Which facts have rendered which hypothesis useless?
The absence of facts. Please pay attention!
Ugh... which facts (or lack thereof) have made which hypothesis useless? Do elaborate on this hypothesis.
It is gratifying that you know this. What you do not seem to realise that if there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. Not proof, perhaps not very strong evidence either, but evidence nonetheless.
Hold on, are you actually proposing that science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds? That is new. How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward? Do elaborate on this wild idea of yours.
And what evidence in nature will yield evidence of other minds (other than human that is) for you? You do believe humans have minds don't you?
lol. I'm not sure you have one! I was not speaking about minds at all. re-read?
Indications of design or directed purposes implies the presence of a mind or minds that intentionally directed something. Like this
:
You say science would have picked it up.
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?
EDIT: it suddenly struck me that I know you and there is something that you hate. "I don't know"
How does this apply? Quite easily. By analogy if you will. We found an object. Is this object designed or not? The default position is "We don't know". To change this position we need evidence either way. Or, and I know this will kill you, it stays "We don't know"!
The onus of evidence resides on your shoulders, you claim design.
So... how about you apply your "I don't know" hypothesis to "junk DNA"?
How does this "I don't know" attitude hold with the hypothesis that:
"More or less neutral genetic junk that has accumulated through evolutionary processes over the history of the genotype because DNA rarely “trims the fat” so to speak."
While no peer-reviewed literature has been provided for this hypothesis, and no clear definition has been given for "neutral genetic junk", do you think this kind of attitude should be applied to genetic regions we do not fully understand yet?
Mmm, where did you get this hypothesis? Who's idea is it? Could you perhaps point to any scientifically peer-reviewed articles stating this hypothesis. I am interested.
No, I’m afraid can’t cite you any papers off the top of my head. Nor should it be necessary to do so because it is plainly implicit in the concept and definition of “
Junk DNA” (or
here and
here and
here).
Still no peer-reviewed literature about that hypothesis of yours? Come on, you can do better than wiki links.
These facts are also NOT indicative of no intentional design or NO directed purpose either. Such claims are outside the scope of science.
I’m puzzled and intrigued. Not by the assertion itself (which is in any case wrong), but by your actually making it to begin with. If you really think that it is so, what on earth possessed you to initiate this topic here in the “
Science and Technology” subforum!?
Yes, it must be wrong because you said so right? But, let's not get too far off topic here.
More functions of "neutral genetic junk"...
'Junk' DNA Has Important Role, Researchers Find
ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009) — Scientists have called it "junk DNA." They have long been perplexed by these extensive strands of genetic material that dominate the genome but seem to lack specific functions. Why would nature force the genome to carry so much excess baggage?
