'Junk DNA' Darwinism

While we wait for Jonathan Wells’ “junk DNA” book … the Darwin show’s all-star cast has tackled the subject fearlessly

Spread the love

Donald Johnson, a scientist who checked out of Darwinism, had a look at the junk DNA file in Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability LITE: A Call to Scientific Integrity (2009), p. 56:

Dawkins popularized the idea that any DNA not actively trying to get to the next generation would slowly decay away through mutation and that genes are the basis of evolutionary selection. [Daw76] Sagan writes concerning junk DNA “some, maybe even most, of the genetic instructions must be redundancies, stutters, and untranscribable nonsense. Again we glimpse deep imperfections at the heart of life.” Non-coding sections of DNA were seen as the result of mutations that haven’t yet resulted in formation of useful genes so that they would provide a selective advantage. This theme was echoed in authoritative textbooks also: “Introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk”. “Much repetitive DNA serves no useful purpose whatever for its host. Rather, it is selfish or junk DNA, , a molecular parasite that, over many generations, has disseminated itself throughout the genome… ”

About ten years ago (and restated in 2004) Dawkins wrote “there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. (p. 56)

Legacy mainstream media: File under: Rube addicted to tent-shakin’ revivals holds forth on the Woyd o’ Gud.

Others: File under: Darwinist prediction proved false (again).

28 Replies to “While we wait for Jonathan Wells’ “junk DNA” book … the Darwin show’s all-star cast has tackled the subject fearlessly

  1. 1
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi — I’m not seeing the prediction that’s been proved false.

    Sagan, Dawkins et al. seemed to make pretty qualified statements: “some, maybe even most”; “often possible to alter … without greatly affecting gene function”; “Much repetitive DNA”; “lots more DNA”.

    Since these statements are very “hedgy”, isn’t it true they haven’t really been falsified?

    Cheers

  2. 2
    O'Leary says:

    CLADIVS at 1, if you leave out “junk”, “no useful purpose” and “litter”, you conveniently cut the heart out of their argument: Darwinism is true because a lot of this is junk.

    Does that mean it is false if little is junk?

    I am making a falsifiable prediction that dozens of people will come forward to claim that the Darwinists never really said those things or never really meant them in the way they appear to. Or that there is no such thing as junk or no such thing as meaning.

    What there are is doubters getting fired or failed. Darwinism would be long dead apart from that.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS,

    Jonathan Wells on his book, The Myth of Junk DNA – yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such – March 2011
    Excerpt: Some people revise history by claiming that no mainstream biologists ever regarded non-protein-coding DNA as “junk.”
    This claim is easily disproved: Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel published an article in Nature in 1980 (284: 604-607) arguing that such DNA “is little better than junk,” and “it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively” for functions in it. Since then, Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, University of Chicago biologist Jerry A. Coyne, and University of California–Irvine biologist John C. Avise have all argued that most of our DNA is junk, and that this provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design. National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins argued similarly in his widely read 2006 book The Language of God. It is true that some biologists (such as Thomas Cavalier-Smith and Gabriel Dover) have long been skeptical of “junk DNA” claims, but probably a majority of biologists since 1980 have gone along with the myth. The revisionists are misinformed (or misinforming).
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....more-18154

    Another leading biologist, Sydney Brenner argued in a biology journal in 1998 that:
    “The excess DNA in our genomes is junk, and it is there because it is harmless, as well as being useless, and because the molecular processes generating extra DNA outpace those getting rid of it.”

    Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Orgel LE, Crick FH. – 1980
    The DNA of higher organisms usually falls into two classes, one specific and the other comparatively nonspecific. It seems plausible that most of the latter originates by the spreading of sequences which had little or no effect on the phenotype.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7366731

    Kimura (1968) developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma” is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional.

    The slow, painful death of junk DNA:
    Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work….Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation…Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties.
    http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death

    Moreover the Junk DNA myth of neo-Darwinists has had a severe negative impact on research (as usual for neo-Darwinian thought!!!);

    it is now known that many of the hereditary diseases that afflict humans arise from the large ‘Junk DNA’ regions of the genome which do not directly code for proteins but which many evolutionists still tragically write off as ‘Junk’.

    International HoloGenomics Society – “Junk DNA Diseases”
    Excerpt: A primary goal of IHGS is to elevate awareness of the fact that “some, if not all” hereditary diseases do not stop at the boundaries of “genes”
    http://www.junkdna.com/junkdna_diseases.html

    Excerpt: “elaborated in more detail in my “Obituary of Junk DNA “
    http://www.junkdna.com/#obituary_of_junk_dna”

    uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes).”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-357177

    further note:

    Non-coding RNAs and eukaryotic evolution – a personal view – John Mattick – May 2010
    Excerpt: “But you certainly need to have a more complex regulatory framework to get to a more complex organism, and the astounding thing is that the only thing that does scale with complexity – because the number of genes does not – is the extent of the non-protein-coding genome.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2905358/

    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.....#20100405a

    Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism – Alex Williams:
    Excerpt: DNA information is overlapping-multi-layered and multi-dimensional; it reads both backwards and forwards; and the ‘junk’ is far more functional than the protein code, so there is no fossilized history of evolution…All the vast amount of meta-information in the human genome only has meaning when applied to the problem of using the human genome to make, maintain and reproduce human beings.,,, 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/pdf.....11-117.pdf

    etc.. etc..

  4. 4
    Joseph says:

    CLAVDIVS-

    I agree but Igo further to say I doubt that junk DNA is prediction of the theory of evolution. The theory might be able to accomodate junk DNA but that is about it.

    So what this does is expose eolutionists as people who will just say anything to suport their position- an argument from ignorance.

  5. 5
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi Ms O’Leary

    Thanks for the response.

    I think the quotes from Sagan et al. mean exactly what they say. None of the quotes claim that all non-coding DNA is useless junk. They say “some”, “much” or “lots” is useless junk.

    Finding many, many stretches of non-coding DNA with functions therefore won’t falsify these statements. These statements would only be falsified if we find that a vast majority of non-coding DNA has a function. And we haven’t found that yet.

    Cheers

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS you state; “These statements would only be falsified if we find that a vast majority of non-coding DNA has a function. And we haven’t found that yet.”

    I beg to differ for every class of DNA that neo-Darwinists used to call junk has now been shown to have some type of function. Moreover;

    How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980 – Richard Sternberg – Oct. 2009 – Excellent Summary
    Excerpt: A surprising finding of ENCODE and other transcriptome projects is that almost every nucleotide of human (and mouse) chromosomes is transcribed in a regulated way.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....is_ha.html

    Junk DNA Found To Have High Level Function (List of studies)
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjVncW00enpmZA&hl=en

    As well appealing to gaps in our knowledge about the ENTIRE functionality of the ‘Junk” region of DNA, just to support the notion of Junk DNA, is to commit the ‘evolution of the gaps’ fallacy;

    Francis Collins’s Junk DNA Arguments Pushed Into Increasingly Small Gaps in Scientific Knowledge – Casey Luskin – May 2011
    Excerpt: Time will tell, but it’s revealing that Giberson and Collins are reduced to citing smaller and smaller gaps in our knowledge as regards “junk” DNA to argue for evolution. Professor Giberson may boast that “Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you” — but perhaps he should worry more about what direction the science is pointing rather than making religious arguments for evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46251.html

    Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA – video
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....40361.html

  7. 7
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi bornagain77 @ 3

    Excerpt: Some people revise history by claiming that no mainstream biologists ever regarded non-protein-coding DNA as “junk.”

    I wouldn’t know about that. That would be like trying to prove a negative i.e. not possible.

    But I do know a great many mainstream biologists explicitly said that non-coding likely had functions, right from the early days after it was discovered.

    1974 — E. Southern, “Eukaryotic DNA” in MTP International Review of Science, Biochemistry Series One, Volume 6, Biochemistry of Nucleic Acids, (1974) University Park Press, Baltimore. pp. 101 – 139:

    “.. large variations in genome size could readily be accomodated if a high proportion of the DNA were used for functions other than coding for proteins. A number of such functions have been proposed and incorporated into hypothetical structures for the eukaryotic genome.”

    1977 — D.M. Skinner, “Satellite DNAs” BioScience 27 (1977) pp. 790-796:

    Satellites [tandemly repeating, non-coding DNA] constitute from 1% to 66% of the total DNA of numerous organisms, including that of animals, plants, and prokaryotes. Their existence has been known for about 15 years but, although it is thought that they must be biologically important … their functions are still largely in the realm of speculation.

    1982 — R. Lewin, “Repeated DNA still in search of a function” Science 217 (1982) pp. 621-623:

    Some repetitive DNA will undoutedly be shown to have a function, in the formal sense, some will likely be shown to exert important effects, and the remainder may well have no function or effect at all and can therefore be called selfish DNA. Repetitive DNA constitutes a substantial proportion of the genome (up to 90% in some cases), and there is considerable speculation on how it will eventually be divided between these three groups.

    Even the Orgel & Crick 1980 cite contains the comment (p. 606)

    Thus, some selfish DNA may acquire a useful function and confer a selective advantage on the organism.

    So I don’t think the situation is quite so black and white as you paint it. Some biologists clearly thought non-coding DNA had some function.

    Cheers

  8. 8
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi Joseph @ 4

    Yes, I agree that “junk DNA” doesn’t seem to be a prediction of evolutionary theory. However, it doesn’t appear to falsify it either.

    Cheers

  9. 9
    T. lise says:

    Joseph #4

    “So what this does is expose eolutionists as people who will just say anything to suport their position- an argument from ignorance.”

    That statement is to put the actions of Darwinist mildly. The actual statement should be “evolutionists as people who will just say anything and do anything (even if it means destroying someone’s career) to suport their position”

  10. 10
    Joseph says:

    CLAVDIVS @ 8,

    You can’t falsify what you cannot test.

    skål

  11. 11
    Joseph says:

    T. Lise @9-

    So true- unfortunately….

  12. 12
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi Joseph @ 10

    You can’t falsify what you cannot test.

    Sure. But what the OP stated is “Darwinist prediction [non-coding DNA is useless junk] proved false”.

    After looking into to it, its clear to me that mainstream biologists have expected non-coding DNA to have functions for decades (see #7 above).

    And the quotes in the OP from Sagan, Dawkins et al. state only that “some” or “most” non-coding DNA is useless junk. Logically, then, they allow at least “some” non-coding DNA to have a function.

    So, I’m not seeing the any prediction that’s been falsified.

    Cheers

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS, you state;

    ‘So I don’t think the situation is quite so black and white as you paint it. Some biologists clearly thought non-coding DNA had some function.’

    CLAVDIVS since neo-Darwinists could not provide a convincing case from the fossil evidence for human evolution,,,

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    or even evidence for Human evolution from a ‘straight reading’ of the genetic evidence,,,

    Chimps are not like humans – May 2004
    Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said.
    http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm

    ,,, and since neo-Darwinists have been reduced to severely twisting the the true state of the fossil and genetic evidence, it turns out, in actuality that their ‘strongest’ piece of evidence, which I consider weak and pathetic, is the argument from purported Junk DNA regions. i.e. the shared errors argument: In fact the Junk DNA GULO gene, shared errors argument, is the centerpiece argument of Collins and Giberson’s attempt, in their new book, at establishing common ancestry for chimps and humans;

    Francis Collins’s Junk DNA Arguments In fact, this singular (GULO) pseudogene is their centerpiece evidence for common descent and macroevolution in their new book, The Language of Science and Faith. Giberson is so confident that this argument is right that in his recent CNN.com op-ed he’s betting “Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you.” But if history is to be our guide, then it would seem that this is a dangerous argument to make: The more we are learning about biology, genetics, and biochemistry, the more we are finding function for non-coding DNA, including pseudogenes.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46251.html

    etc…

    Why The Chromosomal Fusion Argument Doesn’t Wash – Jonathan M – February 2011
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....esnt-wash/

    Thus CLAVDIVS you may see no problem with neo-Darwinists accepting functionality for junk DNA, but alas then you also see no problem with having the last vestiges of ‘claimed’ evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps removed.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS, are you saying that Collins and Giberson are not predicting complete non-functionality for the GULO gene???

  15. 15
    Joseph says:

    CLAVDIVS,

    Sagan wasn’t a biologist so I am not sure why he was included besides for effect. I am sure he was just parroting the party line. So perhaps that was the point.

    And I think the over all point is “junk” DNA was/ is an argument from ignorance. And knowledge is the cure.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    CLADIVS, This article, which just came up on ENV, is spot on in exposing the shallow ‘damage control’ nature of your comments;

    Preface to The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells
    Excerpt: The discovery in the 1970s that only a tiny percentage of our DNA codes for proteins prompted some prominent biologists at the time to suggest that most of our DNA is functionless junk. Although other biologists predicted that non-protein-coding DNA would turn out to be functional, the idea that most of our DNA is junk became the dominant view among biologists.

    That view has turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Since 1990–and especially after completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003–many hundreds of articles have appeared in the scientific literature documenting the various functions of non-protein coding DNA, and more are being published every week.

    Ironically, even after evidence for the functionality of non-protein coding DNA began flooding into the scientific literature, some leading apologists for Darwinian evolution ratcheted up claims that “junk DNA” provides evidence for their theory and evidence against intelligent design. Since 2004, biologists Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, Kenneth Miller, Jerry Coyne and John Avise have published books using this argument. So have philosopher of science Philip Kitcher and historian of science Michael Shermer. So has Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and present director of the National Institutes of Health, despite the fact that he co-authored some of the scientific articles providing evidence against “junk DNA.”

    These authors claim to speak for “science,” but they have actually been promoting an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence and relies on theological speculations instead. For the sake of science, it’s time to expose the myth for what it is.

    Far from consisting mainly of junk that provides evidence against intelligent design, our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of functions. If anything, it provides evidence for intelligent design. Even apart from possible implications for intelligent design, however, the demise of the myth of junk DNA promises to stimulate more research into the mysteries of the genome. These are exciting times for scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46281.html

  17. 17
    DrREC says:

    “What there are is doubters getting fired or failed.”

    A scientist was fired over ‘junk’ DNA? Pity.

    Who was it?

  18. 18
    Mung says:

    A scientist was fired over ‘junk’ DNA? Pity.

    He was told to pack up his junk and get out.

    Is junk DNA a prediction of Darwinian theory?

    Not too long ago someone posted a mention of Kimura’s work which concluded that it is. I asked for the mathematics but never got a response. Now might be a good time.

  19. 19
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi bornagain77 @ 6

    CLAVDIVS: “These statements would only be falsified if we find that a vast majority of non-coding DNA has a function. And we haven’t found that yet.”

    bornagain77: As well appealing to gaps in our knowledge about the ENTIRE functionality of the ‘Junk” region of DNA, just to support the notion of Junk DNA, is to commit the ‘evolution of the gaps’ fallacy;

    The OP stated that its a failed prediction of Darwinism that non-coding DNA is useless junk.

    I’m pointing out, purely as a textual matter, that the quotes of Sagan et al. in the OP do not say all non-coding DNA is functionless, they say “some”, or “lots” of it is functionless.

    And I’m also pointing out, purely as a logical matter, that because these quotes are thus qualified, one cannot claim they are falsified by pointing out functions for several, or even many, stretches of non-coding DNA.

    So I’m not appealing to any gaps. I’m only pointing out what we can actually read in the quotes, and what we actually know about non-coding DNA, and the logical consequences of that.

    Cheers

  20. 20
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi bornagain77 @ 13

    …In fact the Junk DNA GULO gene, shared errors argument, is the centerpiece argument of Collins and Giberson’s attempt, in their new book, at establishing common ancestry for chimps and humans;

    Thus CLAVDIVS you may see no problem with neo-Darwinists accepting functionality for junk DNA, but alas then you also see no problem with having the last vestiges of ‘claimed’ evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps removed.

    The quotes I gave @ 7, as well as your citation to Collins and Giberson, show precisely what I have been saying all along — mainstream biologists have accepted for decades that some non-coding DNA has a function.

    Assuming for the sake of discussion that the GULOP pseudogene is completely functionless, this does not mean biologists claim that all non-coding DNA is functionless. Rather they claim that some has function, and some doesn’t.

    Accordingly, we can accept some non-coding DNA has a function, and we can at the same time accept the GULOP argument for common ancestry of humans and other primates, without logical contradiction.

    Cheers

  21. 21
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi bornagain77 @ 14

    CLAVDIVS, are you saying that Collins and Giberson are not predicting complete non-functionality for the GULO gene???

    No, I’m not saying that.

    In fact, I think the argument for common ancestry of humans and other primates is made on the basis that the GULO pseduogene has lost a specific enzyme activity. This is not the same thing as predicting this pseudogene cannot and will not ever have any function. In fact, such a prediction would contradict what is already known about pseudogenes (re)acquiring functions: C. Martinez del Rio C “Can Passerines Synthesize Vitamin C?” (1997)

    Cheers

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS; you state;

    ‘Accordingly, we can accept some non-coding DNA has a function, and we can at the same time accept the GULOP argument for common ancestry of humans and other primates, without logical contradiction.’

    I have a little problem with this whole common ancestry link you are trying to make between humans and chimps with the purported GULO gene. What in the world do we do with all the other completely unique ORFAN genes that humans do not share with any other primates??? Do we simply discard them as these researchers did so as to not cast any doubt on common ancestry???

    Human Gene Count Tumbles Again – 2008
    Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences. These orphans looked like proteins because of their open reading frames, but were not found in either the mouse or dog genomes. Although this was strong evidence that the sequences were not true protein-coding genes, it was not quite convincing enough to justify their removal from the human gene catalogs. Two other scenarios could, in fact, explain their absence from other mammalian genomes. For instance, the genes could be unique among primates, new inventions that appeared after the divergence of mouse and dog ancestors from primate ancestors. Alternatively, the genes could have been more ancient creations — present in a common mammalian ancestor — that were lost in mouse and dog lineages yet retained in humans. If either of these possibilities were true, then the orphan genes should appear in other primate genomes, in addition to our own. To explore this, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161406.htm

    ,,,CLAVDIVS, should we also simply ignore all the other unique ORFAN genes that are found within each unique species which is sequenced???

    ,,,Moreover the ‘anomaly’ of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced:

    Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

    CLAVDIVS should we ignore these ORFAN genes even when they are shown to have deep regulatory functionality, simply because they disagree with common decent???

    Age doesn’t matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones – December 2010
    Excerpt: “A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. “New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142523.htm

    New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. – December 2010
    Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....2.abstract

    ,,, I’m just wondering CLAVDIVS, how much incoherence of evidence are you willing to tolerate just to protect common decent???

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  23. 23
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi bornagain77 @ 22

    CLAVDIVS: Accordingly, we can accept some non-coding DNA has a function, and we can at the same time accept the GULOP argument for common ancestry of humans and other primates, without logical contradiction.

    bornagain77: I have a little problem with this whole common ancestry link you are trying to make between humans and chimps with the purported GULO gene.

    I feel this is wandering off topic. I’m not trying to make any link whatsoever between the GULO pseudogene and common ancestry.

    What I said is — whether one accepts common ancestry or not, whether the GULO argument is a good argument or a dreadful argument — it is possible to accept the GULO argument and also accept that some non-coding DNA has function, without logical contradiction.

    This was to counter your argument @ 13:

    Thus CLAVDIVS you may see no problem with neo-Darwinists accepting functionality for junk DNA, but alas then you also see no problem with having the last vestiges of ‘claimed’ evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps removed.

    As I perceived it, you were saying that one cannot accept the GULO argument unless one accepts that all junk DNA has a function. That just doesn’t logically follow, as I showed.

    Cheers

  24. 24
    CLAVDIVS says:

    *edit*

    bornagain77:

    Sorry, in my last post @ 23 I meant to say:

    “As I perceived it, you were saying that one cannot accept the GULO argument unless one accepts that all junk DNA has *NO* function”.

    Cheers

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    But alas CLAVDIVS; you stated;

    ‘we can at the same time accept the GULOP argument for common ancestry of humans and other primates, without logical contradiction.’

    ,, and I merely pointed out the stunning ‘logical contradictions’ that mainstream researchers are willing to tolerate just to protect their preconceived bias of common ancestry.

  26. 26
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi bornagain @ 25

    But alas CLAVDIVS; you stated;

    ‘we can at the same time accept the GULOP argument for common ancestry of humans and other primates, without logical contradiction.’

    ,, and I merely pointed out the stunning ‘logical contradictions’ that mainstream researchers are willing to tolerate just to protect their preconceived bias of common ancestry.

    You may or may not be correct about that, but I don’t see how it relates to the OP.

    What I’ve shown, in relation to the OP, is that mainstream biologists have claimed for decades that non-coding DNA has functions. So its problematic to state that finding functions for non-coding DNA falsifies Darwinian predictions.

    I’ve also shown, in relation to your claim @ 13, that the GULO argument for common ancestry does not require all non-coding DNA to be functionless, nor does the GULO argument require that there will never be any function for GULO pseudogenes. Therefore, there is no logical contradiction between the GULO argument and the claims of mainstream biologists that some non-coding DNA is functional.

    Cheers

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    CLAVDIVS, just to make a quick ‘off topic’ note, to have ‘some’ semi-functionless DNA is also very compatible to the correct model for all ‘beneficial’ biological adaptations; i.e. Genetic Entropy:

    “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.(that is a net ‘fitness gain’ within a ‘stressed’ environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more ‘fit’)
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....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.podom.....3_46-08_00

    Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy – Andy McIntosh – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

    EXPELLED – Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations – video

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED

    further ‘off topic’ note;

    African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
    “The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).—-surprising implication of the study?—- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages”
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....d=16846905

    Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision – Oct. 2005
    Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....072648.htm

    Cichlid Fish – Evolution or Variation Within Kind? – Dr. Arthur Jones – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852

    “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.”
    R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)

  28. 28
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi Joseph @ 15

    Sagan wasn’t a biologist so I am not sure why he was included besides for effect. I am sure he was just parroting the party line. So perhaps that was the point.

    Sure, nothing wrong with using Sagan’s quote to make a point about the party line.

    However, the Sagan quote that is supposed to reflect the party line says “some, maybe even most, of the genetic instructions must be redundancies, stutters, and untranscribable nonsense.” And that makes my point — this is a qualified statement, not a categorical statement that all genetic instructions are useless junk. Therefore, its problematic to state that this represents a falsified Darwinist prediction that all non-coding DNA is useless junk, because that’s not what it says.

    And I think the over all point is “junk” DNA was/ is an argument from ignorance. And knowledge is the cure.

    I do agree that using “junk DNA” to attack creationism like Dawkins did is, as usual for Dawkins, a feeble and illogical argument.

    Cheers

Leave a Reply