Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinist response to Wells’ junk DNA book: PZ Myers threatens to read it

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Myth of Junk DNAAs David Klinghoffer puts it at ENV:

Over the weekend, Jonathan Wells’s The Myth of Junk DNA broke into the top five on Amazon’s list of books dealing with genetics — a list normally dominated at its pinnacle by various editions of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Not bad, Jonathan.The juxtaposition with Dawkins’ Selfish Gene is appropriate, notwithstanding the demurrals of biochemist Larry Moran et al. Dawkins and other Darwinists, such as Jerry Coyne, have indeed posited that neo-Darwinian theory predicts that swaths of the genome will turn out to be functionless junk. The Junk DNA argument has been a pillar of the Darwin Lobby’s efforts to seduce public opinion and influence public policy. Professor Moran wants to imagine that Dawkins never held that neo-Darwinism predicts junk DNA. But that’s not how other Darwinists see it. (Compare, for example, Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, page 316.)

So far, with none of them having actually read the book (though P.Z. Myers threatens to do so), the Darwin apologists’ response to The Myth of Junk DNA has followed along four lines of defense.

1) The usual insults. In his blog Larry Moran of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, a grown man and from the looks of him not a young one either, repetitively derides Jonathan as an “IDiot.” (How embarrassing for this mature gentleman, you might think. Can you imagine Jonathan Wells or anyone else prominent in the ID community replying in kind, designating Professor Moran as “Larry Moron” or similar? The question is self-answering and tells you a lot about how desperation kindles anger among these people.)

– David Klinghoffer, “Junk DNA and the Darwinist Response so Far”ENV May 16, 2011 More.

UD News interview with Wells on his book, here.

Reb Moshe: PZ, What did you just say? You’re “thinking of picking up a copy of his book … well, hadn’t you better?” Or are you just a tourist around here? And haven’t we had this conversation already?

Comments
BA77: Yes I did notice that. I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'll try and find the time before I mouth off again. :-) As you know, however, Dr Behe's premises are heavily criticised and his conclusions are generally dismissed by 'mainstream' science and I will keep those opinions in mind as well. Not because they agree with me but because I consider it important to consider all the evidence and interpretations. I do not consider myself to have a materialistic or atheistic bias but I do think, at this point IN MY OPINION, the other side has a better case. Which doesn't mean I'm not interested in yours or that I'm here to show you the error of your ways or make you look foolish. That would be rude and juvenile and I don't think understanding and respect come from an attitude like that. Anyway, thanks for the info! I got the lawn all mowed (whew! three hours + of work) and now I've got to get ready to take my son to a swimming birthday party. And no sign of the Rapture yet here in England.ellazimm
May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
ellazimm, in case you didn't notice, I also listed a paper in which Dr. Behe did a survey of ALL the major papers of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades and found a stunning failure for the neo-Darwinian paradigm to extrapolate micro-evolutionary events, which all come at a cost of degrading the genome, to macro-evolution conjectures. I would maintain that is 'lots of results' that consistently undermine the current 'consensus'! Moreover ellazimm, even working from when we thought that 'some' mutations might be beneficial to the genome, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of detrimental mutations, which neo-Darwinists already admitted to, was already crushing to the neo-Darwinian paradigm as illustrated by Dr. Sanford in his book "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome": Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 The foundational rule for explaining the diversification of all life on earth, of Genetic Entropy, a rule which draws its foundation in science from the twin pillars of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and from the Law of Conservation of Information (Dembski, Marks, Abel), can be stated something like this: "All beneficial adaptations away from a parent species for a sub-species, which increase fitness to a particular environment, will always come at a loss of the optimal functional information that was originally created in the parent species genome." further notes; In fact, trying to narrow down an actual hard number for the truly beneficial mutation rate, that would actually explain the massively integrated machine-like complexity of proteins we find in life, is what Dr. Behe did in this following book: "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206 Dr. Behe, in his book examined the largest 'real world' tests that could be preformed on evolution to see what he could find and found,, A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135: "Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s.html The Edge Of Evolution - Michael Behe - Video Lecture http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199326-1 Thus ellazimm, why is this consistent and overwhelming evidence against neo-Darwinism not sufficient for you? Perhaps you will wait for the 'consensus' to change? But what does consensus have to do with empirical science ellazimm? It matters not one iota what triple PhD scientists say if they don't have the evidence to back them up!!!bornagain77
May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
BA77: I heard about the fruit fly result. Still, worth more time just in case . . . One paper/result is suggestive, it matters. But lots of results over years and years becomes consensus. Which is why I'd recommend the ID community to do the same kind of thing. A lot.ellazimm
May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT
ellazimm you state: 'I’d spend money testing the ability of DNA to generate new features. LIke what Lenski is doing but more so. For example: after carefully sequencing the genome of a base population of a given species (flies? worms? whatever)' which reminded me of this recent experiment; Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies and also reminded me of this recent paper: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00bornagain77
May 21, 2011
May
05
May
21
21
2011
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
Mung: I think your ideas are fine; I didn't mean they shouldn't be included in ID research. Personally, I'm not optimistic that detecting design is going to be easy so . . . I'd spend money testing the ability of DNA to generate new features. LIke what Lenski is doing but more so. For example: after carefully sequencing the genome of a base population of a given species (flies? worms? whatever) see if it's possible to generate novel features with really strong environmental input. I"m not explaining this well 'cause I'm trying to be concise. I'd take the base population and split them into different stressful environments, let them breed for hundreds of generations and see what happens.ellazimm
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
Me:
As far as the conservation argument goes, this sounds fine as a qualitative argument
Mung:
Can one accept the findings of these comparisons, reject common descent, and then reason that these sequences are indeed conserved, in a coherent manner?
OK. An interesting proposition. To do so, you must reject quite a large part of established theory, but for a moment let's do so. As I see it, there are two parts to this idea: the first is why are apparently 'conserved' sequences similar?, and the second is why are apparently 'non-conserved' sequences dissimilar? Rejecting common descent, I guess you would have to argue that the conservation reflects some sort of shared function. Of course, between more apparently similar species you would expect more shared function, so you would expect the pattern of similarities even in the absence of common descent. Rejecting common descent, the non-conserved regions could either represent functional differences or variation due to noise/mutation (i.e. in true junk). The former is a rejection of junk, and would be consistent with the rejection of junk DNA also. The latter is more problematic. Under the latter, the question arises: why do species share patterns in their junk more often when they also share patterns in the non-junk? This implies common descent. I suppose then, on reflection, it is perhaps difficult to accept junk DNA while rejecting common descent provided differences and similarities are scrutinised. Do you agree, or would you propose a different way of looking at this?paulmc
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Mung:
Are you claiming that the idea that most of the genome is transcribed is false? Are you claiming that the idea that most the genome is transcribed has not been arrived at by other independent researchers?
I am stating that more recent methods (RNA-seq) produce rather different results than tiling array experiments do, and that tiling arrays are understood to have a high false positive rate. I wouldn't like anyone to take the reading that simply because a more recent (2010) study contradicts an earlier study, the earlier study must be wrong, however the technology is improving and there are reasons to suspect the earlier results. A false positive in a tiling array can come from occasional transcriptional errors and so are noise, rather than a genuine part of the transcriptome. There is of course still the further step that they need to actually function (i.e. they need to predictably affect the proteome), otherwise they are junk RNA. I think it is important for ID advocates to consider the more recent results rather than preferentially accepting the earlier results simply because they suit their world view (not directed at you, Mung).paulmc
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
As far as the conservation argument goes, this sounds fine as a qualitative argument.
I'm more interested in what it says about common descent. Can one accept the findings of these comparisons, reject common descent, and then reason that these sequences are indeed conserved, in a coherent manner? I'm not one dimensional :) I have the impression that Wells does not accept common descent. i could of course be mistaken. But as far as I am concerned it makes no sense to speak of a "conserved" sequence apart from common descent. So how can one use it as an argument against "junk DNA" unless one accepts common descent?Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Mung – is #75 a quote from Wells’ book? (Hence the blockquote?)
Absolutely. Apologies for not including the appropriate cite. Chapter 9. pp 89 and 90
The idea that most of the genome is transcribed comes from microarray tiling expts, e.g. Johnson et al. (2005).
Are you claiming that the idea that most of the genome is transcribed is false? Are you claiming that the idea that most the genome is transcribed has not been arrived at by other independent researchers? Chapter 9 is a summary chapter. But in Chapter 10 Wells cites the ENCODE project, from 2007.
First, our studies provide convincing evidence that the genome is pervasively transcribed, such that the majority of its bases can be found in primary transcripts, including non-protein-coding transcripts, and those that extensively overlap one another. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project
From your source:
Finally, results from the ENCODE pilot project have suggested a highly interleaved structure of the human transcriptome, with an estimate that as much as 93% of the human genome may give rise to primary transcripts [9]. Though this estimate was based on a combination of sources that included rapid amplification of cDNA ends coupled to detection on tiling arrays (RACE-tiling), manually curated GENCODE annotations, and paired-end sequencing of long cDNAs (GIS-PET), it was dominated by the results of RACE-tiling experiments that alone found 80% genome coverage, compared to 64.6% and 66.4% for GENCODE annotations and GIS-PET, respectively.
Don't even ask me to interpret that, lol. 64.6 and 66.4? The GENCODE project was not thorough enough before they came to their conclusions?
Finally, integration of these new sources of information, in particular with respect to mammalian evolution based on inter- and intra-species sequence comparisons, has yielded novel mechanistic and evolutionary insights about the functional landscape of the human genome. Together, these studies are defining a path forward to pursue a more-comprehensive characterisation of human genome function
Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
ellazimm @72
I’d pick different areas but thanks for answering the question.
Would you mind telling me what those areas are and why you would pick them over the two that I specified? My recommendations began with:
I think a good first project would be to look at human design and human designers and try to identify principles and patterns of design in general.
Any general theory of design ought to be able to say what design is, what it looks like, and offer generalities that go beyond specific instance. Wouldn't you agree? So why would that not be a fundamental necessity for design theory if it truly hopes to be accepted as science? Do you have any reasons why what I have described cannot be included in the category of science?Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Mung - is #75 a quote from Wells' book? (Hence the blockquote?) The idea that most of the genome is transcribed comes from microarray tiling expts, e.g. Johnson et al. (2005). However, more recent work has shown this to be more than likely a methodological artefact - see van Bakel et al. (2010). There may well be substantial amounts of non-coding RNA (e.g. Kapranov et al., 2010), but not a great deal of current support for a majority of the genome being transcribed. Further, those parts that are transcribed are only potentially functional. As far as the conservation argument goes, this sounds fine as a qualitative argument. But when we look at the proportion of conserved vs unconserved intragenic regions (e.g. here) we are still left with a situation where a majority of the genome is mostly likely to be junk. The most likely reason for the presence of such unconserved regions in the genome is duplication followed by genetic drift (i.e. the escape from purifying selection).paulmc
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Most of our DNA does not code for proteins; on that, everyone agrees. The question here is whether non-protein-coding DNA is nonfuncitonal "junk" that provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design. Evidence for the functionailty of non-protein-coding DNA falls into two broad categories: The first consists of evidence suggesting that such DNA is probably functional. Ths evidence comes from two sources; the first source is the transcription of most non-protein-coding DNA into various RNAs. A second source of evidence in the first category comes from comparisons of DNA sequences in different organisms. ... As we have seen, many non-protein-coding DNA sequences are conserved, suggesting that they serve biological function. So in the first category, widespread transcription and sequence conservation suggest that much "junk" DNA is probably functional, though they do not tell us what the precise functions are. The second broad category consists of evidence for specific biological functions of non-protein-coding DNA.
Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
This would put me very much in line what you have stated is Wells’ position, but very much at odds with his claims in his UD interview.
Well, hopefully you'll read my first post as a cautionary tale to ID advocates to not take the "myth of junk DNA" argument too far. I began the post with "It’s important to understand ..." An example of relying on an interview rather than the source can also be seen in Tom Schneider's response to a James Gleick interview. http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/Gleick2011.html
Gleick claimed that Shannon originated the term 'bit'.
But when you actually read the book:
Like the transistor, this development also involved a neologism: the word bit, chosen in this case not by committee but by the lone author, a thirty-two-year-old named Claude Shannon. With accompanying footnote:
TRANSISTOR...BIT: The committee got transistor from John R. Pierce; Shannon got bit from John W. Tukey.
Mung
May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Mung
Do you now disagree with my Post #1?
At the risk of continuing a fairly trivial semantic argument, yes (although mostly with Wells, and less so with you). In Post #1, you state: It’s important to understand that Well’s does not argue that most of the genome is not junk, but rather that the more we learn about it, the more we find what we previously assumed was junk turn out to serve some purpose or function after all. This is different indeed than Wells' argument that he makes - at least when describing the book (as above from his UD O'Leary interview) - hence the disagreement over the title. I take greater issue, however, with the second part of post #1: The “junk DNA” argument is turning out to be a “Darwinism of the gaps” fallacy, based not on what we do know, but rather on what we don’t know, and as science progresses, the junk appears to be in retreat. I disagree with this - and strongly - although I assume it is a continuation of Wells' rather than your own position. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the term 'Darwinism of the Gaps' implies that Darwinian evolutionary theory is only a useful explanation for the non-functional 'junk' parts of the genome (in the same way that a 'god of the gaps' argument only seeks god in the unexplained)! Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The functional genome is the bread and butter of classical neoDarwinian evolution, while junk has posed problems to classical neoDarwinian views. Secondly, there is a problem with the claim that 'junk' as a theory is in any sort of meaningful retreat. The amount of the genome where recent function has been found is miniscule. In total, there is only known function for 8% of the genome. This is problematic when you consider the mode of reproduction for the genomic elements being discussed. Retrotransposons are able to create DNA duplicates that reinsert themselves randomly into the nuclear genome. I will maintain that the best explanation we have for the large copy numbers of these transposable elements is that they are largely junk. Same with pseudogenes. Such things are occasionally functional. There is zero doubt that they have been essential to shaping the human genome and making us what we are. But only on fleeting occasions. And, of course, they are also the sometimes cause of disease. The bulk of them are best understood as relicts of old duplications that have mutated to the point of no longer functioning. Incidentally - a point of commonality, perhaps - I have already argued elsewhere that this shouldn't be seen as an affront to ID. This would put me very much in line what you have stated is Wells' position, but very much at odds with his claims in his UD interview.paulmc
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Mung: Love the I'D pun. I'd pick different areas but thanks for answering the question. If I win the lottery I'll let you know! :-) And now, one and all, it's my bedtime here in England. Take care, do good, keep the faith.ellazimm
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
So, for example, if we look at software engineering and come across some principle or pattern that we think might makse sense in a biological setting, we could say that we predict we'll find cases in nature, and then we could actually test that hypothesis. ID call that real science, would you?Mung
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Well, I think a good first project would be to look at human design and human designers and try to identify principles and patterns of design in general. I think that could give ID a lot of credibilty as a science. Then perhaps look to see whether any of those principle and patterns are present in the world apart from human design.Mung
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Mung: :-) But seriously, what areas of research do YOU think should be pursued?ellazimm
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
paulmc:
In Post #1, you do not present your view as an opinion. You state with an apparent certainty what Wells’ intent is (which you later soften).
Post #1 is there for all to read. I never mentioned anything about Wells' intent. When I said I offered an opinion it was in reference to Wells choice of a title. That should have been clear from the context, as that is what we were debating. In fact, I stated that explicitly:
What i recall is that I offered an opinion about what Wells meant by using the word “myth” in the title...
And you even acknowledge that fact:
You mean, like regarding the title of the book in question?
The question of the title did not come up until post #3:
Sure – it is good that this is Well’s argument, but then isn’t the title misleading?
So I ask again, what fact(s) did I get wrong, or what argument did I make that was not correct? Do you now disagree with my Post #1?Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
If I won $20 million in the Euro Lottery and decided to spend it on ID research what do you think I should fund?
1 million to me 1 million to Uncommon Descent 1 million for yourself 17 million to Discovery InstituteMung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Mung: well some interesting work was reported on the last two episodes of ID: the future; I'm interested in how those results are reviewed by others in the field. And to see if it can be replicated and enlarged upon. A single paper/experiment is interesting but it has to stand up to scrutiny. All scientific knowledge is provisional subject to verification and new data. Some recent work was done to confirm some of Einstein's early work!! Scientists are a tough crowd to please. I would very much like to see some work done specifying the time and method of design intervention. If Dr Behe's edge of evolution is correct then it should be possible to start to narrow down when design implementation was used to jump past the edge. But, as I've said, I'm here to ask questions and to listen to what you all think. So . . . what kind of research do you think ID should pursue? What hypotheses do you want to see tested? What ID predictions would you like to see established and how would you do it? If I won $20 million in the Euro Lottery and decided to spend it on ID research what do you think I should fund?ellazimm
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
But I still wonder: if there is design in nature then what? Lots and lots of questions still to ask and answer I figure
Absolutely. So I take it you would disagree with those who claim that ID is a "science stopper"?Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Chris Doyle: well, as ID is a science independent of theology I think I'll stick to more material evidence. But I appreciate your comment. BA77: As I said, I'm not her to promote or defend my views, I'm here to learn about yours, the collective yours. Please don't waste your time attempting to argue against my assumed position. Perhaps I'm considering a change in my view . . . maybe that's why I'm here? Mung: I am NOT wilfully mis-understanding ID. I'm asking why ID does not/will not extend into the questions I brought up for the reasons I gave. I think that the nature, methods and timing of the designer are science ESPECIALLY if the designer is non-trancendental. The presence of a malevolent designer I THINK might explain a lot of what we observe in the physical universe. So, in fact, contemplating that makes me MORE favourable to the notion of design in nature. I see much more pain, suffering and chaos than I see joy, kindness or reasons for existence. But if the designer is cruel and mean spirited . . . Anyway, I think we've pursued this as far as we can. I'm glad some of you think my questions are meaningful even if the only answer is: ID doesn't go there. But I still wonder: if there is design in nature then what? Lots and lots of questions still to ask and answer I figure.ellazimm
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
spiritual experiences are not signs of delusion. This was empirically established by a couple of fellows who wrote a book called "How God changes the brain." Apparently those who have had God type, or spiritual awaking hippy type experiences show brain scans with perfect function. They found also, that those who pray and meditate, not only have perfectly wonderful brains, but their brains actually show higher function in the regions associated with compassion and empathy etc. The guys that wrote the book were not religious. One says he believes only in the laws of nature, the other is an agnostic. So the notion that "religious characters are delusional" is more of a myth at this point. http://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503414junkdnaforlife
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Mung - In Post #1, you do not present your view as an opinion. You state with an apparent certainty what Wells' intent is (which you later soften). I disagree with this interpretation because of Wells' claims in the recent interview with Denyse O'Leary for this website. My assumption in doing so is that Wells is fairly representing his book in this interview. To reiterate, Wells says: "If the Ming vase is a living cell and the leftover carpet nails are “junk DNA,” it turns out that the nails are not only made of gold, but they also make an essential contribution to the beauty of the vase…. Like Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings and staged photos of peppered moths, junk DNA is not science, but myth." But as yet I have not had the chance to read more than small excerpts from the book. It may turn out that you are entirely right (leaving unresolved Wells' apparent diningenuity in the above interview).paulmc
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
p.s. ID is compatible with a designer or designers that no longer exist.Mung
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
ellazimm, Hopefully you'll see this tomorrow. Many of us agree that you are asking fine questions. Many of us would willingly discuss those issues. But why do you feel it necessary to tie them to intelligent design? If you were willing to demonstrate that you understand and accept that there is a difference, that the questions you are asking are not the sorts of questions that ID sets itself to answer, you might make more progress. I'm willing to wager that you reject the claim that the design in nature is real and is a result of an intelligent cause. So why should anyone bother to argue over hypotheticals with you about some designer or designers that you deny even exist? Say I agree that there is at least one malevolent designer running around out there. IS that all of a sudden somehow going to strengthen your conviction that there is real design in nature and that it has an intelligent cause, even though that cause may be malevolent? I seriously doubt it. ID is compatible with multiple designers. ID is compatible with all different kinds of designers with different motives and different skill set and different moralities. ID is compatible with non-supernatural designers. As such, your questions are truly misguided and display a profound misunderstanding of intelligent design. Is it willfull?Mung
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
paulmc, What fact(s) did I get wrong, or what argument did I make that was not correct? What i recall is that I offered an opinion about what Wells meant by using the word "myth" in the title, and I also was sure to state that he made it clear that he was not saying there were no non-functional DNA. I felt free to offer my opinion for two reasons: 1. I actually have the book and am reading it. 2. I attended the book launching party in Seattle where I heard Dr. Wells speak and participated in the Q&A. That said, I think I have a more sound basis for my opinion than you have for yours. What say you?Mung
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Mung:
wow. Could you read that any more literally? And then you extrapolate what I said about ALU repeats to the entire genome? Let me assure you that Wells’ book is not my first exposure to genetics or the genome or even ALU sequences.
I shall rest assured, then.
When you see me making bad arguments, either logically or on the facts, then perhaps you might be warranted in making some assumption about what I do or do not know. Thanks.
You mean, like regarding the title of the book in question?paulmc
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
ellazimm you ask deep questions for one who refuses to closely examine his false view of reality i.e. materialism; ,,,To start, here is further falsification of your materialistic philosophy upon which your belief in neo-Darwinism is built; The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation: Of note: An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge. Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts But ellazimm, though the preceding experiments conclusively falsify any claim your base materialistic philosophy had on being a complete description of reality, and indeed verifies the Christian Theistic postulate of John 1:1 (In The Beginning Was The Word,,) in the process, the results of quantum entanglement/teleportation have a far more devastating effect on falsifying neo-Darwinism directly! ellazimm this is because quantum entanglement/information has now been found in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ ellazimm, It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'special' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Yet it is also very interesting to note, in Darwinism's inability to explain this 'transcendent quantum effect' adequately, that Theism has always postulated a transcendent component to life that is not constrained by time and space, for Theism has always postulated that God, who is not limited by time or space, indeed He created time and space, has created all life on earth. Now ellazimm the only option you have to explain quantum entanglement, within molecular biology, and thus try to save some form of your neo-Darwinian belief system, is to appeal to a 'non-reductive' materialistic framework. This would include appealing to many-worlds-and/or appealing to multiverses. The crushing problem for that option for you is that you will destroy your ability to do science in a rational way since you will hold that anything can happen at any time; Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php John Lennox - Science Is Impossible Without God - Quotes - video remix http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/ ellazimm, perhaps you would care to defend your now falsified philosophy?bornagain77
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply