Just going by the name they give it.  I know that recently they've been discovering a lot of it has some use, but that's still new research.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the human genome only refers to the protien coding portion of DNA.

the thing is from the line of reasoning you've been using i could argue that this is not really true... i could claim that all human observations are in fact subjective and biased due to our limitations 

for example yes we observe that objects fall to the ground, but for all we know what ever causes gravitation to occur could turn off tomorrow and we'd have to completely reassess our understanding of our environment

but of course we don't do this... we do say that some things we observe have occured so many times unaffected by changing variables that we conclude that they are part of objective reality and we use that as foundation to work from

The difference is our body of evidence.  We have literally trillions of examples of gravity working, and no examples of gravity failing.  And, it is incredibly easy to devise an experiment where we can isolate and test for gravity.  You could probably say that we can't 100% prove that gravity will always work, but based on our body of evidence it would be absurd to expect anything else.

We don't have this body of evidence for civilization and morality.  If I wanted to, I could test to see if gravity works at least 1000 times in the next hour. I could easily isolate gravity via experiment, but there are thousands of interacting factors, and it could take us years, decades, or centuries to truly examine how one factor effects civilization.

You can say that all human observations are biased due to our limitations, but not to the same degree.  Our limitations don't impede us all that much in analyzing gravity, especially since we have tools that can measure its impact in a purely objective manner.  So we can be practically 100% certain about that.  Our limitations in analyzing society itself are incredibly inhibiting, so we can't get anywhere near that degree of certainty.  That's why nobody really disputes gravity, and we have billions of moral disputes each day.

there have been many tales through the century all with common themes - osiris, isis, horus |  nimrod, semaramis, tammuz  | zeus , hera , hercules etc etc etc

all were used to communicate an objective standard for how people and societies should conduct themselves

as i said an idea can be sound but the delivery of that idea because of our limitations can be flawed... as i've stated many times that does not invalidate the idea

If your claim is that god makes objective morality possible, then there needs to be a reliable mechanism to transmit that morality.  If we can't transmit the message in an objective fashion, then objective morality is not possible.  By definition.  It doesn't matter where the flaw is.  

you stated that we can make objective observations of the world... well how then do you reconcile that with people who think the earth is flat or hollow or that we never went to the moon or whatever? does the fact that some people go astray invalidate the observation? i'm sure you'd say not

It again comes to the body of evidence.  We can demonstrate that the world is round.  We do it every day when planes fly or we see a ship coming up on the horizon, when we take photos of the earth, when we send up satellites etc.  The round Earth model is sufficient and neccessary to explain why these things work.  The flat Earth model is not.  Which is why there is overwhelming agreement in the scientific and lay community on this.

When given the evidence people reach the same conclusion well over 99% of the time.  If I send out a message and it's interpretted correctly by nearly every recipient, then I can confidently conclude the recipient is the problem.  

and in the sense of their core values they are as i stated

Sure.  You stated it.  I'm not really interested in what you state without evidence.

Let's stick with science.  People may arrive at these values (which I don't think are core to christianity at any rate) through religion, or through other means like secular methods or just plain chance.

Religion is one possible method.  No argument there.  But if we want to claim it is the best method, we would have to do a study.  We would have to compare the treatment group (the group that is exposed to religion) to the control group (the group not exposed to religion) to see if the treatment group gets to the same moral values with greater frequency.

Even if we don't go to the effort of making a study, we have enough data to make an informed opinion.  Based on sectarian divisions, sectarian violence, the prison rate of religious people vs atheists, and the quality of life differences between religious and non religious nations, I'd say there is a strong case to be made that religion does not do a good job of conveying morals. 

If you wanted to claim that religion objectively conveys morality, you'd need to take it a step further and show that religion leads to the same moral system nearly 100% of the time.  

i wonder what matt dillahunty would say about differences in conclusions between scientists?

I can't speak for him, but I would imagine he would say something along these lines.  Science has consistently shown itself to be the most reliable method to get to truth.  Since our methods are flawed, the process is not infallible.  That is why we have corrective mechanisms, such as the peer review process, that helps us reach the best possible conclusion based on our current knowledge.

isn't buying what game you think is best personal choice? anyway what does this have to do with weighing different opinions between people?

But that's not what I'm doing in this example.  I am not buying the game I think is best, I'm buying the game I think my nephew will like best.

My goal is to give my nephew as much enjoyment as possible.  He will get more enjoyment out of one game than the other.  This is an objective fact (ignoring the possibility that he likes them both the same).  

I don't have perfect knowledge of my nephew's inner workings, or the games themselves, so I can not objectively determine which game he'll like better.  That leaves me with two subjective options.  I think he will enjoy Zelda more, or I think he will enjoy Horizon more.  By weighing the evidence I have (data about my nephew) I could pick which of the subjective options will most likely get me to my goal.

a better outcome? didn't you previously completely throw out the idea that there's a better outcome?

No.  Assuming we agree on the standard or goal we want to achieve, then there can be objectively better or worse outcomes.  

If, for instance, we're doctors and we agree our goal is to keep a patient alive as long as possible, we might suggest two different courses of action to treat them. 

The patient will live longer with one treatment than the other, so one choice is objectively better. But our opinion on which option is better is subjective, since we can not predict the future.  By analyzing the data to the best of our ability, we are more likely to choose the better of our subjective choices and get to the better objectively better outcome (the patient living longer).

what's the point of worrying about it if you don't think the data is actually taking you to an objectively better standard?

Assuming we agree to the following statement "We want as many as people as possible to be able to live the best life possible as they define it", then we have a clear objective goal.  From there, we have opinions (by definition subjective) on how we can reach that goal.  

Naturally, I think my opinions on how we should act are the ones that will get us closest to this goal.  That's why I hold them.  But they're still subjective.  If they weren't, I would have no reason to try to learn about morality or to discuss morality ever again.

If you don't agree with that initial statement, then we are indeed at an impasse and it's pointless to discuss anything related to morality.

Edit:  At any rate, I think we're just going to go in circles here, so I'll just leave it at that.  It was a nice conversation even if I don't agree with you.  Later.

No, the human genome refers to all DNA. That paper identifies 80% of all DNA as being involved in at least one biochemical reaction although it also includes parts of the genome that may have a very minor effect.

The paper is part of ENCODE. The ENCODE project is a woldwide project that aims to discover all functionaility within the human genome and the first data was released in 2010. It's about to enter its next phase so we should hopefully have a pretty good idea of what all our DNA does within the next 10 years.

"Assuming we agree to the following statement "We want as many as people as possible to be able to live the best life possible as they define it", then we have a clear objective goal."

i suppose to end with i'm just wondering how you think its possible to have a society without this... i mean otherwise it should be obvious that you can't have a society

...why do you think we have police? do you not realise that the society you live in has to have some type of foundation that we do in fact treat objectively for people to work with?

Alright.  Thanks for the clarification.

You can treat people objectively based on a subjective system.  If I was king of the universe and I made the decree, "everyone who eats seaweed shall be put to death" I can have that decree carried out objetively.  As long as my police kill every single person I catch eating seaweed and don't kill anyone who does not, I am carrying out my decree objectively. The opinion of my police force in no way influence how the law is carried out.   But, my criteria is still entirely subjective.  Just like police a half a century or so ago would have objectively carried out segregation laws based on the subjective position that blacks and whites should be seperated.

If our laws were objectively right, then why would they ever need to be changed?  Why would we have a system in place to evaluate and interpret them?  The laws  (ideally) represent our collective, and subjective, best attempt at a codified system of morality.  But, they're not objective.

Back to the original point though, if police and laws can serve the foundation in place of religion, why does it matter if god exists?

"My insistence that you don't change words is not silly word play.  I don't see how this contradicts anything else I said. "

its silly word play and a contradiction because you have conceded that some behaviors are objectively better than others (my mistake it appears you haven't, you just resorted to trying to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit apparently)

"Even if it's the closest we can get to objective, it is nowhere near objective."

so... therefore, you are claiming that objective reality does not exist

if you are dismissing whatever methods we have devised to be as close as possible to objectivity is that not the same as saying that objectivity is not possible?

what about the scientific method? is that nowhere near objective also? ( well it has to be since its the same thing )

"I have no idea what objective reality has to do with this.  We can have objective reality without objective morality."

the methods we use to determine both (repetitive observations over a long period of time) are the same

i'm serously curious with regards to whether you consider our scientific experimentation to be objective and why if you do, that should be interesting

"Best is a subjective term that would require evidence.  It's your claim, the burden of proof is yours."

as i said the proof is history and all of the civilisations that reached the height of prosperity with the aid of moral systems involving the concepts of gods : Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

every single successful civilisation we have known about where mankind flourished had god or gods at its center

those with humanism at their core such as the soviet union resulted only in suffering

"I did not agree with that at all..."

lol i never thought i'd see someone try to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit... its interesting i suppose

so how far are you willing to take this? are you willing to claim that all values are subjective and therefore no state of being is better than another state of being? (or in other words a dismissal of objectivity)

"Ok.  So, you agree that this is not objective morality?"

um... i just explained this... to reiterate, the method of communication for a message can deteriorate while the message itself still retains its value

i'd just like to add as an aside that its quite interesting that some of the same people i see here rallying aggressively against the idea of objective morality will debate about how bad someone(like trump) is for their behaviors in other threads... its a bizarre contradiction but interesting at least

if its all subjective... how can you assess the behavior of other people?

so... therefore, you are claiming that objective reality does not exist if you are dismissing whatever methods we have devised to be as close as possible to objectivity is that not the same as saying that objectivity is not possible?

what about the scientific method? is that nowhere near objective also? ( well it has to be since its the same thing )

No.  I was claiming that it has not been demonstrated that objective morality exists.  If the best method we've devised doesn't get us there, that either means it doesn't exist, or our methods are flawed.

the methods we use to determine both (repetitive observations over a long period of time) are the same

i'm serously curious with regards to whether you consider our scientific experimentation to be objective and why if you do, that should be interesting

 "If our laws were objectively right, then why would they ever need to be changed?"

i didn't say that our laws are objectively right... we'd have to be living in a utopia for that to be the case... i was simply using that as an example that we do have laws in place in society that are predicated under the understanding that one way of being is better than other ways of being ( a notion that you have denied several times now )... and if we didn't have them then we wouldn't have a society since there needs to be some kind of understanding between all people of a society that ties them together

"if police and laws can serve the foundation in place of religion, why does it matter if god exists?"

i didn't say that they do, i was using them as an example that we do have laws in place in society that are predicated under the understanding that one way of being is better than other ways of being ( a notion that you have denied several times now )

beyond that the foundation that we use to operate in the world has to be something that transcends the limited scope of man that everyone can partake in and observe for themselves...

otherwise you quite clearly can't have a society, because to have a society you have to provide a basis that everyone can be involved in or at least those who want to aid in the construction of the society and not just a small subsection of the society ( which is all you can appeal to with a subjective viewpoint )

for example, i wouldn't use the life experiences of one man to determine moral values for a population but i would use something we can all attest to that seems to transcend us such as love, rage, togetherness etc etc etc because these are states we all experience and understand to some extent and they appear to be constant with regards to their relationship to the human experience

that is why the civilisations from earlier times assigned gods to these states of being and built stories around them based on observations of the best ways people can live in the world

i think where you are misunderstaning me is that you think i'm reffering to god as the personal god of the christian religion and that's not the case... my conception of god is those aspects of reality that appear to defy our limitations such as the emotions i mentioned before... beyond that they appear to be at the heart of a lot of the old stories that made up the foundation for moral values in all of the civilisations we've known about

for example... i'm coming around to the idea that the story of adam and eve was really a metaphor for man gaining intelligence possibly through the evolutionary process signified as satan and the consequences that came about as a result such as not living in harmony with nature as the other animals do etc etc etc

i think the old stories actually have a lot of wisdom contained in them metaphorically but for whatever reason we've lost some of the ability to decipher them properly

I see no reason to call those emotions god.  We have a word for love.  It's love.  We have a word for rage.  It's rage.  Calling these things god needlessly complicates things.  If we're not talking about god as an actual being, whether or not that's the god of Christianity, we're talking about entirely different things.

Other than that I agree with most of what you said.  People obviously created these stories to express moral values.  But that doesn't make them objective or good, and it doesn't make god necessary.