http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/

DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed, and that is understating the case. It has a language, grammatical syntax, error correction, vocabulary and meaning. If you read the article you will see that scientists were stunned to find a hidden code operating within the code. Even a superficial understanding of DNA is enough to see that it is not by any means "primitive" but actually it is advanced beyond our capability to understand it.

That isn't the argument though, that DNA is sophisticated, which it is. The argument is that the information in DNA is proof of design. What that design is intended to do is another question. You may look at certain features and say, here is a terrible design, simply because you don't understand the intentions of the designer. Only a super-intellect could have designed DNA, and I don't think that is going out on a limb by any means.

There is no theory which can explain how natural selection gets you from non-life to life, to a cell with genetic information. Natural selection is therefore not adequate to explain the information in DNA. What we have observed is that information only comes from minds; therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer.

hahaaaa, NO!
If DNA was made by a "Designer", then he was the worst designer ever.
DNA can be so broken and flawed, carry latent patterns, defective genes and so on. DNA may seem complicated to those who don't study and know it (Me). But it's being studied and we are gaining a huge understanding of DNA. What it's capable of, and what it's not, and where all the flaws and broken parts are.

Sorry Shinyblurry, if your God was the designer, then that would be conclusive proof that your God is far from perfect and in fact not very good at his job of creation..

The information in DNA is conclusive proof of a designer, and a design means that nothing in the Universe is random. It means this Universe is on purpose for a purpose

FAKE! That's not a cat.


Sure, you could probably "prove" it with a "DNA TEST", but I'm going by what he and the other dogs are saying.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'split, dna, genetics, half black, half white, half boy, half girl' to 'split, dna, genetics, half black, half white, half boy, half girl, chimera' - edited by Grimm

So in Nugents mind, you don't need to be polite unless all people has guns? "Armed society is polite society" not to mention "scared out of their mind society". The more i hear gun nuts defending their right, it sounds more and more "cause i want to" rather than "we need to". I live in a country that was the last hunter gatherers in europe, we got longer hunting tradition than USA has been a country. There's strict gun control, every gun is registered and no one can sell them to a person who hasn't been licensed. That means basic training, belonging to a hunting club, clean(ish) record, meaning no violent crimes. And no on has complained about it.. Why? cause it simply works. Guns are where they should be, in sporting and hunting. The last priority is home protection. Getting an illegal, proper working gun is expensive as hell. Sawed off shotgun can go for a thousand, not 50 bucks. The result? Very few crimes are committed with a gun, very very few resulting in actual gunfire. It bloody well works.

How are violent crimes committed and what is used against home invasion? Bats, axes and knifes. At least the struggle become fairer and you seriously have to mean it when you can't kill someone 10m away. You have to be hands on, in their getting bloody, mixing your DNA all over the place.. See where i'm going with this? With a gun, you can kill someone in safety and have less chances of getting caught. Every act of violent crime leaves two sets of evidence, victim and perpetrator can be both identified later. With a gun you got a victim and a bullet from unknown, unregistered gun that is disposed soon after since it's freaking easy and cheap to just buy a new one..

The whole idea of not supporting background check and leaving guns in the wild is just moronic and has nothing to do with government knowing who has guns and abusing that power. It has all to do with "cause i want to have one".

So, the judge can't declare a mistrial if s/he suspects jury nullification? Like in the extreme case presented where jurors ignore DNA and video evidence and just decide to vote not guilty anyway? That's a little scary, especially considering the double-jeopardy rule.

I imagine if you were on a jury, convincing all the other members to nullify would be extremely difficult. It seems much more likely to result in a hung jury except in the most extreme cases (like the slavery and lynching examples provided in the video).

Also, in California at least, jury nullification has itself been "nullified"--judges can remove from the jury any member that indicates they will not give a verdict that corresponds to the facts of law involved in the case.

See: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-court-rules-against-jury-nullification

If the flying spaghetti monster isn't real then why does DNA look like fusilli?

Atheism - 0 FSM - 1

Take that empiricism!

The methylation turns off genes, so it alters the development of the embryo without altering the actual DNA.

I'm not arguing against Darwin, he was a careful and methodical researcher who did good work. It could easily have been called Wallaceism though, had things gone even slightly differently A lot of things which are now called darwinism should probably be more properly called "Spencerism" since they derive from Spencer's "survival of the fittest" and not Darwin (or, perhaps, from Alfred, Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. - Nature, red in tooth and claw).

Lamarckian inheritance has been a dirty word for a long time, but recently studies of DNA methylation and its role in epigenetic inheritance have, at least to some small degree, redeemed him

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

I did not think I was writing anything controversial. What part don't you know about? Our year is definitely shaped by the sun and stars just look at our calendar. Something that happens does spread human to human over time so what you see in one place at one time might influence another place later. Every store looks at sales patterns from the previous year, month, week to try to predict how best to handle traffic and buying patterns. They certainly see patterns through history. Exactly what day you have sex to have a baby is certainly not random so then you have patterns of new DNA. I really don't think I wrote anything that isn't common knowledge or stands up to simple reasoning. What statement exactly would you like evidence for?

My problem is that I think you miss the real flaw when tying fundamentalist attitudes to organized religion. Particularly when you point out that following ideology X(say, atheism) renders one uniquely immune to said fundamentalism.

Zealotry and fundamentalism appear to be in our DNA. Declaring that ANY ideology, system or plan renders a group immune to that zealotry has historically been exactly how each new form of zealotry and fundamentalism is founded and kicked off. The followers of Lenin and Mao all rallied around ideologies of socialism/marxism to justify their atrocities. In particular, the rallying belief that socialism would uniquely create a government that would protect the interests of the people. No organized religion required there, they even used a lot of anti-religious rhetoric too.

My simple point is people claiming that uniqueness for their ideology is EXACTLY the problem and it angers me to see so many flaunting it as the solution.

I used 23andMe for analysis of my saliva. The DNA is mine, what I choose to do with the information is my choice alone. Same as palm reading and seeing a psychic (if that's what you're into), or peeing into a cup - I can act on the information or not, my choice. If the FDA is so worried about and more importantly has time and money to spend engaging this company on the possible health effects of users who act on the information, I'd say their priorities are fucked up or at least their motivation is unclear.

Point of contrast - here's another product that can possibly cause harm, but were's the cease and desist for this one? I can go down to the corner store and buy a known to be addictive product, with labels that indicate "Smoking Kills", but the tobacco companies are still free to sell it and go about their business. The accuracy of the tests conducted on addiction, health effects etc. related to tobacco are still in debate. You know "We're still working on it". We choose whether we want to use this product, even though it doesn't only put the users life at risk (presumably) but also those around the user (presumably), same as we choose what do with 23andMe reports. However, I'd wager the known risks and costs associated with allowing tobacco use to continue is orders of magnitude higher than it ever will be for the 400,000 or so customers that have used 23andMe to sequence a portion of our genome. Why don't we work on the hard & obvious problem first?

Tempest in a tea cup.

ps. I wonder what the ulterior motive is? Perhaps the FDA is in cahoots with Monsanto in planning copyright on specific genetic sequences for humans, as they do now for crops. Hmmm... they could call it the Soylent Green experiment.

Your video, 23andMe, FDA and DNA health profiling, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.