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
Correction: "trade secret", not "traded secret" in my previous post.Bruce David
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran: "You don’t know what you’re talking about. I suggest you read the comments on Punctuated Equilibria in order to learn about real science." Of course I've heard of Punctuated Equilibria, Gould's largely discredited theory which he invented to solve the problem of the "traded secret". It was the best he could come up with, given that he was PHILOSOPHICALLY, not scientifically, prevented from adopting the obvious solution: life was designed. I say philosophically because it was his commitment to methodological naturalism that was stopping him, not any scientific reasoning on his part. You have in no way demonstrated that there is a better solution to the problem of species stasis in the fossil record than ID.Bruce David
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
Larry Moran, I watched your video. I didn't see any evidence of change. I saw things that were different abruptly. I saw an interpretation of evolution because of abrupt change, but no actual lineage of change. It's awfully convenient when non-gradual, or abrupt, "change" is evidence of evolution, and so is the alternative of slow and gradual change also an evidence of evolution. So, according to evolutionists, stasis is evidence of evolution, and so is non-stasis, that doesn't leave much room for an alternative, so what would stand to falsify evolution with regard to "changing" or staying the same? Hmmmm?Clive Hayden
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran, Well, it looks like nullasalus and bornagain77 have supplied the references to the experiment you describe. Thanks to both of you. 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.vjtorley
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran, I would like to say first, that I can appreciate your position in this thread, because I have been in similar situations myself, although when I am answering numerous opponents coming at me from all sides, it is usually around some aspect of my particular brand of theism. I wouldn't blame you if you got tired of responding to five different attackers. Now, to the point: you said, “Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.” 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. So to call you an evolutionist (instead of a Darwinist) co-opts the normal meaning of the word. The effect of that is to subtly imply that people who are not "evolutionists" don't accept that life evolved at all, reinforcing the lie that ID proponents are young earth creationists in disguise.Bruce David
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Thanks nullasalus, that was the one I was looking for; take home quote; Knowles cautions that the study doesn't prove that non-coding DNA has no function. "Those mice were alive, that's what we know about them," she says. "We don't know if they have abnormalities that we don't test for." David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has investigated why genetic regions are conserved, says that Rubin's study gives no hint that the deleted DNA has a function. But he also believes that non-coding regions may have an effect too subtle to be picked up in the tests to far. "Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years," he argues. "Darwinian selection is a tougher test." http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.htmlbornagain77
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Dr. Torley, I believe this is the experiment, Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/abs/nature03022.html As to 'how much' they removed; 'We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length,' Yet, the mouse genome is almost as big as ours – 2.7 gigabases. Chopping 2.4 million bases out of it is less than one tenth of one percent or one-one-thousanths. they tested viability thus; Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice.,,, Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; Yet as scordova noted here; https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-biologist-rick-sternberg-defends-stephen-meyer-challenges-darrel-falk/#comment-349935 Megabase deletions are a horrible way to gauge functionality in complex systems. See: Airplane Magnetos Contingency Designs and Reasons ID Will Prevail for the full treatment of that misunderstanding. Hopefully it will that discussion will help cure Darwinist perversions of reality. We see this Darwinist misperception played out in a small way: Minimal genome should be twice the size, study shows “Previous attempts to work out the minimal genome have relied on deleting individual genes in order to infer which genes are essential for maintaining life,” said Professor Laurence Hurst from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath. “This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product. When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene. But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead. Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments.” That’s the problem with Darwinism. It defines functionality in terms of reproductive success. BAD idea. Andreas Wagner points out tis better to define in functionality in terms of integrated well-matched parts. Hmms sounds more like Behe!bornagain77
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
VJTorley, Could I have some references to this experiment please? (I’m not a biologist.) Also, was the viability of the altered mouse’s descendants tracked (say, for about 10 generations)? Just curious. Try here.nullasalus
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Larry Moran I was very interested in your earlier remark (#28):
I say that about 10% of our genome contains essential DNA that could not be removed without affecting the survivability of individuals. It's a much higher percentage in fruit flies and yeast and in bacteria it's about 90%. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
I'm curious about the 10% figure. If that's true for humans then a similar figure is likely true for other mammals - e.g. mice. Here's my question: if most of a mammal's DNA is junk, then it should be possible to remove most of a mouse's DNA without affecting its viability. Later on you state:
Please explain how the experiment where large segments of mouse DNA were deleted is an argument from ignorance.
Could I have some references to this experiment please? (I'm not a biologist.) Also, was the viability of the altered mouse's descendants tracked (say, for about 10 generations)? Just curious.vjtorley
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Larry, nullasalus says, Nope. Joseph, not myself.nullasalus
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
nullasalus says,
All known mechanims and all known mutations do not appear to be capable of the things you think they did.
Thanks for letting me know. Guess I'll look for another line of work. What do you do? Do you have any openings for an ex-evolutionist?Larry Moran
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Bruce David says,
As Gould pointed out, the “trade secret of paleontology” is that the fossil record shows exactly that pattern. Species come into existence suddenly, fully formed, persist unchanged for several million years, and then just as abruptly disappear.
You don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you read the comments on Punctuated Equilibria in order to learn about real science. What is it with you guys? Do you just make things up? Do you even try to read the scientific literature?Larry Moran
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
myname, What Jerry Coyne does is exactly what the ID proponents do. He conflates his atheism with science as the ID proponents conflate their theism with science. And the beauty about it is that both sides will equally vehemently deny doing so. When ID proponents (mistakenly in your view) say their beliefs are science, many people cry foul. The NCSE, Biologos, and others all scream about the violation being done to science. When Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and others do it, most of those same groups have little or nothing to say. Which is why when Michael Behe suggests that design - not "God's design", not even "supernatural design", but "design of some sort" - can be inferred in nature, up go the cries of outrage. When Victor Stenger writes a book calling God a failed scientific hypothesis, and argues that science shows God does not exist, what happens? His book ends up on the NCSE recommended reading list.nullasalus
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Larry Moran:
When one describes someone as an evolutionist one clearly means that they accept evolution as the mechanism. That means natural selection, random genetic drift etc.etc.
Both ID and baraminology accept natural selection, genetic drift. That is what we have been trying to tell you. Natural selection is the result of three processes- (random) variation, heredity and differential reproduction. Nothing much has been observed to arise from that. (random) Genetic drift- never been observed to construct any useful multi-part systems. All known mechanims and all known mutations do not appear to be capable of the things you think they did. IOW evolutionist seems to be a synonym for "imagineer". Just sayin'Joseph
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
nullasalus
Jerry Coyne and others define the belief in evolution devoid of teleology as the (only?) orthodox scientific view.
What Jerry Coyne does is exactly what the ID proponents do. He conflates his atheism with science as the ID proponents conflate their theism with science. And the beauty about it is that both sides will equally vehemently deny doing so.myname
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
Larry Moran:
We’ve understood alternative splicing and overlapping genes for thirty years. How come all evolutionary biologists haven’t become believers in God? Is it because we’re stupid? Or is it because we know more than you do 1- Not God- I don't hold that view, thanks 2- It takes knowledge to be able to edit, splice, proof-read, repair, etc. This is the sort of thing we see software doing and designing agencies doing. There isn't any evidence that just getting the right chemicals together and all that emerges. 3- So what do you know Larry? That this stuff just happened- a fluke that just happened to work well enough to be kept around? Enlighten me, please.
Joseph
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
molch @35 - thanks for the kind words.Arthur Hunt
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Larry Moran:
Evolution is defined as, “Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.” [What Is Evolution]
Two points- 1- That proves Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution 2- Evolution is a "process"? It's not the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, genetic drift- it's the theory of evolution by means of evolution?
Evolutionary theory concerns itself with the mechanisms of evolution.
You just said that was evolution- a process is a mechanism, Larry. Here, please read the following: Biological Evolution, what is being debatedJoseph
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Bruce David says,
You have just proved my point. The meaning of the word “evolution” in a normal context is “change over time”, or “increasing complexity (or some other attribute) over time”. But you have just used it to mean “evolution by a Darwinian (or some other naturalistic) mechanism.” It is you who have co-opted the meaning to suit your purposes (you collectively, not individually).
Evolution is defined as, "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." [What Is Evolution>] A person who describes themselves as an evolutionist will accept that this is the process that describes what we see around us and what we see when we study the history of life. Evolutionary theory concerns itself with the mechanisms of evolution. A typical evolutionist will also accept the modern consensus on evolutionary theory. You seem to imagine someone who could describe themselves as an evolutionist without accepting the basic premises of evolution. Don't you think you're being a bit obtuse? Do you have a point?Larry Moran
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
PaV @ 37: I don't think long non-coding RNAs have much a bearing, in a big-picture sort of way, on the perceptions and realities of junk DNA. Even if there are 10,000 of them and they are all 3000 nts long, we are speaking about a miniscule fraction of a mammalian genome (about one percent). The action (debate-speaking, that is), and the junk, lies in the massive tracts of highly-repetitive DNA. What new research does Wells describe that assigns function to all of this class of DNA? Can anyone who has a review copy give us a sneak preview? One aside - I'm pretty disappointed that no one has picked up on a glaring omission on my part (and Larry's). Paul Nelson, if you're following this, you especially have no excuse. You know why ...Arthur Hunt
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Larry, In many cases there is genuine scientific controversy about some evolutionary interpretation. Since the science can’t settle the issue right now, both sides have valid positions and neither side is stupid. (Although one side or the other might propose some stupid arguments to support their case.) Again, you're not really responding to the point. There are "two sides" because one side is looking at the evidence and deciding that their interpretation is best. At the very least, it's better than the other guy's. A fair chunk of evolutionary biologists - perhaps the majority, I really don't know - disagree with your interpretation of the data. They're saying "Larry is wrong about this. He's spent his whole life studying evolution, sure, but he's wrong anyway." Now, maybe you're saying that the two sides are arbitrary: Taking either of the two (or more!) positions isn't justified by the data. In which case it's a game, and you're telling me "This is what I think about the data, but really, I'm just pulling this out of my ass. The data's inconclusive, but what the heck, I'm a betting man." Which is tantamount to saying, "Ignore Larry and the others on this subject. None of them have a clue." Or maybe the positions aren't arbitrary: There is one best interpretation of the data, but not everyone has it. So there are a lot of guys out there who have "been studying evolution all their life" and still aren't coming to the conclusion they should. Are they stupid? It seems if you were consistent in your standards, that's the conclusion you'd arrive at. Or, hey, another possibility: Arriving at a conclusion distinct from one's peers doesn't imply those who disagree are stupid. So no, you're not being called stupid just because people disagree with you. Oh, and again: Jerry Coyne and others define the belief in evolution devoid of teleology as the (only?) orthodox scientific view. Do you agree with him? It seems you wouldn't, since you say people who believe evolution is devoid of teleology are atheists, agnostics, or (this seems wrong) Deists, which suggests their views on teleology are outside of science. But if that's the case, you're stating that Jerry Coyne - who's been studying evolution all his life too - isn't even clear on what he's studying, or at least he doesn't know the difference between what is science and what isn't. So are you calling Jerry Coyne stupid? Beats me - I'm still trying to work out your standards here.nullasalus
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
---Larry Moran: "Do you know who Phillip Johnson is? He’s one of the founders of the intelligent design movement." Of course. --"Here’s what he says in Darwin on Trial p. 113. --"The essential point of creation has nothing to do with the timing or the mechanisms the Creator chose to employ, but with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a “creationist” is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose." Yes. As you will notice, he was talking about belief. He was not providing a formal definition about scientific methodology, which is an entirely different matter. That is why he used the phrase "in the broadest sense." That is a hint for the reader to look for and be aware of a a more narrow sense and a more rigorous definition. From a research standpoint [not a faith standpoint], a Creationist is one who embraces "Creation Science" or Bible-first methodology, as opposed to one who embraces ID or data-first methodology. Darwinists seek to discredit the latter by placing them in the same category as the former. --"Are you a creationist in the sense that Johnson describes?" Yes, insofar as I "believe" that the universe was created and designed. However, what I believe has nothing at all to do with the scientific methodology I might choose to employ. As Johnson would be the first to tell you, his phrase does not qualify as an accurate descriptor of the ID method, which is the only thing that matters in a scientific context. When Darwinists use the term ID/Creationist, they are either unaware of the distinction (inexcusable) or they mean to mislead their readers into believing that both camps approach science the same way (also inexcusable). --"Is Michael Behe? How about Bill Dembski?" Here again, we must distinguish between belief and methodology. Neither are methodological "creationists" because neither presupposes Biblical truths as a starting point for their investigation.StephenB
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Moran cannot show a single biological fact that ID Theory contradicts. So his use of the word “IDiot” to characterize ID proponents cannot be based upon their reasoning having any contradictions with scientific observation. So by sheer logical extension, his institutionalized demeaning of those who disagree with him can either be or based upon their reasoning (which doesn’t contradict scientific observation), or, based upon no scientific observation at all, Neither of these two remaining possibilities speak very highly of a person purporting to be scientific, but one or both must be true. Yet, Mr. Moran would have all believe that his word is the very testament to Science. This is dramatically evidenced by the fact that (in debate) he constantly refers back to ‘what he (and other biologists) know’ and that he (and these other biologists) are ‘not stupid’ about the issues But how can that be? If the conclusions (which drive his appetite to characterize people as IDiots) are a reliable reflection of scientific observation, then the average person might at least expect them to be based upon those scientific observations – but that’s not the case, as has been demonstrated. There are two realities that then unfold. Firstly, a scientist whose conclusions aren’t based upon observation is a pseudo-scientist, by definition. It hardly matters that it is a “scientist” who is doing the selling. And secondly, Larry Moran has a certain tone for those who don’t submit to his point of view. The fact is that he couldn’t care less about what the average person thinks on these issues – they are not his audience. His prized words have a very specific target, and it is unto that audience that he may indeed be considered “reliable”.Upright BiPed
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Larry I would appreciate good solid scientific answers instead of handwaving. What kind of science do you practice, Larry, if you refuse to address the strongest points presented against you? Are you not just deluding yourself?bornagain77
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Larry you then state; 'Please explain how our understanding of Alu sequences is an argument from ignorance.' Yes Larry please do explain; Little-Understood DNA Elements Serve Important Purpose - February 2011 excerpt: "Previously, no one knew what Alu elements and long noncoding RNAs did, whether they were junk or if they had any purpose. Now, we've shown that they actually have important roles in regulating protein production," said Maquat, the J. Lowell Orbison Chair, professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics and director of the Center for RNA Biology at the University of Rochester Medical Center. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110209131828.htm On Not Reading Signature in the Cell: A Response to Francisco Ayala Excerpt: This directed distribution of Alu (junk) sequences enhances the semantic and syntactical organization of human DNA. (page down for 33 references of ALU functionality) http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/03/_this_is_part_2.html Larry you then state; Please explain how the C-Value Paradox and the Onion Test are arguments from ignorance. Yes Larry please do explain; ,,,The chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is 'more evolved' than us humans, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical 'evolutionary progression' to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the size of genomes found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species despite their differences in complexity and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma Exactly how does that help you Larry? I want to know exactly why genomes are all over the place too, and Darwinian thinking certainly offers no meaningful insights into this 'paradox'. In fact it is in reality unexpected from an evolutionary perspective since information is an suppose to be an 'emergent' property of a material basis and thus some overall correlation between complexity and genome sizes was expected, thus why it is called 'paradox'! Larry you then state; 'Please explain how the frequency of fixation of mutations in junk DNA s an argument from ignorance.' Yes Larry please do explain the fixation of even one beneficial mutation; Dr. Sanford calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs. Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues: Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke Excerpt: The fact that very large population sizes—10^9 or greater—are required to build even a minimal [multi-residue] feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 10^8 generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes. Further note; Larry you might want to look at this as well; Why The Chromosomal Fusion Argument Doesn’t Wash - Jonathan M - February 2011 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/ Getting Over the Code Delusion - From Junk to Living Organism - November 2010 Excerpt: So what’s going on? These puzzles turn out to be intimately related. As organisms rise on the evolutionary scale, they tend to have more “junk DNA.” Noncoding DNA accounts for some 10 percent of the genome in many one-celled organisms, 75 percent in roundworms, and 98 percent in humans. The ironic suspicion became too obvious to ignore: maybe it’s precisely our “junk” that differentiates us from water fleas. Maybe what counts most is not so much the genes themselves as the way they are regulated and expressed. Noncoding DNA could provide the complex regulatory functions that direct genes toward service of the organism’s needs, including its developmental needs. That suspicion has now become standard doctrine — though a still much-too-simplistic doctrine if one stops there. For noncoding as well as coding DNA sequences continue unchanged throughout the organism’s entire trajectory of differentiation, from single cell to maturity. Lillie’s point therefore remains: it is hardly possible for an unchanging complex to explain an ordered developmental stream. Constant things cannot by themselves explain dynamic processes. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/bornagain77
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran: "'And in fact, the fossil record supports ID as the “mechanism” better than any other that has been proposed.' There are several reasonably intelligent arguments for ID. That’s not one of them." (The first paragraph quotes me.) I beg to differ. If you look at the history of any human produced (ie., designed) technology, you will see a pattern of designs coming into being fully formed, existing for a while, and then disappearing (eg., aircraft designs, automobile designs, computer designs). As Gould pointed out, the "trade secret of paleontology" is that the fossil record shows exactly that pattern. Species come into existence suddenly, fully formed, persist unchanged for several million years, and then just as abruptly disappear. What one does not see, not in a single instance anywhere in the record, is a species slowly, step by incremental step, transform itself into an organism with any kind of novel feature. You do not see some rodent's forelimbs incrementally elongating into bat's wings, or reptilian scales slowly metamorphing into feathers, or fish fins step by incremental step becoming pentadactyl limbs, nor any other such transformation, as Darwin stated should actually be defining quality of the fossil record, given the truth of his theory. Can you demonstrate a theory to me that explains what is actually in the fossil record better than ID?Bruce David
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran, I don't know about many of those things you bring up, but as to the experiment where large segments of mouse DNA were deleted, I think I have an answer. Not all DNA is useful all of the time. It may have a function that only comes into play in certain stages of development, for example. Or perhaps it is triggered as a response to disease but is not active in day to day operations of the cell.Collin
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Larry Moran, as to the two posts you did not address at 31 and 40, which have foundational importance. Please answer as to what is the exact transcendent ’cause’ of the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in molecular biology, and please answer as to why the entire nuclear genome of the mouse is transformed into an optical device for aid in capturing photons if a great percentage of its genome is junk as you maintain? As to your supposed defense of Junk DNA: ‘Please explain how the genetic load argument is an argument from ignorance.’ And Larry, exactly how does ‘genetic load’ help you establish evolution, when the whole overall concept actually supports Genetic Entropy in the first place? Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/ Sanford’s pro-ID thesis supported by PNAS paper, read it and weep, literally – September 2010 Excerpt: Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that most of the mutation load is associated with mutations with very small effects distributed at unpredictable locations over the entire genome, rendering the prospects for long-term management of the human gene pool by genetic counseling highly unlikely for all but perhaps a few hundred key loci underlying debilitating monogenic genetic disorders (such as those focused on in the present study). Larry you then state; ‘Please explain how the experiment where large segments of mouse DNA were deleted is an argument from ignorance.’ Yes Larry please do tell how finding large scale integrated redundancy helps you? The following study highlights the inherent fallacy in gene deletion/knockout experiments that have led many scientists astray in the past as to underestimating what the minimal genome for life (as as genomes for other life) should actually be: Minimal genome should be twice the size, study shows https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-biologist-rick-sternberg-defends-stephen-meyer-challenges-darrel-falk/#comment-349935 Larry you then state: ‘Please explain how the existence of pseudogenes is an argument from ignorance.’ Yes Larry please do explain how Darwinian ignorance helps us understand; Is “Pseudogene” a Misnomer? The term “pseudogene” may be as inappropriate as the term “junk DNA,” according to the entry on pseudogenes in the 2010 Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, published by prestigious the academic publisher John Wiley & Sons,, Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model, Part 5 – Fazale Rana Excerpt: In his critique, Venema does acknowledge that research shows some pseudogenes are functional, but he dismisses this point by claiming that such pseudogenes are rare. This assertion, however, is not supported by the latest work. In fact, two of the articles on our website discuss papers (published in peer-reviewed journals) that emphasize how widespread pseudogene function actually is. Researchers have discovered that the genesis of certain classes of junk DNA is not rare and random, but occurs frequently and in a repeatable manner. (Go here and here to read recent articles.) Scientists have also learned that the order of genes along a chromosome plays a functional role as well. Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model, Part 7 – Vitamin C refutation Excerpt: Yet, as biologist Peter Borger points out, fifty percent of the mutations in the primate and guinea pig exon X sequence are identical. In addition, the guinea pig exon X region shows a mutation at position 97, the location in the primate genomes where a deletion took place. These shared features could not have resulted because guinea pigs and primates shared a common ancestor. Instead, they must reflect nonrandom, reproducible changes. Daniel Fairbanks Cherry Picks Data On Pseudogenes To Prop Up Common Descent – March 2011 Evolutionary Thought in Action: The Subtlety of Metaphysics – Cornelius Hunter – July 2010 Excerpt: In the above example, the crucial metaphysics is woven in here: but when the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C is broken in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees, indicating we inherited it from a common ancestor, what else do you say it is other than a fact that we evolved from that common ancestor? This shared-error argument is a good example of how the evolution lie depends on subtle misrepresentations of the science and unspoken metaphysical claims. Any scientific analysis of the evidence would come up empty handed. Pseudogenes reveal various patterns, some which can be employed to argue for common descent, others which violate common descent (they could be explained, for instance, by common mechanism). Furthermore pseudogenes reveal evidence of mutational hotspots. But such quandaries are left unmentioned. Evolutionists selectively present the evidence to make evolution appear to be well supported. The evolution lie corrupts scientific knowledge.bornagain77
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Larry Moran, as to the two posts you did not address at 31 and 40, which have foundational importance. https://uncommondescent.com/books-of-interest/new-book-junk-dna-junked-in-favour-of-what/#comment-374560 Please answer as to what is the exact transcendent 'cause' of the quantum entanglement 'effect' in molecular biology, and please answer as to why the entire nuclear genome of the mouse is transformed into an optical device for aid in capturing photons if a great percentage of its genome is junk as you maintain? As to your supposed defense of Junk DNA: 'Please explain how the genetic load argument is an argument from ignorance.' And Larry, exactly how does 'genetic load' help you establish evolution, when the whole overall concept actually supports Genetic Entropy in the first place? Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/ Sanford’s pro-ID thesis supported by PNAS paper, read it and weep, literally - September 2010 Excerpt: Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that most of the mutation load is associated with mutations with very small effects distributed at unpredictable locations over the entire genome, rendering the prospects for long-term management of the human gene pool by genetic counseling highly unlikely for all but perhaps a few hundred key loci underlying debilitating monogenic genetic disorders (such as those focused on in the present study). https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/sanfords-pro-id-thesis-supported-by-pnas-paper-read-it-and-weep-literally/ Larry you then state; 'Please explain how the experiment where large segments of mouse DNA were deleted is an argument from ignorance.' Yes Larry please do tell how finding large scale integrated redundancy helps you? The following study highlights the inherent fallacy in gene deletion/knockout experiments that have led many scientists astray in the past as to underestimating what the minimal genome for life (as as genomes for other life) should actually be: Minimal genome should be twice the size, study shows https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-biologist-rick-sternberg-defends-stephen-meyer-challenges-darrel-falk/#comment-349935 Larry you then state: 'Please explain how the existence of pseudogenes is an argument from ignorance.' Yes Larry please do explain how Darwinian ignorance helps us understand; Is "Pseudogene" a Misnomer? The term "pseudogene" may be as inappropriate as the term "junk DNA," according to the entry on pseudogenes in the 2010 Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, published by prestigious the academic publisher John Wiley & Sons,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/is_pseudogene_a_misnomer042301.html Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model, Part 5 - Fazale Rana Excerpt: In his critique, Venema does acknowledge that research shows some pseudogenes are functional, but he dismisses this point by claiming that such pseudogenes are rare. This assertion, however, is not supported by the latest work. In fact, two of the articles on our website discuss papers (published in peer-reviewed journals) that emphasize how widespread pseudogene function actually is. Researchers have discovered that the genesis of certain classes of junk DNA is not rare and random, but occurs frequently and in a repeatable manner. (Go here and here to read recent articles.) Scientists have also learned that the order of genes along a chromosome plays a functional role as well. http://www.reasons.org/pseudogenes-and-origin-humanity-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-5 Pseudogenes and the Origin of Humanity: A Response to the Venema Critique of the RTB Human Origins Model, Part 7 - Vitamin C refutation Excerpt: Yet, as biologist Peter Borger points out, fifty percent of the mutations in the primate and guinea pig exon X sequence are identical. In addition, the guinea pig exon X region shows a mutation at position 97, the location in the primate genomes where a deletion took place. These shared features could not have resulted because guinea pigs and primates shared a common ancestor. Instead, they must reflect nonrandom, reproducible changes. http://www.reasons.org/pseudogenes-and-origin-humanity-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-7 Daniel Fairbanks Cherry Picks Data On Pseudogenes To Prop Up Common Descent - March 2011 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/daniel-fairbanks-cherry-picks-data-on-pseudogenes-to-prop-up-common-descent/ Evolutionary Thought in Action: The Subtlety of Metaphysics - Cornelius Hunter - July 2010 Excerpt: In the above example, the crucial metaphysics is woven in here: but when the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C is broken in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees, indicating we inherited it from a common ancestor, what else do you say it is other than a fact that we evolved from that common ancestor? This shared-error argument is a good example of how the evolution lie depends on subtle misrepresentations of the science and unspoken metaphysical claims. Any scientific analysis of the evidence would come up empty handed. Pseudogenes reveal various patterns, some which can be employed to argue for common descent, others which violate common descent (they could be explained, for instance, by common mechanism). Furthermore pseudogenes reveal evidence of mutational hotspots. But such quandaries are left unmentioned. Evolutionists selectively present the evidence to make evolution appear to be well supported. The evolution lie corrupts scientific knowledge. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/evolutionary-thought-in-action-subtlety.html Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) - Page up for Pseudo-genes refutation http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Endogenousbornagain77
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Dr.Moran: "When one describes someone as an evolutionist one clearly means that they accept evolution as the mechanism." You have just proved my point. The meaning of the word "evolution" in a normal context is "change over time", or "increasing complexity (or some other attribute) over time". But you have just used it to mean "evolution by a Darwinian (or some other naturalistic) mechanism." It is you who have co-opted the meaning to suit your purposes (you collectively, not individually).Bruce David
March 21, 2011
March
03
Mar
21
21
2011
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply