26Jun 2025 by Post

Critics Change the Topic: Do Human-Human Genetic Differences Matter? 

1 percent myth, Amazon, chimps, Chimps and Critics (series), CHM13, common ancestry, DNA, Evolution, Financial Times, function, genetic difference, genetics, genomes, Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics, Han Chinese, human exceptionalism, Human Origins and Anthropology, human-human genetic differences, humans, Jared Diamond, Joel Duff, Junk DNA, Nature Communications, non-alignable DNA, Nucleic Acids Research, nucleotides, objections, reactions, repetitive DNA, Science (journal), Smithsonian Institution, University of Chicago Press, Zachary Ardern
One of the common yet unexpected reactions from critics to the discovery that humans and chimps are 15 percent genetically different is to change the topic. Source
Read More
28Mar 2025 by Post

Nobelist Thomas Cech on “Junk RNA” 

biochemists, biology, Darwinism, DNA, Evolution, genetics, heuristic, Intelligent Design, Junk DNA, junk RNA, lncRNAs, long noncoding RNAs, mRNA, neo-Darwinian paradigm, Nobel Prize, predictions, proteins, RNA, scientific progress, The Catalyst, Thomas Cech, W. W. Norton
We can add this prominent biochemist to the ever-growing list of scientists who reject the “junk DNA” paradigm. Or, more pertinently, the junk RNA paradigm. Source
Read More
02Mar 2025 by Post

Casey Luskin: Intelligent Design, Islamic Edition

biology, Casey Luskin, Center for Science and Culture, Dan Stern Cardinale, Evolution, Faith & Science, feathered crocodile, geologists, Intelligent Design, interviews, Islam, Junk DNA, life, Muslims, purposeful agency, Rutgers University, stereotypes, Subboor Ahmad, Wesam Almahd, YouTube channels, YouTube videos
Much of the focus is on the “junk DNA” argument against ID, but stay tuned for the amusing case of Dr. Dan Stern Cardinale and the feathered crocodile. Source
Read More
16Jan 2025 by Post

New “Long Story Short” Video Addresses Challenges from Junk DNA Defenders

anger, David Klinghoffer, ENCODE, ENCODE scientists, Endogenous retroviruses, ERVs, Evolution, Francis Collins, Human Genome Project, Intelligent Design, Internet, Jonathan McLatchie, Jonathan Wells, Junk DNA, Long Story Short, pseudogenes, Richard Dawkins, Rob Sheldon, rudeness, science stopper, The Greatest Show on Earth, “selfish gene”
Of course, die-hard evolution defenders were not going to take these major shifts in thinking about “junk DNA” sitting down. Source
Read More
01Jan 2025 by Post

Happy New Year! No. 1 Story of 2024: Nobel Prize for Function of “Junk DNA”

Autonomous University of Madrid, Bill Dembski, C. elegans, Current Science, David Coppedge, Evolution, Gary Ruvkun, gene regulation, Intelligent Design, Jonathan Wells, Junk DNA, Karolinska Institutet, microRNA, miRNA, National Cancer Institute, Nicholas Robine, Nobel Committee, Nobel Prize, Richard Sternberg, Robert Sarnovsky, roundworm, Subhash Lakhotia, The Conversation, The Myth of Junk DNA, Victor Ambros
That so-called genetic junk would turn out to be functional was a prediction of intelligent design going back to the 1990s. Source
Read More
31Dec 2024 by Post

No. 2 Story of 2024: Darwinists Devolve

Ann Gauger, atheists, Brian Miller, Brown University, Casey Luskin, Charles Darwin, citation bluffing, Darwin Day, Darwin's Black Box, Darwinian materialism, Darwinian theory, Darwinism, Dave Farina, Debating Design, Douglas Axe, Emily Reeves, Ernst Mayr, Evolution, Finding Darwin’s God, Francis Collins, Guillermo Gonzalez, Icons of Evolution, Intelligent Design, Jerry Coyne, Jonathan McLatchie, Junk DNA, Kenneth Miller, Marcos Eberlin, Michael Behe, Nature’s Destiny, No Free Lunch, Oxford University, Oxford University Press, P.Z. Myers, Professor Dave, proteins, Richard Dawkins, Robert Laughlin, Signature in the Cell, Stanford University, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Meyer, The Design Inference, The Edge of Evolution, The Privileged Planet, Thomas Nagel, University of Chicago, University of Minnesota, What Darwin Didn’t Know
One sign of a robust scientific theory is the quality of its most prominent proponents. But serious advocates of Darwinism have become an endangered species. Source
Read More