Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New book: Junk DNA junked … in favour of what?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jonathan Wells’ book, The Myth of Junk DNA (Discovery, 2011), is now being advertised at Amazon:

According to the modern version of Darwin’s theory, DNA contains a program for embryo development that is passed down from generation to generation; the program is implemented by proteins encoded by the DNA, and accidental DNA mutations introduce changes in those proteins that natural selection then shapes into new species, organs and body plans. When scientists discovered forty years ago that about 98% of our DNA does not encode proteins, the non-protein-coding portion was labeled “junk” and attributed to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution.

Recent books by Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins and others have used this “junk DNA” as evidence for Darwinian evolution and evidence against intelligent design (since an intelligent designer would presumably not have filled our genome with so much garbage). But recent genome evidence shows that much of our non-protein-coding DNA performs essential biological functions.

The Myth of Junk DNA is written for a general audience by biologist Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution. Citing some of the abundant evidence from recent genome projects, the book shows that “junk DNA” is not science, but myth.

Junk DNA was one of those ideas that just had to be true. Genome mapper and NIH head Francis Collins saw it as a slam dunk for his beloved Darwinism in his first book, The Language of God, (“Darwin’s theory predicts … That is exactly what is observed”) but seems to have changed his tune in his second, The Language of Life.

I’ll be interviewing Wells on the book next week, but in the meantime, two questions occur to me: To what extent did Darwinism cause the myth to be retained longer than it otherwise would be? Given that Darwinists must now be in search of another guiding myth, any idea out there which one it will be?

Now, one prediction:

Darwinists who used to point to all the alleged junk in DNA, as Collins did, will resort – seeing anything they don’t like – to saying God wouldn’t have done it that way” implying that, unlike the rest of us, they are on familiar terms with God, and cold take over the desk themselves on his lunch break, with no interruption in service.

I thought Disney covered that one off in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

Comments
Larry: I'm just now noticing your question. I was not thinking in the least about exons. Rather, I was thinking about the distal ends of the intron region (which also contains the exons) which, quite possibly, require some 'insulation' from the mechanical processes taking place during replication and transcription. As to this rant of yours:
If that’s true then why do intron lengths vary so much from species to species. Does Intelligent Design Creationism have an explanation for that observation? What about species, like yeast, where the amount of intron sequence is less than the amount of coding sequence? Do you have a general theory of intelligent design that accounts for such a fact?
First, how should I know why the intron lengths vary? Isn't that what science is supposed to find out? Here's the difference: when it is found out why it is "BETTER" that intron lengths vary, Darwinists will say: "Evolution brought about this variation in the intron length because ____________________ (and fill in the blank; i.e., whatever reason it is that varied length is BETTER), while IDers will say that there was a 'design reason' for varying the length of introns. Same science; different interpretations. Here's the IMPORTANT difference: which of the two 'interpretations' is more plausible; i.e., has greater 'explanatory power'? Darwinists, no matter what is found in nature, simply presume that EVOLUTION can do anything. But, you see, it's a "presumption", not a "proof".PaV
September 18, 2013
September
09
Sep
18
18
2013
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Larry Moran:
In other words, there’s no difference between an “ID” explanation and an adaptive explanation, right?
Wrong again. ID is the only explanation for the planning required for alternative gene splicing. ID is the only explanation for the knowledge required to edit, splice, proof-read and error correction.
So, why do you refer to your explanation as “intelligent design”?
Because ID is the only feasible explanation.
Why don’t you just accept the fact that adaptive evolution provides a perfectly good explanation for introns and alternative spicing?
What is the evidence that adaptive evolution can produce a plan?Joseph
March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Joseph says,
Yes ID has an explanation for introns- alternative gene splicing- that is getting more than one protein product out of the same sequence. This gives the design a great deal of flexibility.
In other words, there's no difference between an "ID" explanation and an adaptive explanation, right? So, why do you refer to your explanation as "intelligent design"? Why don't you just accept the fact that adaptive evolution provides a perfectly good explanation for introns and alternative spicing?Larry Moran
March 26, 2011
March
03
Mar
26
26
2011
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Larry, Your position doesn't have any explanation for introns and exons and alternative gene splicing. All you can say is "it just is". Yes ID has an explanation for introns- alternative gene splicing- that is getting more than one protein product out of the same sequence. This gives the design a great deal of flexibility. But Intelligent Design Creationism can't explain it because Intelligent Design Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfuly ignorant, and here you are, again.Joseph
March 25, 2011
March
03
Mar
25
25
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
PaV says,
So, e.g., how much structural shock absorption does DNA need on ‘each side’ of an intron? Well, three times its length? Four times? Five times? If you figure on four times its length, then, pretty much, you have your human genome.
Exons make up about 2% of the human genome. Introns account for about 35% of the human genome. I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that all of the intron sequences are essential in every gene? If that's true then why do intron lengths vary so much from species to species. Does Intelligent Design Creationism have an explanation for that observation? What about species, like yeast, where the amount of intron sequence is less than the amount of coding sequence? Do you have a general theory of intelligent design that accounts for such a fact?Larry Moran
March 25, 2011
March
03
Mar
25
25
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Arthur Hunt [73]:
The action (debate-speaking, that is), and the junk, lies in the massive tracts of highly-repetitive DNA.
Arthur, I'd ask you to consider this: Think of a car. It has a bumper. Why? To protect the main frame of the car. What is the length of the bumper as compares to the main frame from midpoint forward? Maybe 10%? But the bumper, AND, the main frame of the car are meant to protect the driver and passengers. What is the length of the distance between driver and front bumper as a measure of the person's chest diameter? What? 500%? 600%? And safer cars would have higher percentages. Now, applying that to the genome, if parts of the genome are as critical to life as is the human chest containing the heart and other vital organs, then, "STRUCTURALLY", wouldn't it make sense to protect that material from excessive compression and elongation, and from the effects of recombination? And when the introns are highly-functional, i.e., they are involved in, a part of, the construction of much more than one protein molecule, then they need to be protected even more. Per this thesis, based on the "structural strength" and structural needs of the DNA molecule, then as introns do more and more, inter-intronic lengths should increase more and more. Is that not what we see? So, e.g., how much structural shock absorption does DNA need on 'each side' of an intron? Well, three times its length? Four times? Five times? If you figure on four times its length, then, pretty much, you have your human genome. Any thoughts, reactions?PaV
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
The point being is that it is easier to understand technology that we are capable of producing, that is of equal or lesser "value" than we already have.Joseph
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
QuietID, Intelligent Design is about the detection and understanding of (the) design. And the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific processes used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question. That said look at it from this perspective- say a native Amazon tribe who never saw any modern technology came across an abandoned campsite and found television monitor. That is the level we are dealig with as obviously the design we are trying to understand is way above our capabilities to produce.Joseph
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Stonehenge is a good analogy for the first step of ID, but I think it's limited for what I'm talking about. Once we know Stonehenge is designed, every question about it becomes either about the designers ("who were they?") or about the material mechanisms ("how did they build it?"). If the whole point is to separate geologists from archeologists, that's a pretty narrow task.QuiteID
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
QuietID
after ID identifies design, what’s the next step?
Study it so we can understand it. And as Dawkins said we are looking at a totally different type of biology- meaning there is a lot of work to do. It is the difference between geologists studying Stonehenge as a natural rock formaion and archaeologists studying Stonehenge as an artifact.Joseph
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Larry Moran: Intelligent Design Creationism grew out of Scientific Creationism.. Nope, that is a lie. Intelligent Design has been around since Aristotle. And srange how scientifc creationism is still around. And by Larry's logic Darwin was a Creationist and the theory of evolution is a Creationist theory. Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."
In the end it is the failure of Larry and other eolutionary biologists to support the claims of their position that has allowed ID to persist.Joseph
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
StephenB [108], excellent points on ID and methodology! This brings to mind a question: after ID identifies design, what's the next step? ID theorists have identified design many times. Do they keep doing it until their critics accept it? Well, then they'll keep doing it forever, because their critics are never going to accept it. What can ID scientists do to show the consequences of this discovery? To date, the consequences have mainly been explored philosophically and spiritually. These may be more important in the long run, but what's the second phase, experimentally? And is anybody going to that second phase?QuiteID
March 23, 2011
March
03
Mar
23
23
2011
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
vjtorley says,
Finally, as regards the percentage of junk DNA in the genome: Intelligent Design theory does not predict that it should be zero. What I would expect, however, is that any junk DNA which appeared in the human genome (or the genome of any other organism) would be relatively short-lived (disappearing within a few million years), and that the percentage of the genome which is composed of junk would be relatively small (less than 10%).
Thank-you for your civil reply. I'm a bit confused about Intelligent Design theory, as you describe it. Can you explain to me how you arrive at your predictions using this theory? Pluralistic evolution is consistent with the persistence of junk DNA in the genome. Why does Intelligent Design theory say it can exist but will be eliminated in a few million years? Your expectation seems to be about the same as a Darwinist (adaptationist). What's the difference between you and a Darwinist? Larry Moran
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran (#97) Thank you for your reply. As regards humans and chimps: I happen to believe that they diverged from a common ancestor six million years ago, and I also believe in common descent. Quite a few ID advocates do. The key point at issue between ID theory and evolutionary biology is not common descent, but whether the vast amount of functional information that we observe in living things required an intelligent source. As regards conservation of parts of the genome: I am inclined to think that when two species that diverged tens (or hundreds) of millions of years ago both exhibit the same highly conserved sections of their genome, it would be prudent to regard these regions as having some sort of function. Can these regions then be used to support the thesis of common ancestry? Only if they show additional similarities which are manifestly non-functional - e.g. pseudogenes. Finally, as regards the percentage of junk DNA in the genome: Intelligent Design theory does not predict that it should be zero. What I would expect, however, is that any junk DNA which appeared in the human genome (or the genome of any other organism) would be relatively short-lived (disappearing within a few million years), and that the percentage of the genome which is composed of junk would be relatively small (less than 10%).vjtorley
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
---Larry Moran: "Nope. I reject your premise." But I wasn't offering you a premise, I was presenting you with a fact. Creationism = Bible first methodology; Intelligent Design = data first methodology. (Stay tuned for an abbreviated history below) --"I agree with Phillip Johnson that anyone who believes in a creator is a creationist (small “c”)." Johnson was speaking about a belief. Most of us here likely believe that God was the designer. Science, on the other hand, is about methodologies. ID methodologies cannot address the identity of the designer. This is very easy to prove as it is impossible to extract religion from such paradigms as "irreducible complexity" or "specified complexity." It simply cannot be done. --"There are various forms of creationism depending on the role of the creator." There are various forms of creationism with respect to belief, but there is only one form of creationism with respect to methodology. We are talking about scientific methodology, not belief. ---"Young Earth Creationism is one kind and so is Old Earth Creationism." Same error as above--attributing methodology to a belief system. --"Intelligent Design Creationism is a rather nebulous kind of creationism that encompasses all the others but it nevertheless postulates a creator." The phrase is nebulous because it is self contradictory. A methodology cannot begin both with the Bible and with data. As is evident from the law of non-contradiction, a thing cannot be true and false at the same time under the same formal circumstances. ---"(That’s who the intelligent designer is, don’t you know?)" ID paradigms cannot establish the identity of the designer, though its proponents may certainly believe that the designer is the God of the Bible. There is a big difference between believing in an article of faith and making a design inference to the best explanation. It's another one of those intellectual distinctions which, once grasped, will illuminate the subject matter for anyone who has a modicum of intellectual curiosity. ---"Theistic Evolution Creationism is another form of creationism." Theistic Evolution is simply an irrational attempt to integrate the guided evolution of Christianity with the unguided evolution of Darwinism. As such, it is just another form of belief. There is no such thing as TE methodology. --"Intelligent Design Creationism grew out of Scientific Creationism when it’s leaders decided they needed a new word to try and disguise the religious basis of their agenda."] No, actually that is not the case. I know that Barbara Forrest has become famous for her mindless conspiracy theories, but they are founded solely on her imagination. She knows almost nothing about the subject. Let me give you an overview: Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Justin Martyr, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based. So, you can see that the backward method did not grow out of the forward method. They have both been with us all along. ---"Like its parent, the main activity is attacking evolution and evolutionary biologists." ID proponents do often attack the Darwinist's proposed mechanism of evolution, [I know I do] but they do not typically attack evolution. Whatever your perception of ID's "main activity," or motives, that perception has nothing to do with ID's scientific methods.StephenB
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
StephenB asks,
Even so, you continue to use the term “Intelligent Design Creationism” as if the two methodologies were one and the same. Is this an oversight on your part?
Nope. I reject your premise. I agree with Phillip Johnson that anyone who believes in a creator is a creationist (small "c"). There are various forms of creationism depending on the role of the creator. Young Earth Creationism is one kind and so is Old Earth Creationism. Intelligent Design Creationism is a rather nebulous kind of creationism that encompasses all the others but it nevertheless postulates a creator. (That's who the intelligent designer is, don't you know?) Theistic Evolution Creationism is another form of creationism. Intelligent Design Creationism grew out of Scientific Creationism when it's leaders decided they needed a new word to try and disguise the religious basis of their agenda. Like its parent, the main activity is attacking evolution and evolutionary biologists. Just look at the comments and the postings on Uncommon Descent if you don't believe me.Larry Moran
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
---Larry Moran: "By the way, do you think it would be “premature” to declare that there is no junk DNA and thus the predictions of Intelligent Design Creationism have been upheld?" In an earlier post, I patiently and courteously [I hope] explained the difference between a belief and a methodology. I also marked the critical distinction between Bible-first methodology [Creationism] and data-first methodology [Intelligent Design]. Even so, you continue to use the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" as if the two methodologies were one and the same. Is this an oversight on your part?StephenB
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Larry Moran:
Perhaps. Maybe you could do something for me? Give me a detailed intelligent design explanation for hemoglobin.
Use a targeted search starting from a known oxygen carrying macromolecule. As Richard Dawkins and others have demonstrated cumulative selection towards a target is a powerful design tool. So we have this primitive globin and we have several targets. Targets which can be used as inputs to find other targets. The reason for targets being used to generate more targets is because sometimes all it takes is a subtle tweak to what you already have to get you what you need. So the targets would be the monomeric myoglobin and the tetrameric hemoglobins and both were generated from a common input.Joseph
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran, ID-ers do not have to explain how the design happen because they are more humble in their theory. They state that some elements of biology and the cosmos exhibit evidence of design. That's IT! Intelligent design is a much more humble and narrow theory than evolution. But evolutinists state that EVERYTHING in biology comes about by naturalistic means. We are right to put them to their proof. Yet when ID-ers point out that many things in life seem to follow the same kinds of patterns of design that we see in human design, they get labled as pseudo-scientists, creationists etc. By the way, what would you call Michael Behe who believes in common descent but thinks that there are aspects of life that exhibit design? Is he not an evolutionist? Can you think of a non-insulting label for him?Collin
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Larry Moran: "Eldredge and Gould did NOT come up with punctuated equilibria to explain the lack of transition fossils. Punctuated equilibria was an observation in the fossil record and they explained it in terms of modern theories of speciation." I never said that Gould came up with punctuated equilibria to explain "the lack of transition fossils" I said that he invented it to explain the lack of what Darwin claimed should be in the record and what is not, not in one single instance, and which I carefully defined in #67. And in addition, punctuated equilibrium is generally NOT accepted by the Darwinist community. (Do YOU accept it as a correct theory?) So I challenged you to come up with a theory that explains what is actually observed in the fossil record better than ID. That you have not done.Bruce David
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Larry Moran:
All the data point to a gene duplication event in an ancestor that only had a single myoglobin gene (one protein).
Only if you start with there being a common ancestor- that is if you already assume universal common descent. The issue being is that it is not verifiable- some duplication event followed by diversification of the duplicated gene did this.Joseph
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Larry Moran:
If you’re asking for reasonable inferences based on what we know about molecular evolution then how about the evolution of hemoglobin? Evolved how? By design or culled willy-nilly? Larry Moran:
All the data point to a gene duplication event in an ancestor that only had a single myoglobin gene (one protein).
And gene duplication (along with the required regulatory networks) has been determined to be a blind watchmaker process, how? Have you read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner? Larry Moran:
Will this do? I suspect not. I suspect that every time we come up with a possible answer you will demand more and more details before you accept it.
It's OK, for what it is. Larry Moran:
Maybe you could do something for me? Give me a detailed intelligent design explanation for hemoglobin. Please give the same level of detail that you demand from evolutionary biologists and back it up with the same amount of supporting evidence that you expect of an evolutionary explanation.
I will work on it but for now I ill say that ID is OK with Common Descent- ID says it happens by design.
Joseph
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
La Moran:
It would be “premature” to declare that it is a proven fact 90% of our DNA is junk. That’s my informed opinion. Other scientists disagree. This is a genuine scientific controversy.
So two or more cientists who hold differing opinions is a "genuine scientific controversy"? Doesn't such a thing require genuine scientific data?
I find it extremely interesting that the intelligent design community has adopted many of the anti-evolution positions of the old-fashioned Young Earth Creationists.
1- The arguments are anti blind watchmaker, not anti-evolution- how many tims do we have to go over that? 2- It order to reach a design inference it is mandated that chance and necessity be eliminated first. Meaning both Creation and Intelligent Design have to deal with and eliminate chance and necessity.Joseph
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Joseph asks,
BTW do you have any evidence of genetic changes accumulating in such a way as to give rise (ie construct) functional multi-protein systems?
Not sure what you are asking for here. If you're asking for reasonable inferences based on what we know about molecular evolution then how about the evolution of hemoglobin? All the data point to a gene duplication event in an ancestor that only had a single myoglobin gene (one protein). Over time we see species with two different versions of globin genes (alpha and beta) and eventually they come together to form the multiprotein system we know as hemoglobin (two alpha subunits and two beta subunits). Will this do? I suspect not. I suspect that every time we come up with a possible answer you will demand more and more details before you accept it.
If not that helps my case don’t ya think?
Perhaps. Maybe you could do something for me? Give me a detailed intelligent design explanation for hemoglobin. Please give the same level of detail that you demand from evolutionary biologists and back it up with the same amount of supporting evidence that you expect of an evolutionary explanation. If Intelligent Design Creationism is really a scientific theory then you should have no trouble fulfilling this simple request. On the other hand .... Waiting ..... Larry Moran
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Bruce David says,
Of course I’ve heard of Punctuated Equilibria, Gould’s largely discredited theory which he invented to solve the problem of the “traded secret”.
That's a serious enough distortion of the truth that it labels you as either a liar or someone who is completely ignorant of evolutionary biology. Eldredge and Gould did NOT come up with punctuated equilibria to explain the lack of transition fossils. Punctuated equilibria was an observation in the fossil record and they explained it in terms of modern theories of speciation. One of the consequences of this observation/theory is that the small transitions between related species—think of the difference between African and Asian elephants—are difficult to observe because they happen rapidly. (Have you ever seen an elephant that's half Asian and half African?) As Gould says in Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory (1983),
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
I find it extremely interesting that the intelligent design community has adopted many of the anti-evolution positions of the old-fashioned Young Earth Creationists. Do you find this interesting? Larry Moran
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
vjtorely says, After reading the article in Nature News by Roxanne Khamsi, my own opinion is that it would be decidedly premature to label 90% of the mouse genome “junk”, especially in view of the fact that it is conserved so well. It would be "premature" to declare that it is a proven fact 90% of our DNA is junk. That's my informed opinion. Other scientists disagree. This is a genuine scientific controversy. Did you happen to read about how much of our genome is evolutionary conserved? Perhaps you can inform the people reading this thread whether it is 90% of the genome or something a wee bit smaller? One other thing, I'm curious about your use of "evolutionary conservation." Do you believe that different species (e.g. humans and chimps) evolved from common ancestors so that when they have identical sequences this is due to conservation? What about when they differ? Is this evidence of evolution? By the way, do you think it would be "premature" to declare that there is no junk DNA and thus the predictions of Intelligent Design Creationism have been upheld? Larry Moran
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Bruce David says, My point (I do have a point) is that this is a very specialized definition of the word. If I said, for example, that my spiritual beliefs have undergone significant evolution since I was in college, or that there has been enormous evolution in the design of computers since the ’50s, in neither case would the definition you gave apply. That is correct. The definition I gave is for "biological evolution." I thought that was clear in context. What we were talking about was a scientific term so I gave a scientific definition. If you have a point, it still isn't coming across. Do you honestly believe that the term "evolutionist" could refer to someone whose spiritual belief changed when they were in college? If you're confused about that then we have a lot of ground to cover. Larry Moran
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Hey Larry, I wrote this just for the theory of evolution: Poof, the magic Mutant (to the tune "Puff the Magic Dragon") Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be. Little Richard Dawkins, loved that rascal Poof. And wrote him books to appease the kooks, oh what a silly goof! Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Together they would mutate Poof into a beluga whale Richard kept a spectroscope trained on Poof’s mutating tail. Nobel things and atheists bowed whene’er they came Scientists would lower their flasks when Poof mutated a mane Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Mutations can’t go on forever, just like little boys Antennaed wings and giant things doom nature’s mutant ploys One gray night it happened, natural selection said no more And Poof that Magic Mutant, mutated one last roar His head was bent in sorrow, his tears fell like rain Richard no longer went to write it gave him so much pain Without his life-long friend Dick could not be brave So Dick that evo-poofer sadly slipped in to his cave Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be (repeat chorus and fade...)Joseph
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
All known mechanims and all known mutations do not appear to be capable of the things you think they did. Larry oran: Thanks for letting me know. Guess I’ll look for another line of work. Thanks for agreeing with me. But no need to look for another line of work. I am sure you will keep getting paid doing what you are doing. BTW do you have any evidence of genetic changes accumulating in such a way as to give rise (ie construct) functional multi-protein systems? If not that helps my case don't ya think?Joseph
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Larry Moran states; 'I suggest you read the comments on Punctuated Equilibria in order to learn about real science.” Actually Larry the first time I read about the post hoc imposition of the punctuated equilibrium model onto the evidence, from Phillip Johnson's 'Darwin On Trial', I was delighted, for it was then I realized that neo-Darwinists did not have anywhere near the evidence they needed to make their case. In fact Larry thanks for the video, I will reference it in the future to clearly illustrate to people how badly the evidence fits Darwinism!bornagain77
March 22, 2011
March
03
Mar
22
22
2011
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply