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

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 16, 2011

'Junk DNA', Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The Myth of Junk DNA As 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

...why don’t you explain to me why each of the 1 million copies of Alu in the human genome is necessary.
It's a trick question! Only 999,999 are actually necessary. When Jesus told the parable of the shephard leaving the 99 sheep, he was just rounding down. So here, in our own human DNA, we see the parable of the good shephard written. Yet more irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design! Take that you doubting doubter!Mung_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

What an odd response! All I asked was what you think the best explanation for an observed phenomenon - i.e. I tried to discuss the evidence that you claim I am avoiding. Yet, you baulk at the first question! Will you not answer the question at all? If not, you have no grounds to claim that I am the one avoiding the evidence. A final time - and I shall not respond to you if you refuse again - Considering that it is a retrotransposon, what do you think is the best current explanation for having more than a million copies of Alu in the human genome?paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Why the title of the "Myth of Junk DNA" is not misleading in the least. From New York times: "The human genome is riddled with dead genes, fossils of a sort, dating back hundreds of thousands of years — the genome’s equivalent of an attic full of broken and useless junk." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/science/20gene.html It is evident that the idea of "junk dna" has seeped into pop culture, media etc, and has worked well with the ideology that the NYT promotes, and ideology that generally utilizes, and possibly relies heavily on, the neo-darwinst perspective. (Most likely why "junk dna" has in fact reached legendary status within those circles.) Certainly held up like a trophy by the Dawkins types. Now with the initial findings of the newer research, the damage control has already started. The NYT excerpt was the lead-in. This article was written in 2010.junkdnaforlife_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

paulmc believe whatever you want, you will anyway despite what the evidence says!!, If it trips your trigger to believe most of the DNA is functionless just because no one has figured out complete functionality of the DNA then go for it, It is your life to throw away as you wish on futile fantasies. Yet paulmc please carefully consider that the staggering complexity being dealt with, that we mere mortals may very well never figure out completely, has just begun to be looked at!! Should you not be a bit more humble in your opinion of yourself to say what is and is not functional at this point of investigation. And if you can't find such humbleness in yourself in the face of such wondrous complexity, why do you insist that we also adopt the unwarranted arrogance to call it functionless at this point.bornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

I am more than happy to discuss other issues later - but one thing at a time. I will remind you that the topic of this thread is junk DNA, and you are going off topic by asking other questions. (I will respond to your other questions later but let's at least stick to the task at hand for a moment.) So, please, answer my question: Considering that it is a retrotransposon, what do you think is the best current explanation for having more than a million copies of Alu in the human genome?paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

paulmc, first quit playing stupid games and falsify the null hypothesis so that you have a 'scientific leg to stand on!!! Second, you really are having a extremely hard time seeing your philosophical/atheistic bias in all this aren't you. paulmc, JUST BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW THE FUNCTION DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NO FUNCTION!!! moreover from what we can grasp of the information processing in the cell that far, far, surpasses anything we have ever accomplished in our most advanced programs, it is sheer arrogance for atheists to presuppose that simply because we do not understand the function therefore it is functionless. ESPECIALLY since the atheists have no scientific foundation to explain the information we find in the first place.bornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

the alu debacle seems to be divided, again by the junk, not-junk camps: Some scientists regard Alu as an example of "selfish DNA" – it encodes no protein and appears to exist only for its own replication. If one reduces the definition of life to "the perpetuation and amplification of a DNA sequence through time," then Alu is an extremely successful life form. However, other scientists believe that transposable elements have played an important role in evolution by creating new mutations and gene combinations. Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock hypothesized that transposable elements provide a mechanism to rapidly reorganize the genome in response to environmental stress. Like Alu, the Ds transposable element discovered in corn by McClintock is a defective transposon and requires the help of a second element called Ac (activator). http://www.geneticorigins.org/pv92/aluframeset.htmjunkdnaforlife_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Okay 77 - perhaps you can manage a simpler question then: Considering that it is a retrotransposon, what do you think is the best current explanation for having more than a million copies of Alu in the human genome?paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Moreover paulmc, you seem to completely miss the point of the null hypothesis I listed. Neo-Darwinists have NEVER demonstrated the generation of ANY functional information WHATSOEVER. Yet despite the FACT you have no evidence that neo-Darwinism can do anything that you claim that it can do, you act as if I should treat your opinions on other questions of information in DNA as if they mattered!!! Do you see the complete disconnect here paulmc??? Why in blue blazes should I treat your 'scientific opinion' with any more respect than someone who insisted perpetual motion machines are feasible???bornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

paulmc, you state; 'why don’t you explain to me why each of the 1 million copies of Alu in the human genome is necessary.' Thus your philosophical/theological bias is, if we don't know the function of it then it therefore has no function??? Is not this the same exact reasoning that led to the vestigial organ fiasco of neo-Darwinists??? “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff ,, paulmc it is sheer arrogance for neo-Darwinists to assume that the parts of the DNA that we have not figured the function out for yet is 'Junk', ESPECIALLY considering the fact that from what we are able to grasp of DNA complexity we realize we are dealing with information processing that is orders of magnitude greater than anything we have yet devised in our most sophisticated computer programs. ,,, Indeed arrogance of a high order!!! Why such unreasonable arrogance paulmc, why do you let you atheism dictate your science instead of following the evidence where it leads???bornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

I read the links that paulmc posted. I noticed this comment in the blogpost of the Moran fellow, in the oldest entry of the paulmc links. "The only way out of this box—without abandoning your assumption about humans being the most complex animals—is to make up some stories about the function of so-called junk DNA. If it turns out that there are lots of hidden genes in that junk then maybe it will rescue your assumption." Mr. Moran 2007 --How much does "lots" mean? Since this 2007 post, much info concerning the junky regions not being so junky has come to light (aside from the har-1 stinger). Does that mean the the assumptions of whomever the Moran nemesis was/is have been rescued?junkdnaforlife_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

paulmc, you are trying to force your philosophical bias against the evidence., I’m trying to point you in the CORRECT direction
Perhaps read the evidence before attempting to condescend to me. As for philosophical biases - why don't you explain to me why each of the 1 million copies of Alu in the human genome is necessary. I happily accept that transposable elements are occasionally functional. But I don't accept that this explains their copy numbers in the genome.paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

paulmc, you are trying to force your philosophical bias against the evidence., I'm trying to point you in the CORRECT direction, yet you stubbornly choose to be misled despite the fact we are dealing with information processing that absolutely dwarfs our puny human capabilities. Perhaps you should write Bill Gates and tell him to stop spending money trying to cull programming secrets out of the programming of DNA since you are so convinced that DNA is for the most part junk???? Bill Gates, in recognizing the superiority found in Genetic Coding compared to the best computer coding we now have, has now funded research into this area: Welcome to CoSBi - (Computational and Systems Biology) Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas. http://www.cosbi.eu/index.php/component/content/article/171 ,,,Tell you what paulmc, I give you a chance to show me how commited you are to scientific integrity, falsify this, then you might have a leg to stand on in this first place scientifically, and you will have my attention; The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8 ) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.htmlbornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

what good reason would you have for ignoring such astonishing evidence for ‘whole’ functionality of DNA and to continue to argue that vast swaths of DNA are junk?
Assuming you don't mean that rhetorically, I have attempted to point you in the direction of (nice summaries of) this evidence. It is up to you to read it.paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

semi OT: new podcast up at 'ID The Future'; "An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-05-16T17_01_43-07_00bornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

paulmc, how much of mouse DNA is junk in this test for functionality? Shoddy Engineering or Intelligent Design? Case of the Mouse's Eye - April 2009 Excerpt: -- The (entire) nuclear genome is thus transformed into an optical device that is designed to assist in the capturing of photons. This chromatin-based convex (focusing) lens is so well constructed that it still works when lattices of rod cells are made to be disordered. Normal cell nuclei actually scatter light. -- So the next time someone tells you that it “strains credulity” to think that more than a few pieces of “junk DNA” could be functional in the cell - remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig020011.html and paulmc, besides your preconceived philosophical bias for atheistic neo-Darwinism, what good reason would you have for ignoring such astonishing evidence for 'whole' functionality of DNA and to continue to argue that vast swaths of DNA are junk? This is science paulmc, this is not theology!!! The Evidence could care less about your feelings!!!bornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Mung says:
If I understand Wells correctly, the Myth is that “junk DNA” is evidence for Darwinism and evidence against Intelligent Design.
Sorry, but that is not correct. Read what Wells says in an interview with O'Leary on this very website: "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. [Collins] and other promoters of the myth of junk DNA have put their faith in a “Darwin of the gaps” argument that must now retreat in the face of new advances in genome research." This is a direct claim that "junk DNA" is not only potentially useful but essential. No scope is allowed for any of the genome to be junk in these quotations. Wells plainly claims that the existence of junk DNA is a myth.paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

paulmc, what amazes me is that you neo-Darwinists have the audacity to pronounce vast swaths of the DNA, which you don't even begin to have a firm clue as to its complete functionality, to be junk. Yet despite such deluded confidence to make such pronouncements, you guys cannot even account for the origination of a single functional gene within the genome; Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm (novel genes of which humans have over 1000 completely unique functional genes);,, ,,, nor can you guys even account for the origination of a single novel functional protein; "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." http://www.mendeley.com/research/estimating-the-prevalence-of-protein-sequences-adopting-functional-enzyme-folds/ "Blue Gene's final product, due in four or five years, will be able to "fold" a protein made of 300 amino acids, but that job will take an entire year of full-time computing." Paul Horn, senior vice president of IBM research, September 21, 2000 http://www.news.com/2100-1001-233954.html Networking a few hundred thousand computers together has reduced the time to a few weeks for simulating the folding of a single protein molecule: A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. A Single Protein Molecule - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018233 Francis Collins on Making Life Excerpt: 'We are so woefully ignorant about how biology really works. We still don't understand how a particular DNA sequence—when we just stare at it—codes for a protein that has a particular function. We can't even figure out how that protein would fold—into what kind of three-dimensional shape. And I would defy anybody who is going to tell me that they could, from first principles, predict not only the shape of the protein but also what it does.' - Francis Collins - Former Director of the Human Genome Project http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/collins-genome.html ,,,nor can you guys even account for the fixation of a single beneficial mutation within the human genome; Waiting Longer for Two Mutations, Part 5 - Michael Behe Excerpt: the appearance of a particular (beneficial) double mutation in humans would have an expected time of appearance of 216 million years, http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/03/waiting-longer-for-two-mutations-part-5/ ,,,yet despite the sheer, staggering, unmatched, complexity found in DNA; Do you believe Richard Dawkins exists? Excerpt: DNA is the best information storage mechanism known to man. A single pinhead of DNA contains as much information as could be stored on 2 million two-terabyte hard drives. http://creation.com/does-dawkins-exist ,,,complexity that even makes our top engineers in quantum computing drool; Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ ,,,you want to lecture me that I just don't understand 'junk DNA"???!!!??? EXCUSE ME paulmc, I have a much better idea, I suggest that you completely wipe the backboard of your mind clean of the only true 'junk' that is around this place, and that would each and every piece of neo-Darwinian garbage that you have swallowed through the years!!! further note: The 'parallel' complexity of genes is far, far beyond, human capability!! Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010 Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Myth is the wrong word if your characterization of the book is correct.
If I understand Wells correctly, the Myth is that "junk DNA" is evidence for Darwinism and evidence against Intelligent Design. So you're reading the title as "Junk DNA is a Myth." But that's not the title.Mung_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Mung:
No. Wells is also the author of Icons of Evolution and this is just another icon.
The title of the book is The Myth of Junk DNA. The first post you wrote above states: "It’s important to understand that Well’s does not argue that most of the genome is not junk" ...meaning junk DNA is not a myth. But 'myth' means the idea must be definitively wrong. Myth is the wrong word if your characterisation of the book is correct.paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

No ba77 - honestly - I don't have time nor energy to wade through your creation website links. Read some of the evidence for junk DNA and then try discussing it in your own words. For example, why not discuss Larry's breakdown of the human genome (my first link above).paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

... but then isn’t the title misleading?
No. Wells is also the author of Icons of Evolution and this is just another icon.Mung_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

paulmc, defends, via Moran, the materialistic presupposition of 'If we don't understand its function then it probably doesn't have any function',,, Which reminds me exactly like the vestigial argument of neo-Darwinists of yore which has now, after much research and many years, been completely demolished ,,, be that as it may that the neo-Darwinists were completely, utterly, wrong on vestigial organs, are neo-Darwinists now justified in labeling the vast swaths of DNA, which they really have no firm understanding of, junk??? According to ENCODE (and common sense), NO they don't!!! Concluding statement of the ENCODE study: "we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more 'neutral' view of many of the functions conferred by the genome." http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/ENCODE/nature05874.pdf further notes,,, Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams Excerpt: Not only has the ENCODE project elevated UTRs out of the ‘junk’ category, but it now appears that they are far more active than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected - April 2010 Excerpt: Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said,,,, Network theory is now a new paradigm that has replaced the one-way linear diagram of gene to RNA to protein. That used to be called the “Central Dogma” of genetics. Now, everything is seen to be dynamic, with promoters and blockers and interactomes, feedback loops, feed-forward processes, and “bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201004.htm#20100405a Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html ,,,Contrary to Darwinian expectations (requirement) for 'junk DNA', the complexity being uncovered in genomes keeps increasing dramatically as our resolution increases: Most Detailed Annotation of Fruit-Fly Genome Points Way to Understanding All Organisms’ Genomes – December 2010 Excerpt: “We also found an order-of-magnitude increase in the ways that genes are spliced and edited to produce alternate forms of known proteins, thus significantly increasing the complexity of the proteome.”,,, Despite the scrutiny to which the Drosophila genome has been subjected, the researchers found new or altered exons or splice forms in almost three-quarters of Drosophila’s previously annotated genes,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101222131131.htm This following study, that discovered a 'Second Regulatory Code" on top of the protein coding DNA code, should have, by all reasonable accounts, completely stopped the neo-Darwinian claim for 'Junk DNA' dead in its tracks: Nature Reports Discovery of “Second Genetic Code” But Misses Intelligent Design Implications - May 2010 Excerpt: Rebutting those who claim that much of our genome is useless, the article reports that "95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced, and that changes in this process accompany many diseases." ,,,, the complexity of this "splicing code" is mind-boggling:,,, A summary of this article also titled “Breaking the Second Genetic Code” in the print edition of Nature summarized this research thusly: “At face value, it all sounds simple: DNA makes RNA, which then makes protein. But the reality is much more complex.,,, So what we’re finding in biology are: # “beautiful” genetic codes that use a biochemical language; # Deeper layers of codes within codes showing an “expanding realm of complexity”; # Information processing systems that are far more complex than previously thought (and we already knew they were complex), including “the appearance of features deeper into introns than previously appreciated” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/nature_reports_discovery_of_se.html This following paper highlights the regulatory role that the 'second code' has over the primary protein coding DNA code: Researchers Crack ‘Splicing Code,’ Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity Excerpt: “For example, three neurexin genes can generate over 3,000 genetic messages that help control the wiring of the brain,” says Frey. “Previously, researchers couldn’t predict how the genetic messages would be rearranged, or spliced, within a living cell,” Frey said. “The splicing code that we discovered has been successfully used to predict how thousands of genetic messages are rearranged differently in many different tissues. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505133252.htm etc.. etc.. etc... ,,, neo-Darwinists think nothing of making such sweeping claims for vast swaths of Junk DNA, in the face of such apparent complexity. Claims which are clearly based on nothing more than their 'religiously motivated' atheistic/materialistic beliefs. But alas neo Darwinists arguing from a 'theological' basis, instead of a sober empirical basis, is how it has been from the beginning: Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.htmlbornagain77_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 1 Sure - it is good that this is Well's argument, but then isn't the title misleading? Again, Larry Moran has addressed this point on several occasions. Sure, there are frequent discoveries of function in genomic parts previously thought to be junk. But, if you simply state that in words, it gives the false impression that we are progressing towards a 100% functional genome. We are not - such discoveries count for tiny parts of the genome.paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Perhaps if you can put your concerns with incivility to the side for a moment and focus on content, I wonder if you have actually read Larry Moran's explanations for junk DNA? These reasons demonstrate with high levels of certainty that the genome bears large amounts of junk. i.e. this and this and this and this amongst many others. At least read the first link.paulmc_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

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. 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.Mung_{May 16, 2011
May
05
May
16
16
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply