“Junk DNA”’s defender doesn’t “do politeness”?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 8, 2014

'Junk DNA', Darwinism, News}

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

The Darwinians do seem to be biting back, to judge from yesterday in Nature:

The latest ENCODE report drew wide attention on Twitter. The paper didn’t provide any estimates about the proportion of the human genome that is functional; instead, it laid out the case that any accurate inventory of the functional parts of the genome must include evolutionary, genetic and biochemical data.

Given the history, some Twitter users wondered how Graur would respond. He soon ended the suspense with a series of tweets blasting ENCODE’s statistics and methodology. In one, he wrote that “the recent half-hearted recantation of #ENCODE was published without a press release.” In his blog post, he wondered why the ENCODE consortium seemed so eager to back away from its “80%” claim. Through it all, he admittedly showed very little tact. “I believe science is a search for the truth, not a lesson in manners,” he says. “I don’t do politeness.”

Kellis says that ENCODE isn’t backing away from anything. The 80% claim, he says, was misunderstood and misreported. More. (paywall)

Actually, ENCODE was neither misunderstood nor misreported. Life just wasn’t doing what Darwin’s followers said it was supposed to, and ENCODE reported that fact.

For free highlights of the junk DNA uproar, see:

Anyone remember ENCODE? Not much junk DNA? Still not much. (Paper is open access.)

Yes, Darwin’s followers did use junk DNA as an argument for their position.

Another response to Darwin’s followers’ attack on the “not-much-junk-DNA” ENCODE findings

By the time you can’t tell the difference between Darwin’s elite followers and his trolls, you know something is happening.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

There is nothing in the cell that "we struggle to say it is even less than 100% efficient as a machine." Nothing is 100% efficient in the cell, there is always energy lost. At the nanoscale level these processes can approach 100% efficiency much more easily than at the macroscopic. There are also many examples of the cell being quite inefficient and wasting a good deal of energy, abortive transcripts and degradation of perfectly functional proteins that have just been synthesized are a couple off the top of my head.AVS_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Very well said Dr JDDbornagain77_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

I would be interested to hear a rational explanation for junk DNA remaining in such vast quantities within the genome by a naturalist. I have yet to hear a convincing argument. When we consider our current state of understanding complex proteinacious molecular machineries made up of in some cases, even > 100 components what we find is incredible efficiency so much so that we struggle to say it is even less than 100% efficient as a machine. Even a single protein enzyme can have incredible complex tertiary and quaternary structures and have the appearance of perfect efficiency. We used to see different isoforms of a protein where one seemed more or very important for function of the cell or a process within the cell but an isoform appeared "redundant". However in time, function was determined and it often had a very unique or tissue specific role which is why the elucidation of the role was not as straightforward. Therefore, one thing we seem to learn about the cell is incredible efficiency - energy is not generally wasted in unnecessary processes. As whenever evolutionists are confronted with such findings, they merely state how incredibly efficient evolution is in finding the best route to achieve such high efficiency, it seems at conflict or rather even against much apparent evolutionary evidence to say that 98% of the genome is junk and the wastelands of evolution. If there is no function, the cell is incredibly wasteful in having so much DNA that it must replicate with each division. That goes against every other understood processes in the cell. It is hugely inefficient and expends unnecessary energy. One would predict evolution should expelled junk regions of DNA as a result. However I feel the low hanging fruit was too tempting to those wishing to easily use unexplainable presence of apparent information, as the wasteful product of evolution as this was an easy rebuttal to a design hypothesis. Given what we know about how efficient the cell is, regardless of your OOL view, I would say the most sensible view of "non-coding" DNA is to expect functionality of some type. The issue with that approach however is it lends more to a designer hypothesis than a random one. It is sad when this bias limits scientific understanding and advancement, but this is an emerging case as such. JDDr JDD_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

phoodoo I would guess greater than 50% or 60% functional not 19%. I'm talking actual function not "slight or medium or a hint or possibly" but actual "it does somthing important" functional.JLAfan2001_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, How much? What percentage supports the theory of evolution, and what % is evidence against it? I can understand you reluctance to answer the question, but your dodging is evidence itself of the emptiness of your theory.phoodoo_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Graur is right in this respect: ““I believe science is a search for the truth, not a lesson in manners…” However, if scientific truth shows that most of DNA is functional, then what? Do the Darwinists revise their hypothesis (which is how science should work) or do they claim that Darwinian evolution predicted this all along? I find it telling that I quoted a scientist who decried ideology driving science, and yet no Darwinist posting on this blog acknowledges that point. Susumu Ohno is credited with coining the term “junk DNA” in his paper So Much ‘Junk’ DNA in Our Genome. He wrote that the remaining sequences of DNA “are the remains of nature’s experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?” This affected the subsequent study of genetics. Molecular biologist Wojciech Makalowski says that such thinking “repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding [junk] DNA,” with the exception of a small number of scientists, who, “at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA . . . began to change in the early 1990s.” Now, he adds, biologists generally regard what was called junk “as a genomic treasure.” [“Not Junk After All,” Science, Vol. 300(5623): (May 23, 2003).] The junk DNA analysis is a classic example of scientific tradition ignoring—or derailing—objective analysis of the facts. The latter would, of course, lead to the truth, as Graur points out. This isn’t just a little mistake, either. Truth in science should be determined on the basis of evidence, not by popular vote.Barb_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001: OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.gpuccio_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

gpuccio 19% functional is long cry from 80%.JLAfan2001_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

My question to Darwinists is if DNA is mostly non-functional, how in blue blazes did it know about reversible computation? Also of interest is that the integrated coding between the DNA, RNA and Proteins of the cell apparently seem to be ingeniously programmed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle, by Charles Bennett from IBM of Quantum Teleportation fame, for ‘reversible computation’ in order to achieve such amazing energy/metabolic efficiency. Logical Reversibility of Computation* - C. H. Bennett - 1973 Excerpt from last paragraph: The biosynthesis and biodegradation of messenger RNA may be viewed as convenient examples of logically reversible and irreversible computation, respectively. Messenger RNA. a linear polymeric informational macromolecule like DNA, carries the genetic information from one or more genes of a DNA molecule. and serves to direct the synthesis of the proteins encoded by those genes. Messenger RNA is synthesized by the enzyme RNA polymerase in the presence of a double-stranded DNA molecule and a supply of RNA monomers (the four nucleotide pyrophosphates ATP, GTP, CTP, and UTP) [7]. The enzyme attaches to a specific site on the DNA molecule and moves along, sequentially incorporating the RNA monomers into a single-stranded RNA molecule whose nucleotide sequence exactly matches that of the DNA. The pyrophosphate groups are released into the surrounding solution as free pyrophosphate molecules. The enzyme may thus be compared to a simple tape-copying Turing machine that manufactures its output tape rather than merely writing on it. Tape copying is a logically reversible operation. and RNA polymerase is both thermodynamically and logically reversible.,,, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall04/cos576/papers/bennett73.html Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon - Charles H. Bennett - September 2003 Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521980300039X Logically and Physically Reversible Natural Computing: A Tutorial - 2013 Excerpt: This year marks the 40th anniversary of Charles Bennett’s seminal paper on reversible computing. Bennett’s contribution is remembered as one of the first to demonstrate how any deterministic computation can be simulated by a logically reversible Turing machine. Perhaps less remembered is that the same paper suggests the use of nucleic acids to realise physical reversibility. In context, Bennett’s foresight predates Leonard Adleman’s famous experiments to solve instances of the Hamiltonian path problem using strands of DNA — a landmark date for the field of natural computing — by more than twenty years. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-38986-3_20 The amazing energy efficiency possible with ‘reversible computation’ has been known about since Charles Bennett laid out the principles for such reversible programming in 1973, but as far as I know, due to the extreme level of complexity involved in achieving such ingenious ‘reversible coding’, has yet to be accomplished in any meaningful way for our computer programs even to this day: Reversible computing Excerpt: Reversible computing is a model of computing where the computational process to some extent is reversible, i.e., time-invertible.,,, Although achieving this goal presents a significant challenge for the design, manufacturing, and characterization of ultra-precise new physical mechanisms for computing, there is at present no fundamental reason to think that this goal cannot eventually be accomplished, allowing us to someday build computers that generate much less than 1 bit's worth of physical entropy (and dissipate much less than kT ln 2 energy to heat) for each useful logical operation that they carry out internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing#The_reversibility_of_physics_and_reversible_computingbornagain77_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

OldArmy94, JLAfan2001: Flames everywhere! :) I hope we can go on discussing, before everything burns.gpuccio_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

See Fig. 1, here: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/17/6131/F1.expansion.htmlgpuccio_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001: The last ENCODE paper gives as most likely functional about 20% of the whole genome, based on either evolutionary evidence (conservation) or genetic evidence (relationship to phenotype) or biochemical evidence (high level of activity according to ENCODE). Considering that some (but not all) of that 20% are protein coding genes (let's say about 1%), that still leaves at least 19% of the genome which is non coding and almost certainly functional. There is another 30-40% of the genome which has medium level of activity according to ENCODE, and another part which has low level of activity. Summing all three levels of activity in ENCODE. we get more or less the famous 80%. So, let's say that at least 19% of non coding genome is almost certainly functional. That percentage can only grow.gpuccio_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

I can't wait until Encode comes back and says "Sorry, DNA is junk after all." I am stocking up on my beer and nachos to watch the ship going down in flames that is ID.JLAfan2001_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

JLAFan, ///In fact it’s what we would expect with ID. It can’t be falsified./// Their designer is capable of anything, never underestimate him! No junk DNA? That's exactly what ID predicts - our great omnipotent designer will never make a bad design. If it is there, it has to have a function. Full of junk DNA? No problem, that's how the designer did it. After all, bad design doesn't mean no design, you see!Evolve_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Anyone who thinks that DNA is mostly junk is not dealing with a full deck Ah, but the average Darwinian has a wonderfully flexible deck can use for the game; one card or 52, it doesn't matter as long as they can rewrite the rules per their whims.OldArmy94_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Here is another ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway chart: Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell - Diagram http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf Part of the ‘horrendous complexity’ inherent in metabolic pathways is gone over here: The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8 At the 14:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production: Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Chris Ashcraft - video - citric acid cycle at 14:00 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rUV4CSs0HzI#t=746 The Citric Acid Cycle: An Overview - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6vQKrRjQcQ Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/glycolysis-and-citric-acid-cycle.html Moreover, Metabolic pathways are found to be 'optimal' Optimal Design of Metabolism - Dr. Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-optimal-design-of-metabolism Moreover, as if that were not ‘horrendously’ bad enough for Darwinists, metabolic pathways are found to operate on ‘Quarter Power Scaling’. i.e. Metabolic Pathways operate as if they were ‘four-dimensional’ Kleiber’s law Excerpt: Kleiber’s law,[1] named after Max Kleiber’s biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal’s metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of the animal’s mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law 4-Dimensional 'Quarter Power Scaling' In Biology – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. per nceas Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini put the problem that Quarter Power Scaling presents to Darwinism this way: “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 i.e. The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are impossible for Darwinism to explain is that Natural Selection operates on the 3-Dimensional phenotypes of an organism. ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection. The fact that 4-Dimensional things are completely invisible to 3-Dimensional things is best illustrated by ‘flatland’: Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0bornagain77_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Here is another ‘horrendously complex’ metabolic pathway chart: Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell - Diagram http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf Part of the ‘horrendous complexity’ inherent in metabolic pathways is gone over here: The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8 At the 14:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production: Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Chris Ashcraft - video - citric acid cycle at 14:00 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rUV4CSs0HzI#t=746 The Citric Acid Cycle: An Overview - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6vQKrRjQcQ Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/glycolysis-and-citric-acid-cycle.html Moreover, Metabolic pathways are found to be 'optimal' Optimal Design of Metabolism - Dr. Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-optimal-design-of-metabolism Moreover, as if that were not ‘horrendously’ bad enough for Darwinists, metabolic pathways are found to operate on ‘Quarter Power Scaling’. i.e. Metabolic Pathways operate as if they were ‘four-dimensional’ Kleiber’s law Excerpt: Kleiber’s law,[1] named after Max Kleiber’s biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal’s metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of the animal’s mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law 4-Dimensional 'Quarter Power Scaling' In Biology – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini put the problem that Quarter Power Scaling presents to Darwinism this way: “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 i.e. The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are impossible for Darwinism to explain is that Natural Selection operates on the 3-Dimensional phenotypes of an organism. ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection. The fact that 4-Dimensional things are completely invisible to 3-Dimensional things is best illustrated by ‘flatland’: Flatland – 3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0bornagain77_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Keep on fiddling JLAFan. Your paradigm is aflame, friend.OldArmy94_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Anyone who thinks that DNA is mostly junk is not dealing with a full deck: Demonstrating, Once Again, the Fantastic Information-Storage Capacity of DNA - January 29, 2013 Excerpt: Gigabytes have become commonplace, and now we're warming up to terabytes. Ready for petabytes? That's a thousand terabytes and a million gigabytes. It's the new lingo that will migrate from geek to street, if DNA hard drives become a reality.,,, Last year, researchers led by bioengineers Sriram Kosuri and George Church of Harvard Medical School reported that they stored a copy of one of Church's books in DNA, among other things, at a density of about 700 terabits per gram, more than six orders of magnitude more dense than conventional data storage on a computer hard disk. Now, researchers led by molecular biologists Nick Goldman and Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) in Hinxton, UK, report online today in Nature that they've improved the DNA encoding scheme to raise that storage density to a staggering 2.2 petabytes per gram, three times the previous effort.,,, This is truly a profound achievement of human intelligent design. Why wouldn't the same be true of natural DNA? ,,, There's far more information in our DNA than the UK team embedded in theirs -- layers and layers of coding that regulate gene expression and respond interactively to signals in a vast network of complex feedback loops. It's a whole system of information. To clinch the comparison, natural DNA also has elaborate error correction, proofreading and repair systems that can copy all that information with extremely high fidelity. As the Shakespearean sonnets in DNA point to intelligent design, the functional information in natural DNA points to intelligent design. It would be foolish to ascribe the superior information to blind, unguided processes. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/how_do_you_peta068641.html Bioinformatics: The Information in Life - Donald Johnson - video http://vimeo.com/11314902 On a slide in the preceding video, entitled 'Information Systems In Life', Dr. Johnson points out that: * the genetic system is a pre-existing operating system; * the specific genetic program (genome) is an application; * the native language has codon-based encryption system; * the codes are read by enzyme computers with their own operating system; * each enzyme’s output is to another operating system in a ribosome; * codes are decrypted and output to tRNA computers; * each codon-specified amino acid is transported to a protein construction site; and * in each cell, there are multiple operating systems, multiple programming languages, encoding/decoding hardware and software, specialized communications systems, error detection/correction systems, specialized input/output for organelle control and feedback, and a variety of specialized “devices” to accomplish the tasks of life. Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm 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 ExPASy - Biochemical Pathways - interactive schematic http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl I showed that particular biochemical pathway chart to a Darwinist once when he asked me for ANY evidence of intelligent design in biology. His response upon seeing it was something along the lines of, ‘Just because it is horrendously complex does not prove it was designed.’. ,,, Well maybe so, but such ‘horrendous complexity’ certainly does not give comfort to the notion that such ‘horrendous complexity’ can be the accumulation of random genetic accidents either!bornagain77_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Barb Read the OP. Encode has recanted the 80% claim. It seems to me that this claim has to be re-evaluated.JLAfan2001_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, How much junk does Darwinian evolution predict? Is it any number from 1-99.99% What number refutes its prediction? Or do you just enjoy the privilege of allowing Darwinian evolution to be the most malleable, and undefined theory in the history of theories?phoodoo_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001:
It seems to me that one of ID’s predictions is starting to crumble. You were all celebrating this finding and now it’s beginning to look like the “80%” claim wasn’t as accurate as you all thought.
As you can tell from my post, initially it was thought that 98% of human DNA was junk. ENCODE initially thought it might be closer to 80%. That's one of ID's predictions coming true.
Now, you have to back track and use some propaganda news pieces to save face.
Much like Darwinists do all the time.
I predict once Encode comes back and says that there is junk DNA after all, the IDist will try to say that the finding doesn’t refute ID at all. In fact it’s what we would expect with ID. It cna’t be falsified.
There probably is junk DNA, but not 98% of the human DNA is junk. Read my post and tell me why the scientist quoted is wrong when he describes ideology driving Darwinian evolution. And ID can be falsified. Read the FAQ sometime. But quit spewing nonsense. It's getting boring.
The good thing about ID is that it drives real science so that they can be proven wrong. Keep up the pseudoscience guys. Refuting you is how we are learning.
Yawn. Boring atheist troll is boring.Barb_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

It seems to me that one of ID's predictions is starting to crumble. You were all celebrating this finding and now it's beginning to look like the "80%" claim wasn't as accurate as you all thought. Now, you have to back track and use some propaganda news pieces to save face. I predict once Encode comes back and says that there is junk DNA after all, the IDist will try to say that the finding doesn't refute ID at all. In fact it's what we would expect with ID. It cna't be falsified. The good thing about ID is that it drives real science so that they can be proven wrong. Keep up the pseudoscience guys. Refuting you is how we are learning.JLAfan2001_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary theory has led other researchers to false conclusions. Look at the concept of "vestigial organs"; early Darwinists classified certain organs, such as the appendix, the pituitary gland, and the tonsils, as vestigial. They considered them to be evolutionary leftovers because these organs seemed no longer to have any function. In time, however, the important role of these organs came to light. Evolutionists, therefore, had to discard their earlier views. A similar development recently occurred in the field of genetics. Early research suggested that about 98 percent of the DNA in humans and other organisms had no function. Hence, many who were influenced by the theory of evolution assumed that this DNA was “evolutionary junk”—a view that quickly became orthodox. Once again, however, an assumption rooted in Darwinism proved to be false. Recently, scientists have discovered that “junk” DNA plays a vital role in the body by yielding special forms of RNA (ribonucleic acid) that are vital for life. John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Australia, feels that the hasty acceptance of the “junk” DNA theory is “a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century.” This failure, he adds, “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”Barb_{May 8, 2014
May
05
May
8
08
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply