence pattern link between “junk” and coding DNA. These linked patterns are called pyknons, which Cooper and his team believe might be evidence of something important that drives genome expansion in plants.
The researchers found that pyknons are also the same in sequence and size as small segments of RNA that regulate gene expression through a method known as gene silencing. This evidence suggests that these RNA segments are converted back into DNA and are integrated into the intergenic space. Over time, these sequences repeatedly accumulate. Prior to this discovery, pyknons were only known to exist in the human genome. [b]Thus, this discovery in plants illustrates that the link between coding DNA and junk DNA crosses higher orders of biology and suggests a universal genetic mechanism at play that is not yet fully understood.
The data suggest that scientists might be able to use this information to determine which genes are regulated by gene silencing, and that there may be some application for the improvement of transgenic plants by using the pyknon information.[/b]
[B]Although repetitive elements pervade mammalian genomes, their overall contribution to transcriptional activity is poorly defined. Here, as part of the FANTOM4 project, we report that 6-30% of cap-selected mouse and human RNA transcripts initiate within repetitive elements.[/B] Analysis of approximately 250,000 retrotransposon-derived transcription start sites shows that the associated transcripts are generally tissue specific, coincide with gene-dense regions and form pronounced clusters when aligned to full-length retrotransposon sequences. Retrotransposons located immediately 5' of protein-coding loci frequently function as alternative promoters and/or express noncoding RNAs. More than a quarter of RefSeqs possess a retrotransposon in their 3' UTR, with strong evidence for the reduced expression of these transcripts relative to retrotransposon-free transcripts. Finally, a genome-wide screen identifies 23,000 candidate regulatory regions derived from retrotransposons, in addition to more than 2,000 examples of bidirectional transcription. [B]We conclude that retrotransposon transcription has a key influence upon the transcriptional output of the mammalian genome.[/B]
[QUOTE]ScienceDaily (May 30, 2009) — Researchers at K.U. Leuven and Harvard University show that stretches of DNA previously believed to be useless ‘junk’ DNA play a vital role in the evolution of our genome. They found that unstable pieces of junk DNA help tuning gene activity and enable organisms to quickly adapt to changes in their environments. The results will be published in the journal Science.
[/quote]
You know what really sucks for you TeleMechanoPhroneBone? Even if a function is found for EVERY little bit of human DNA, you still won’t be able to demonstrate that Bebeh Jebus is behind it all! LOL!
;D ;D
