Larry Moran wants Royal Society evo meeting cancelled!

velikovskys @92 Does seeing some people treat others disrespectfully implies that we may do the same? Dionisio

velikovskys @91 What are your real motives to comment here in this thread and generally in this blog? Dionisio

velikovskys @90 It looks as though you're having difficulties in understanding my questions @87? Still have not answered them correctly. Please, keep trying. Read the text @87 carefully. Take your time. No rush. Maybe we should ask other commenters here to give you a hand with this? Bottom line: johnnyb proposed a title saying the professor L.M. urges the Royal Society to have the controversial meeting. You stated that johnnyb's suggested title was true. I asked you if it was really true. Also asked you to show where professor L.M. urges the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting. Still waiting for a comprehensive coherent answer from you. Dionisio

Dionisio: Do you accept that a university professor refers to other fellow professors as kooks? On this blog that seems tame, I guess it depends on why he called them or their ideas kooky. Does the word ‘respect’ mean anything to you? A little pushy, aren't you? One shouldn't be unnecessarily rude why should a professor be held to some different standard than everyone else in an informal situation? Does the expression “human dignity” mean something to you? Sure, are you claiming being called kook on a blog infringes on your " human dignity"? If so how? velikovskys

Dionsio: Since this is such a simple issue, after seeing your difficulties maintaining a serious conversation, one can get the impression that your real motives for commenting here are not constructive. No difficulty at all, but thanks for the insight. It is just a conversation ,right? The name of a popular character from the Norwegian fjords seems to come to mind. High praise,indeed velikovskys

Dionisio: velikovskys @46 “A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true.” True? Where/when did professor L.M. urge the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting anyway? Can you show it? Perhaps the Royal Society monitors Uncommon Descent for the latest from News. Or as I said So yes, it sounds like if his opinion mattered he could be said to be urging the sponsor not to cancel since he would miss an opportunity to mix it up,biologywise." We don't want to set too high a bar for truth in headlines, do we? A little mystery and exclamation points get views. That is the nature of art ,taking liberties with the truth to reveal a deeper truth. But if this is a problem I will amend my statement to "It is a bit wordy but at least it has the advantage of being partially true. Larry Moran does not want to cancel the meeting, we can only speculate whether Larry Moran wishes should be considered urges or just hopes. Better? Anything else? velikovskys

velikovskys @85 Read the last paragraph @86 Dionisio

velikovskys @84 Do you accept that a university professor refers to other fellow professors as kooks? Does the word 'respect' mean anything to you? Does the expression "human dignity" mean something to you? Dionisio

velikovskys @83

As I said, the headline was a bit wordy, but it falls within the scope of truth for New’s headlines.

No, that's not what you wrote before, but it still doesn't seem correctly accurate anyway. Let's review this whole thing again: johnnyb @45 asked if News' OP headline should have been written differently:

“Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?

Then you wrote: velikovskys @46

"A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true."

True? Where/when did professor L.M. urge the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting anyway? Can you show it? After reading your comments I get the perception that you either don't read carefully or you lack accuracy in your statements. Maybe both? Do you care about the contextual meaning of words? Actually, do you know what that is? @53 I asked you:

true? Are you serious? Are you sure johnnyb’s suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM’s comments? You may want to try again and read it carefully. Take your time, there’s no rush. :)

But apparently you didn't heed the advice. :) Since this is such a simple issue, after seeing your difficulties maintaining a serious conversation, one can get the impression that your real motives for commenting here are not constructive. The name of a popular character from the Norwegian fjords seems to come to mind. Dionisio

Dionisio: are you still missing the point? Note that I’m also trying to help the anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, to follow the discussion line easily. Which point is that? velikovskys

Dionisio: Do you know why professor L.M. refers to fellow professors as ‘kooks’? He thinks they are kooks Is it because he doesn’t like or agree with their opinions? Ask him. Can’t a university professor do better than that? You want it in Latin? velikovskys

Dionisio: You stated that johnnyb’s suggested title was true but it contained the word “urges”. Where in the discussed professor L.M.’s comments did he “urge” the Royal Society to host the controversial meeting These comments are from the professor himself: "Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I’ve already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay I’m really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights." Urge: to try to persuade (someone) in a serious way to do something As I said, the headline was a bit wordy, but it falls within the scope of truth for New's headlines. You still have not actually made an argument velikovskys

Arthur Hunt @80 (follow-up addendum to post @81) Here's a hint: The answer to my question @29 is very simple, hence no need for anyone to pay any hourly rate to learn about anything, as you incorrectly suggest. The fact that you did not realize how easy it is to answer the question @29 might imply something about either your real motives for commenting here or your knowledge level in the referred subject (or both). Here's an easy question that requires a simple yes/no answer: Do you know exactly the answer to the question @29? Just answer yes or no. Keep in mind that professor L.M. failed to answer a similar question and then quit our discussion. And just for your information: the information required to learn biology is available out there online for free. No need to pay any fee to anyone. Just took a free 2014 video 15 lessons course on Systems Biology by Professor Uri Alon from the Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovot, Israel, and another 2014 free video 24 lessons course on Systems Biology by MIT professor Jeff Gore. Before took other courses also free online. For more basic biology courses there are many free online resources available. BTW, regarding your impressive credentials I can tell you that my IQ score is about the same as my age but it changes in the opposite direction. My communication skills are almost nonexistent, my reading comprehension is very poor (to say it nicely) and my mind operates very slow - when I hear a joke at a weekend social gathering, I usually get it by Tuesday, only after my wife explains it to me. Now you know the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say on the radio when I was commuting to work. Are you more clear now? :) Dionisio

Arthur Hunt @80 You answered my question @27. Thank you. Regarding what I wrote @29, did you read it carefully? Didn't you notice this statement? "Just point to the literature that explains this in details." That means you don't have to squander your priceless time on explaining anything to me. Just point to the specific literature where a hypothetical solution to the problem has been formulated in details, in a comprehensive and logically coherent way. That's all. Did you get it now? Let's hope so. Try again. Thank you. Dionisio

Dionisio@27: I decided to take a break a few years ago, partly because I was ever more tempted to talk about unpublished results from my lab. I suppose that, if the ID vanguard ever came up with something new, I could be talked into occasionally posting. Dionisio@29: What you are asking for is a course on molecular, biochemical, and genetic mechanisms of development and evolution. My going rate is $75 per hour, and I rather suspect that the course would tie me up for at least 20 hrs per week for most of an academic year. If you are interested, let me know. Arthur Hunt

PaV @ 43: Now, finally, the second part. I was addressing the argument that Larry, and likely you, too, Arthur, are going to make. That is, that the method the authors employ isolates stretches of RNA that only slightly bind to one another. IOW, unless I’m completely mistaken here, were dealing with a large number of RNA bases, a few of which, interact. Then your argument will be, I’m rather sure, something along this line: “Well, you have all these RNA bases, and only a few interact, what is this other than a trivial kind of reaction taking place. This represents no true function. This is just “junk DNA” like we’ve said all along.” You are completely mistaken here. No one (except you) anywhere has ever suggested that bases that do not crosslink using approaches such as are being discussed are "junk". That is completely, entirely your own delusion. The study under discussion used in vivo cross linking to "connect" non-coding RNAs with putative target RNAs, something that would lend credence to the idea that the non-coding RNA had some sort of function (probably regulatory). Noncoding RNAs so identified would, in their entirety, be considered functional. The problem for ID proponents is, as Larry has stated over (and over, and over, and over, and over ....) and over again, that even if each and every identified noncoding RNA is functional, it doesn't make even the tiniest dent in the quantity of known so-called junk DNA. Arthur Hunt

velikovskys Did you miss reading the question @72? Dionisio

Yes, Dionisio, my interlocutor rvb8, has more than once offered no reply. However, his/her persisting Christ bashing; continued degrading of UD and constant smashing of the scientific integrity of BA, and others who, like yourself, painstakingly contribute scientific information against classical Darwinism, makes a reply unlikely, or perhaps one of more abuse. In my opinion, there appears little true scientific honesty in Darwinism, in order to toe the party line. All must dance blindfolded around Darwin's degrading ditch bound philosophy, while singing evolutionary hallelujahs to Darwin. Blindfolded, because Darwinists do not see a type of faith underpins their consensus science. Added to that, in this case, the apparently narrow minded blind angry biased comments by rvb8. However, no offence intended. Still, varifyable experimental proof is still outstanding that theoretically, life comes from non life, and theoretically, a non human will produce a human. Until that impossible time, less arrogance and more humility rvb8, may apply to us all. In the mean time, the argument that Darwinism is sound, is beginning to sound more like a bell that has lost its clapper. mw

Dionisio: The assumption was incorrect according to you, but not to News. It’s your opinion vs. hers. Try another argument. That one failed miserably. It is Professor Moran knowledge of himself vs News assumption of what he believes. You try another argument. velikovskys

velikovskys The list of post numbers keep growing: @45-47; 53; 61; 62; 70-74; are you still missing the point? Note that I'm also trying to help the anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, to follow the discussion line easily. :) Dionisio

velikovskys Do you know why professor L.M. refers to fellow professors as 'kooks'? Is it because he doesn't like or agree with their opinions? Can't a university professor do better than that? Dionisio

velikovskys Please, note that posts @45-47; 53; 61; 62; are related to the post @45 using the word ‘urges’ and you affirming that the text that contains such word @45 is true. See question posted @72. Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how you seem unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad. Dionisio

velikovskys You stated that johnnyb's suggested title was true but it contained the word "urges". Where in the discussed professor L.M.'s comments did he "urge" the Royal Society to host the controversial meeting? Dionisio

velikovskys The assumption was incorrect according to you, but not to News. It's your opinion vs. hers. Try another argument. That one failed miserably. Next please? :) Dionisio

Dionisio Exactly, the OP was titled based on the information available up to the moment News wrote it. The attempt to do some damage control by Prof. LM does not necessarily imply that News must change the OP. It was ,per News , based on an assumption, ( "if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled.) The assumption was incorrect,therefore the headline was untrue. What News chooses to do is up to her. Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how johnnyb’s interlocutor is unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad. You assume your conclusion , you have yet to present an argument . Please do. I answered your question velikovskys

Also Arthur Hunt hasn't answered the questions posted @27 and @29, but maybe hasn't had time? Dionisio

mw @64 Please, also note that your interlocutor apparently hasn't answered the question @26 (related to his post @25). https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/larry-moran-wants-royal-society-evo-meeting-cancelled/#comment-612271 He doesn't have to answer it. However, ignoring it may speak volumes about his real motives in this discussion? Dionisio

#65 addendum The given link points to posts @1673-1679. Dionisio

Please, note that posts @45-47; 53; 61; 62; are related to the post @45 using the word 'urges' and someone affirming that the text that contains such word @45 is true. Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how johnnyb's interlocutor is unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad. Dionisio

mw @64 Point clearly stated. However, don't hold your breath expecting that your interlocutor will understand what you just explained so well, if they simply don't want to understand it. Also keep in mind that some folks may haven't gotten the memo yet. :) BTW, starting @1673 in the thread pointed by the below link* you may see a few recent paper references that clearly show specific issues being currently investigated. Well, sometime ago professor L.M. strongly affirmed here in this site that he knows exactly how that works. Can anyone explain that situation? Someone affirms to know exactly how something --that is currently under serious investigation-- works. Is that the kind of biology they teach at the universities? Has anybody apologized for such a misleading affirmation? No! What professor L.M. did was to write that my questions are not honest. Go figure what he really meant! Well, here in this thread News has kindly offered a possible translation of (part of) what professor L.M. wrote back then. (*) Here's the link to the mentioned paper references: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-612277 Dionisio

rvb8: "Larry is understandibly angry at the unprofessional journalism on display, and rather than say the reporting was indeed distorted ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:) tries to bluster it out." ___________________________________ From my experience of having many letters published in a leading Catholic national newspaper, the editor has used short eye catching headings. Many times I have thought, but that is not what I would have said, but reading further, the actual point is made clear. News has quoted in full what professor L Moran has actually said verbatim. Journalistic licence used for eye catching headlines no doubt in order to provoke debate. Mission accomplished. No apologies needed. mw

This is amazing! When do you suppose ID will have their first 'Royal Society' like meet(ing)? Larry is understandibly angry at the unprofessional journalism on display, and rather than say the reporting was indeed distorted 'Denyse for News'(Heh:) tries to bluster it out. One day I will read here a piece of genuine, original science, but I'm not holding my breath. I fear it will be the continued endless BA tracts, and 'NEWS-Mazur' conspiracy accusations. rvb8

Origenes and johnnyb Some folks here seem to have difficulties to admitting their mistakes. Dionisio

Origenes and johnnyb I think one interlocutor here doesn't know the definition of the word "urge" that was used by johnnyb in his suggested title for the OP. Here's the definition in Merriam Webster dictionary. Simple Definition of urge 1 : to ask people to do or support (something) in a way that shows that you believe it is very important 2 : to try to persuade (someone) in a serious way to do something 3 : to use force or pressure to move (someone or something) in a particular direction or at a particular speed Dionisio

Origenes @58 Exactly, the OP was titled based on the information available up to the moment News wrote it. The attempt to do some damage control by Prof. LM does not necessarily imply that News must change the OP. That's what the thread is for. But still where is the text written by Prof.LM where he urges The Royal Society to host the meeting, as johnnyb wrote in his suggested variant for the OP title? That's why @53 indicated that velikovskys @46 seems incorrect or inaccurate. velikovskys does not seem ready to admit it though. Oh well, what else is new? Dionisio

Far more than just mutations and natural selection is required to make new body forms. As Stephen Meyer pointed out: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2358-principal-meanings-of-evolution-in-biology-textbooks What is not fact: 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms. Following is required: Various codes in the cell http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2213-the-various-codes-in-the-cell - coding genetic information - a part of introns (non-coding ) - Splicing Codes - Metabolic Code - Signal Transduction Codes - Signal Integration Codes - Histone Code - Tubulin Code - Sugar Code - Glycomic Code Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from (a) membrane targets and patterns (b) cytoskeletal arrays (c) centrosomes (d) ion channels, and (e) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code) (f) Gene regulatory networks Otangelo Grasso

Origenes: So you hold that News should have based the OP title on what Larry Moran said in this thread, rather than what he said at his blog? IOWs you expect News to have the psychic ability to see events in the future? She does seem to indicate she has the psychic ability to know what is in his heart of hearts but no I don't have that ability myself. Velikovskys "Gee news ,he told you what he meant, you assumed wrong,it happens, fix it. Why insult someone because you misunderstood or are you making another claim now?" No need for time travel. velikovskys

Velikovskys, So you hold that News should have based the OP title on what Larry Moran said in this thread, rather than what he said at his blog? IOWs you expect News to have the psychic ability to see events in the future? Origenes

Dionisio: Are you sure johnnyb’s suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM’s comments? lets see" (Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?”) Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I’ve already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay. I’m really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights. So yes, it sounds like if his opinion mattered he could be said to be urging the sponsor not to cancel since he would miss an opportunity to mix it up,biologywise. LM:However, I do think the Royal Society is going to regret its decision to host the meeting. This is not a group that enjoys negative publicity and there’s going to be a lot of negative publicity. Since the headline does not specify who the cancellation was "the best option" for, it seems to fall broadly within the truth You may want to try again and read it carefully. Take your time, there’s no rush Thanks for your patience , I hate when there is a time limit for my response. velikovskys

Larry, old chuff, I call myself News around here because we have a special tilt that puts "News" posts in a special section. Somebody's idea a long time ago. Don't really care. It's almost always me. You said: If I said, the doctor thinks that there’s no way to fix something except by doing “y” would you then say “Larry Moran wants to do ‘y’?” Yes, if you were a POA and cared about the person, I'd kind of assume that. Yes, I would. In your heart of hearts, would you be sorry if the meet were cancelled? Wouldn't it be kind of a thrill for you to wield such power? You used to have that power. News

Denyse O'Leary says, Larry Moran at 44: “The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting.” Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant? I would assume she wants to do "y." If I said, the doctor thinks that there's no way to fix something except by doing "y" would you then say "Larry Moran wants to do 'y'?" Grow up Denyse ... and use your real name instead of hiding behind "News." I've told you that I don't want the meeting to be cancelled because I'd love to get into a fight with some of those kooks. I've told you that the Royal Society may not feel the same way about the meeting. Apologize for lying about me in the title. Larry Moran

Why don't we all see if it happens or not, and then book tickets? I want the scones and the Union Jack lapel flag. News

velikovskys @46

A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true.

true? Are you serious? Are you sure johnnyb's suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM's comments? You may want to try again and read it carefully. Take your time, there's no rush. :) Dionisio

news: velikovskys at 50, if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled. Or else that it should go ahead as a flop. (?!) No we have no need to assume anything, he told you he doesn't want to cancel it. Perhaps he assumes it will flop but is wise enough to realize his assumption is could possibly be wrong. If his assumption proves to be wrong he should admit it. Don't you agree? Sorry for the distraction velikovskys

velikovskys at 50, if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled. Or else that it should go ahead as a flop. (?!) This reminds me of a movie star spat: Star A: You must have been drunk when you said that. Star B: How dare you suggest I was drunk! Star A: Madam! I would not dare presume that you would make such a fool of yourself if you were sober! Now please, let's all get back to work. I plan to. News

news, Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant? Or did you want it both ways? Gee news ,he told you what he meant, you assumed wrong,it happens, fix it. Why insult someone because you misunderstood or are you making another claim now? velikovskys

Larry Moran at 44: "The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting." Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant? Or did you want it both ways? If I get there, save me a cider. News

As far as Junk DNA is concerned, I am quite willing to admit that "Evolution" is a good theory about how to make junk DNA. I, m personally looking for a theory of how to make specified complex stuff. Anaxagoras

johnnyb @45 This OP quoted professor LM: "I’m beginning to think this meeting isn’t going to happen. The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting." But your suggested variant for the title is: “Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway” Does he really urge it? Dionisio

johnnyb but I’m trying to figure out what an appropriate headline would be. Perhaps, “Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?" A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true. velikovskys

I'm trying to square your position of wanting the meeting to go forward with your position of thinking that the meeting will necessarily have a bad end. I'm not News, but I'm trying to figure out what an appropriate headline would be. Perhaps, "Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway"? johnnyb

@Denyse O'Leary Are you going to apologize for lying about my wishes in the title of this post? I DO NOT WANT the meeting to be cancelled. I never said I wanted the meeting to be cancelled. Larry Moran

Athur Hunt:

Seriously, PaV, whatever you are trying to say, it seems to have no connection with anything we know about what RNA and how it works in the cell. Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution.

Arthur, what you write here makes it abundantly clear that you have completely misunderstood the import of what I stated. Shouldn't the starting point, then, be one of asking me what I meant by the statement you're reacting to before you react?

This attempt to explain RNA biochemistry is painful. It ignores all we know about RNA structure and function, and about the numbers and composition of what are being called here “RNA genes”.

There were three parts to my reply. The first part had to do with Larry Moran's negative take regarding the author of the press release. The second part had to do with the results that were actually being presented in the press release. And the third part addressed the issue of so-called "RNA genes." The first is not at issue. The third has to do simply with the use of the term "gene" for transcripted, but untranslated RNA. It is a confusing term, and should not be used. Find a new term, or else be guilty of charges of obfuscation. Now, finally, the second part. I was addressing the argument that Larry, and likely you, too, Arthur, are going to make. That is, that the method the authors employ isolates stretches of RNA that only slightly bind to one another. IOW, unless I'm completely mistaken here, were dealing with a large number of RNA bases, a few of which, interact. Then your argument will be, I'm rather sure, something along this line: "Well, you have all these RNA bases, and only a few interact, what is this other than a trivial kind of reaction taking place. This represents no true function. This is just "junk DNA" like we've said all along." It is against this argument---that you have not made, but, which eventually will be made---that I'm stating what I do. And, you'll notice (though you did not quote it), that I said solid state physics will help us understand the kind of function these types of sequences may represent. I still stand by this statement. And, and again not quoted, I said that time will tell. I'll likely be dead by then; yet, I stick to my prediction. Then you can assess whether or not my comments were "irrelevant." PaV

The dogma that Evolution is unguided and has only an "appearance of design" is crumbling, Defense of that dogma has become laughable haha. "Mount Improbable" is eroding quickly. ppolish

No need to be niminy-piminy about it, TWSYF.Tell Larry what you really think. Just read a hilarious article in the American veterans' blog, VeteransToday.com, by an English barrister called Shrimpton. He writes 'with respect' or 'no offence intended', after writing anything deeply disrespectful or deeply offensive ! Axel

Larry Moran: Thank you for adding fuel to the already raging fire that is consuming your beloved atheistic religion called Darwinism. It brings great joy to my heart to know that you and the rest of that despicable lot will be caged up in a room tearing into each other like raging primates...which is what you all are. Hopelessly deluded and willfully blind morons! Truth Will Set You Free

As to body plan information and as to questions that Darwinists absolutely refuse to honestly address, the human body is composed of, among other things, roughly up to a million unique polypeptides generated by the roughly 20,000 genes that compose the roughly billion-trillion protein molecules total, that typify the total protein composition of a single human body.

Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

Moreover, the up to, roughly, one million unique polypeptides in humans, since they are generated by alternative splicing events, and since they 'exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles', and since the alternative splicing patterns are very different between even chimps and humans,,,

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F

,,, since the alternative splicing patterns, and therefore the protein interaction profiles, are very different between even chimps and humans, then this presents an insurmountable difficulty for Darwinian explanations as to how the human body plan might have come about. As Behe's work in the rarity of unguided Darwinian processes to generate new protein-protein binding sites has shown, proteins simply can’t randomly find “strikingly different interaction profiles” for perhaps "over a million distinct polypeptides”:

“The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

And to remind readers, Behe’s ‘Edge’ is not just some theoretical musing as Darwinian explanations invariably are, but his ‘Edge’ has now been confirmed in the laboratory:

Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin’s Achilles Heel – Michael Behe – January 17, 2015 Excerpt: Enter Achilles and his heel. It turns out that the odds are much better for atovaquone resistance because only one particular malaria mutation is required for resistance. The odds are astronomical for chloroquine because a minimum of two particular malaria mutations are required for resistance. Just one mutation won’t do it. For Darwinism, that is the troublesome significance of Summers et al.: “The findings presented here reveal that the minimum requirement for (low) CQ transport activity … is two mutations.” Darwinism is hounded relentlessly by an unshakeable limitation: if it has to skip even a single tiny step — that is, if an evolutionary pathway includes a deleterious or even neutral mutation — then the probability of finding the pathway by random mutation decreases exponentially. If even a few more unselected mutations are needed, the likelihood rapidly fades away.,,, So what should we conclude from all this? Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events — about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/kenneth_miller_1092771.html

Moreover, in regards to body plan information, Stephen Talbott asks a very honest, even a very profound, question in the following article that goes to the very heart of the question of, "exactly where is the body plan information stored that is coordinating all those trillions upon trillions of protein molecules?".

The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

The answer to that profound, honest, question of 'what holds that power off for precisely a lifetime?' is certainly not an answer that Darwinists, who are hell bent on atheism being true, are going to like:

Scientific evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul (Elaboration on Talbott's question “What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”)– video 2016 https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1116313858381546/?type=2&theater

Verse, Quote, and Music

James 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” – Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio – Shakespeare Jewel – Who will save your soul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LukEq643Mk

bornagain77

All,

“If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?” [Origenes]

I have asked the exact same question in another thread. Interestingly, also here the size of the pufferfish’ genome (see #12, Larry Moran) was offered as an argument that there is no need for body plan information.

WD400: The puffer fish, Fugu, has a genome that’s about 10% of the size of the human genome. Doesn’t seem to prevent it from having a body plan, making a brain, doing biochemistry.

The Neo-Darwinian reasoning goes like this: 1. All the information necessary is in the genome. 2. There cannot be body plan information in our genome because most of it is Junk-DNA. Moreover it’s even less likely that body plan information is in the tiny pufferfish genome. Therefore 3. Body plan information is not necessary.

Larry Moran: … experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome …

Here Moran’s Neutral Theory is unraveling. It finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The theory needs massive amounts of Junk-DNA as a mechanism to produce evolutionary novelties, but by so positing Neutral Theory disqualifies DNA as storage for body plan information. The “solution” is the absurd denial that body plan information is necessary.

Eric Anderson: Those things are required for any complex functionally-integrated system. And in the case of a self-reproducing organism they must, by neo-Darwinian logic, be contained in the DNA. So where are they? We cannot say, we must not say, if we are to have any intellectual integrity or if we are to propose a theory that has a chance of mapping to the real world — we must not say that such things don’t matter, that the rest of the stuff we don’t yet understand (constituting the majority of the storage system) is just junk, that things simply come together by dint of some chemical interaction in the environment. A moment’s reflection about what is required to actually build such a system in the real world should be sufficient to convince any objective observer that much, much more is required than a few sequences for a few proteins contained in a small portion of one part of the organism is sufficient to explain it all. … You can’t just put a bunch of parts in a bag or in an aqueous solution and have them self-assemble into a functional whole. People get confused with biology because they note (correctly so) that certain molecules can react spontaneously with each other. Unfortunately, they then extend that simplistic observation to the unsupportable claim that the whole organism is just a series of natural reactions occurring purely by dint of chemistry. They imagine, in essence, that with biology, you can just put the parts in a solution and, amazingly, an organism will result. Thus, we keep hearing evolutionists try to protect their theory from analysis by arguing that we cannot apply basic principles from our experience, that normal engineering constraints can be disregarded, that “biology is counter-intuitive,” that “biology is different.” This is a tempting thought. At a very simplistic and superficial level it almost even seems believable. That is until we start to dig a bit deeper and realize that so much of what happens in the cell is, as you say, “managed.” Just because some chemical reactions occur between molecules in solution does not mean they will automatically result in a functional organism any more than shaking a bag full of magnets and steel parts will result in a functional machine. Indeed, default, spontaneous chemical reactions are often anathema to what needs to happen for a living cell. The cell often has to actively fight against spontaneous reactions that would otherwise occur. The problem of interfering cross reactions in biology is huge, and is something that has to be carefully and specifically “managed.” The information to do all this managing must be there somewhere. The program has to exist. It does not exist in the parts themselves. It does not exist in the principles of chemistry. Where is it? Almost every aspect of an organism is contingent. If we consider even the most mundane of physical features it becomes clear that chemistry isn’t the answer. What determines where a body part will grow, how long it will grow, what precise shape it will have, and so on? In every case it could be different than it is, so chemistry cannot be the answer. And to say, “well it is managed by other gene products” isn’t helpful either. What makes them manage it thusly, instead of some other way? Where did they get the ability to manage the process? Further, how did the managers get put together, and what managed that process? It makes no more sense to say that when we are dealing with chemicals in solution we don’t need a program because everything happens by chemical reactions, than to claim that when we are dealing with processes in silicon we don’t need a program because everything happens by electrical impulses.

As to the ‘experts argument’ — see #12, Larry Moran —, again Eric Anderson:

… Third, although your point about being an expert in a field is well taken, deferring to the so-called “experts” is a dangerous exercise. Particularly when those “experts” have been indoctrinated through years of secondary, post-secondary, and further academia into a particular viewpoint — the very viewpoint that is under scrutiny. Particularly when those “experts” hold to a worldview that is challenged by the innocent questions being raised about design. It would be hard to find another field where the traditional “expertise” is more at odds with examining the questions posed. Unfortunately, time and again in this particular debate, we have found that the so-called “expert” brings more bias and intellectual baggage to the debate than anyone else. Furthermore, while it is good to be knowledgeable — even an expert, in some narrow, discrete aspect of biology — the primary issues we are dealing with have less to do with a particular organism or a specific chemical reaction than with basic logic, common sense, and a willingness to sit back and think through the issues. So the things I tend to focus on, for example, are less about expertise in a highly-narrow aspect of biology and more of a litmus test to tease out irrational thought and cognitive bias. Fourth, our confidence in the “experts” is not increased when the response to perfectly thoughtful and reasonable questions is to ignore that there is even an issue, to pretend the answers are already in hand, to assert that materialism inevitably holds the key even if it doesn’t have an answer yet, to claim that only the “experts” are qualified to examine and speak on the issue, or to make vague insults about the questioner’s need to brush up on the basics. Particularly, as I said, when the self-proclaimed expert is never quite able to identify precisely which “basics” he thinks will answer the question he conveniently refused to engage. This smacks more of an effort to protect one’s position of expertise and one’s worldview from challenge, than to honestly seek the truth.

Origenes

News @32 Thank you so much for your comments - which are always welcome, because your writing style is very refreshing while pointing straight at the current topics. Please, keep writing to our delight here. Dionisio

@32

In Canadian English, “Your question isn’t honest” usually means “Even discussing this is a losing position for me, so I won’t.” One can draw whatever conclusions one wishes from that.

:) Dionisio

bornagain77 @33 Thank you for posting the transcript of professor D. Noble's explanation from the given video. Really appreciate it. Dionisio

Also, the social committee is pleased to report that we have secured an excellent deal from Rent-a-Riot. Retired librarians, museum docents, and classics teachers will lead the assembled in a mild deprecation of how long it took to get even this far, then lead us out to high tea and a tour of the Tower of London, with free Union Jack lapel pins thrown in. No soccer yobs or ASBOs under any circumstances. (The event is being organized by Canadians, after all.)

:) Dionisio

Noble comments on inheritance apart from DNA here:

A conversation with Denis Noble and Michael J. Joyner at Experimental Biology 2015. Moderated by David J. Paterson, Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology. At around the 4:30 minutes mark the moderator has setup the framework of the conversation and asks the first question to Dennis Noble: “what is a gene?” and professor Noble’s answer couldn’t be funnier, though very serious at the same time: “let’s be clear – nobody knows.”,,, “What we have to remember in opposition to the gene-centric view is that, in order for that to be the case, we inherit much more than our DNA. We inherit, Number 1, the whole of cell structure, which is self templating. It does not need DNA to self template. Many of you probably don't know, cells can actually divide without a nucleus. We inherit many forms of RNA, which determine part of the way that the genome is interpreted. We inherit many forms of epigenetic marking. And I don't need to tell this audience how big the field of epigenetics has now become. We also inherit behavioral marking of the genome. There are examples of all of these. Those are what we necessarily inherit in short term generation, to generation, to generation. In the longer term, even more fundamental changes are inherited in changes in the genome itself with various forms of genome reorganization in response to challenges from the environment. So I think the short answer, David, is that we inherit much more than DNA. DNA is extremely important. Sequencing is very important. But it is not the be all and end all of understanding function in physiological systems.” https://www.youtube.com/embed/A_q_bOWc8i0

bornagain77

Dionisio at 31, Denyse O'Leary (News at UD) will try to help if possible: In Canadian English, "Your question isn't honest" usually means "Even discussing this is a losing position for me, so I won't." One can draw whatever conclusions one wishes from that. Timaeus at 19 got something right for sure: If the Royal Society did cancel the meet, it would be admitting that Darwin's tenured asshats can shut down anything they want, to prevent an analysis of their claims. Then the Society itself becomes a sort of fossil. Some living institution will have to do the analysis someday. Also, the social committee is pleased to report that we have secured an excellent deal from Rent-a-Riot. Retired librarians, museum docents, and classics teachers will lead the assembled in a mild deprecation of how long it took to get even this far, then lead us out to high tea and a tour of the Tower of London, with free Union Jack lapel pins thrown in. No soccer yobs or ASBOs under any circumstances. (The event is being organized by Canadians, after all.) News

Sometime ago, in another thread, I asked professor Moran if he knew exactly how morphogen gradients form. Then he replied simply 'yes'. Later -after answering few more questions I asked- he declined to continue our discussion because I did not ask honest questions. Here's a reference to a recent paper (April 2016) on the same subject: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-612277 As anyone can see, the authors claim they don't know exactly how morphogen gradients form. Professor Moran knew exactly contrary to the conclusions of the referenced paper. I asked Professor Moran to explain why he wrote that my questions were dishonest, but I don't recall seeing his answer to that question. Maybe now he can explain it, before he goes meet with professors Dennis Noble and James Shapiro at the Royal Society in London? If my questions aren't clear enough, maybe Denyse O'Leary can translate them to Canadian English? :) Thank you. Dionisio

Anyone is welcome to help with the issue posted @29. Dionisio

Arthur Hunt @20 @21 Can you help with this?

Given any case of known evolutionary divergence, it could be described as: Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1) Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2) Where Dev(x) is the developmental process of any given biological system x Delta(x) is the whole set of spatiotemporal procedural differences required to produce Dev(x). d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca). Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for the following cases? Case 1: d1 = placental mammals; d2 = marsupials; Case 2: d1 = placental; d2 = monotreme; Case 3: you pick d1 and d2 Just point to the literature that explains this in details. The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.

Thank you. Dionisio

@11

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what they will discuss at that meeting if it takes place. Science research continues to provide more discoveries shedding light on the wonderful molecular and cellular choreographies seen in the biological systems, unveiling an amazing informational complexity that can be explained only one way.

That means it doesn't matter what anyone says. What matters is the evidential information coming out of the serious wet and dry labs everywhere. So far, so good. :) Dionisio

Arthur Hunt @20 @21 Just curious - your name links to a blog that apparently hasn't been updated since April 2013? Is that observation accurate? Maybe not. If it is, then can you explain why? Again, just curious. In the last 3 years the amount of interesting scientific discoveries related to biology and specifically to RNA has been quite substantial, hasn't it? Dionisio

@25

What other mechanism [...]?

I. Is the genome (1) a mechanism or (2) a database used by the biological systems or (4) an informational repository used by the biological organisms or (5) a data repository used by the biological organisms or (6) a combination of the above or (7) none of the above (i.e. something else) or simply don't know? Dionisio

"DNA is not the be all and end all when it comes to inheritance." Yes it is! What else is there? What other mechanism expresses proteins that code for various structures and functions? If you, or Noble could find one, you and Noble would be Nobalized. Quantum mathematics was literally a God send for you, wasn't it? Something so utterly impenetrable to only a few gifted mathmaticians on earth, that you could use its vagueness, and seemingly counter intuitive conclusions to argue for God. Here is your argument boiled down; "This is really really complicated, only a few people (and Me) understand it, therefore God." Not even close to being convincing, which is why you publish here and no where else. Quantim mathematics is proof that we don't understand nature, but are trying to understand, because we are human with an evolved curiosity. Infinately more elegant than you garbled yammerings. rvb8

Of related note, in a short introduction, Dr. Noble quickly lists several methods of inheritance that are independent of DNA

A conversation with Denis Noble and Michael J. Joyner at Experimental Biology 2015. Moderated by David J. Paterson, Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology. At around the 4:30 minutes mark the moderator has setup the framework of the conversation and asks the first question to Dennis Noble: “what is a gene?” and professor Noble’s answer couldn’t be funnier, though very serious at the same time: “let’s be clear – nobody knows.” Then he explains his answer. "DNA is not the be all and end all when it comes to inheritance" https://www.youtube.com/embed/A_q_bOWc8i0

bornagain77

as to: "Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution." Actually, biologist have missed the boat big time in regards to quantum mechanics:

Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states, ",,and Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can't build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn't really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it." At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state: “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”. Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater

Moreover, body plans simply are not reducible to DNA sequences as Darwinists dogmatically claim:

“In 2003, MIT Press published a groundbreaking collection of scientific essays titled Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, edited by two distinguished developmental and evolutionary biologists, Gerd Müller, of the University of Vienna, and Stuart Newman, of New York Medical College. In their volume, Müller and Newman included a number of scientific articles describing recent discoveries in genetics and developmental biology—discoveries suggesting that genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. Instead, many of the scientists in their volume reported that so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means “above” or “beyond,” so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. As Müller and Newman explain in their introduction, “Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form.” Instead, as Newman explains, “epigenetic” or “contextual information” plays a crucial role in the formation of animal “body assemblies” during embryological development. Müller and Newman not only highlighted the importance of epigenetic information to the formation of body plans during development; they also argued that it must have played a similarly important role in the origin and evolution of animal body plans in the first place. They concluded that recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all,,,” Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's Doubt pg.11: In Embryo Development, Non-DNA Information Is at Least as Important as DNA - Jonathan Wells - May 2012 Excerpt: Evidence shows that non-DNA developmental information can be inherited in several ways. For example, it can be inherited through chromatin modifications, which affect gene expression without altering underlying DNA sequences. Another example is cytoplasmic inheritance, which involves cytoskeletal patterns and localization of intracellular molecules. Still another example is cortical inheritance, which involves membrane patterns. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/in_embryo_devel060031.html Excerpt: Jonathan Wells has published a new peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal BIO-Complexity, "Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA." With over 400 citations to the technical literature, this well-researched and well-documented article shows that embryogenesis depends on crucial sources of information that exist outside of the DNA. This ontogenetic information guides the development of an organism, but because it is derived from sources outside of the DNA, it cannot be produced by mutations in DNA. Wells concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA. (Read more here:) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/peer-reviewed_p_2086201.html What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean

bornagain77

Wow ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:), says Larry says something, Larry arrives and says he didn't; who to believe? I'll stick with the honesty of Larry, as he has 'booked my tickets', and Denyse has not! Surely that speaks volumes? And when the meet(ing) has ended will Denyse confidently explain to us exactly what happened, and what Larry said? Perhaps we should wait for the 'big media' reporting on what Larry said, before we jump to conclusions about what Larry said. That is unless you put your faith in Suzan, or 'Denyse for News'(Heh:), to give you an 'unbiased' account. I believe, 'paradigm shift' refers to the way evolutionary biologists study the mechaniams by which evolution took place, and is taking place, it in no way implies they are trying to replace evolution with wand waving. rvb8

Well, not if those professional biologists are capable of understanding that DNA is simply at the wrong level to explain body plans (see #9 — Stephen Meyer). None of the things Meyer mention can be separated from DNA. Which makes the odd claims of am Meyer, Wells, et al. quite incorrect. Try as they might, development and all it entails cannot be disconnected from DNA, and thus from the inexorable pull of naturally-occurring heritable genetic variation. How wrong are the anti-evolutionists? It compels them (Meyer, specifically*) to claim that there cannot be viable mutations in genes encoding cytoskeleton proteins. This claim is ludicrous and wrong, and the reality of the matter dooms one of the IDists favorite delusions. (*Actually happened when Steve Matheson and I debated Meyer back in 2010.) Arthur Hunt

All of chemistry, including biochemistry, is, at bottom, quantum physics. Long stretches of bases, with only a small amount of them ‘linking’ to other RNA bases, doesn’t mean that the remaining bases, representing the majority of the sequence, doesn’t serve a vital function, as its “purpose” might simply be to provide the right amount of binding power, along with the ability to modulate this bond strength when needed. This attempt to explain RNA biochemistry is painful. It ignores all we know about RNA structure and function, and about the numbers and composition of what are being called here "RNA genes". Seriously, PaV, whatever you are trying to say, it seems to have no connection with anything we know about what RNA and how it works in the cell. Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution. Arthur Hunt

Larry: It would look very bad for the Royal Society to cancel one of their own events. Think how it would play out: "World's Oldest Scientific Society Cancels Evolution Conference Featuring Darwin Critics" That would be like a neon sign, shouting: "Royal Society Fears that Darwinian Evolutionary Mechanism Can't Withstand Scientific Criticism." It would be a very, very dumb move. Far better to run the conference and attempt to "spin" the results than to back out for fear that the results won't be good. Timaeus

In fact, in quantum mechanics it is quantum information that is primarily conserved, not matter and energy:

Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence

Moreover, quantum information requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its existence:

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

Thus, since the materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution holds that information, like consciousness, is simply 'emergent' from a material basis, and yet quantum mechanics shows that information is its own distinct entity that is separate from matter and energy, and also shows that this information needs a 'non-local' cause to explain its existence in biology, then Darwinian evolution is directly falsified in its primary claim that the information life is emergent from a material basis. Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims that say information is emergent from a material basis, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, or course, being the fact that we now have strong physical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that lives beyond the death of our material bodies.

Scientific (physical) evidence that we do indeed have an eternal soul - (Quantum DNA and proteins) video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1116313858381546/?type=2&theater Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyEjh6ef_8

supplemental note:

Molecular Biology - 19th Century Materialism meets 21st Century Quantum Mechanics - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1141908409155424/?type=2&theater

Verses and Music:

Mark 8:37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnh4V7fcnZ0

bornagain77

In this discussion of junk DNA, it is important to lay the proper groundwork for the debate and note that Darwinists have no right whatsoever to claim ANY functionality for the genome, much less do they have a right to claim whether it is 10% or 100%. That is to say, Darwinists have yet to empirically demonstrate the origin of even a single functional protein and/or gene by unguided material processes, and as such, scientifically speaking, they forfeit any right to make any claims as to any percent functionality in the genome.

Yockey and a Calculator Versus Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter PhD - September 25, 2015 Excerpt: In a 1977 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Hubert Yockey used information theory to evaluate the likelihood of the evolution of a relatively simple protein.,,, Yockey found that the probability of evolution finding the cytochrome c protein sequence is about one in 10^64. That is a one followed by 64 zeros—an astronomically large number. He concluded in the peer-reviewed paper that the belief that proteins appeared spontaneously “is based on faith.” Indeed, Yockey’s early findings are in line with, though a bit more conservative than, later findings. A 1990 study of a small, simple protein found that 10^63 attempts would be required for evolution to find the protein. A 2004 study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and a 2006 study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. These requirements dwarf the resources evolution has at its disposal. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/09/yockey-and-calculator-versus.html What is the maximum number of trials evolution could have performed? Kirk Durston - April 2016 Excerpt: Extreme upper limit for the total number of possible gene families sampled for all of life over 4 billion years = 2.2 x 10^45 trials. I have been extremely generous – by two orders of magnitude in comparison to a peer reviewed estimate for ‘an extreme upper limit’ of 4 x 10^43 trials (3). Since Dryden estimates 10^43 as his ‘extreme upper limit’, and it is peer reviewed, we will use his estimate instead of mine.,,, With 10^43 trials, one would think there would be no problem. Unfortunately, there are virtually no sequences that will produce stable, functional 3D structures. For example, RS7 is a universal protein required for all life forms, yet only 1 in 10^100 sequences will produce a functional RS7 protein domain. Obviously, in order for evolution to find any RS7 sequences, 10^43 trials is woefully inadequate – by 57 orders of magnitude. http://p2c.com/students/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-trials-evolution-could-have-performed/

And although there are a few different methods that empirically demonstrate that the genome is not nearly as worthless as die hard Darwinists have theoretically presupposed, (90% according to Moran), this following method of empirically demonstrating widespread functionality in the genome is my favorite since it uproots Darwinian evolution from its philosophical, i.e. from its reductive materialistic, roots. Namely, the falsification of the materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution has to do with the astonishing process of DNA repair.

Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm

Of note: DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.

NP-hard problem – Examples Excerpt: Another example of an NP-hard problem is the optimization problem of finding the least-cost cyclic route through all nodes of a weighted graph. This is commonly known as the traveling salesman problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard#Examples

Yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at:

Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins - May 8, 2013 Excerpt: quantum computing is, "in some cases, really, really fast." McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous "travelling salesperson" problem that's been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,, "This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast," McGeoch says. "There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it's built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it's thousands of times faster than anything I'm aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes -- it does as well as some of the best things I've looked at. At this point it's merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508122828.htm

It is also interesting to note that man has yet to build a quantum computer of any significant size

Scientists achieve critical steps to building first practical quantum computer - April 30, 2015 Excerpt: If a quantum computer could be built with just 50 quantum bits (qubits), no combination of today's TOP500 supercomputers could successfully outperform it (for certain tasks). http://phys.org/news/2015-04-scientists-critical-quantum.html

Moreover, since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster 'every pothole in America' logistic problem, in a purely ‘classical’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster 'every pothole in America' traveling salesman problem, for DNA repair, is somehow being accomplished by ‘non-local’ quantum computation. That DNA is capable of carrying out such a high level of quantum computation is revealed in the following lecture:

Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

Moreover, it is important to note that quantum information is its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.

Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

bornagain77

Of related interest: It should be noted that these two following studies came out at just about the same time as the severely biased 8.2%, theoretical, 'conservation of sequences' study from die-hard Darwinists which had assumed that evolution true from the outset. i.e. "if it ain't conserved it ain't functional" These empirical, rather than theoretical, studies had drastically different conclusions than the Darwinists did as to the functionality of supposed ‘junk’ DNA.

Junk DNA not as worthless as once thought – 07/24/2014 Excerpt: As early as 2007,, Hackermüller, together with a number of colleagues, was able to demonstrate,, practically the entire genome (is transcribed into RNA—a template which normally serves the production of proteins), even those areas which are completely neglected when looking at blueprints for proteins. Hackermüller: “This finding gave rise to a lively discussion as to whether this could be caused by chance events or mistakes in the regulation of cellular processes. However, I doubt that nature is so wasteful with resources that it would produce such masses of RNA for no specific reason.” In their latest study,, Hackermüller and his team,, were able to bridge yet another knowledge gap. The transcription of non-coding regions in the genome is precisely regulated by cellular signaling pathways—and on a grand scale: up to 80% of the RNA copies were non-coding. “We did not expect such a magnitude,” says Hackermüller. “This is not indicative of a chance product—it is highly likely that the non-coding RNAs perform a similarly important functions to that of protein-coding RNA.” http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/07/junk-dna-not-worthless-once-thought?et_cid=4064233&et_rid=653535995&location=top Illuminating the dark side of the genome – July 29, 2014 Excerpt: “Almost 50 percent of our genome is made up of highly repetitive DNA, which makes it very difficult to be analysed. In fact, repeats are discarded in most genome-wide studies and thus, insights into this part of the genome remained limited. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics (MPI-IE) in Freiburg now succeeded in examining this dark side of the genome. Their analyses revealed that repeat-associated heterochromatin is essential to repress retrotransposons and thereby protects the genomic integrity of stem cells. This work opens the way for future genome-wide analyses of repetitive regions in the genome and is in line with newly emerging functions for heterochromatin.” http://phys.org/news/2014-07-illuminating-dark-side-genome.html

bornagain77

Larry Moran,

LM:

Origenes: If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?

Surely you can agree that professional biologists are interested in such questions, right? If those experts accept the evidence that 90% of our genome is junk, which most of them do, then this seems to be a paradox, right?

Well, not if those professional biologists are capable of understanding that DNA is simply at the wrong level to explain body plans (see #9 — Stephen Meyer).

LM: The apparent paradox can be resolved in two ways. Either these experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome OR the evidence for junk DNA is wrong.

Well, assuming that these experts don’t offer any other storage medium, the first option is clearly absurd, so, unfortunately for you, that leaves us with option two.

LM: Which do you think is more likely? Here’s a hint. The pufferfish genome is only about 12% of the size of our genome but pufferfish have bodies and brains. Clearly, they don’t need a lot of extra DNA to make their bodies. Humans don’t need it either.

Are you pulling my leg? There is not enough storage space to encode for a body plan in the pufferfish genome, so this information is somehow not necessary? Information is necessary to build proteins, but information is not necessary to build brains, because such things *somehow* self-organize without information and instructions? Is that how ‘experts’ reason? Doesn’t logic inform them that information for body plans must be stored somewhere else? Origenes

Larry Moran: I read your linked post. I think you overdid it. The writer of the press release simply added information to provide context for the actual results, and, I think she was rather clear in pointing out, more than once, that what the authors were doing was presenting a technique they used that provided them fairly reliable results, and, hence, could be used in elucidating function for non-characterized RNA---you know, the true "RNA-world." All of chemistry, including biochemistry, is, at bottom, quantum physics. Long stretches of bases, with only a small amount of them 'linking' to other RNA bases, doesn't mean that the remaining bases, representing the majority of the sequence, doesn't serve a vital function, as its "purpose" might simply be to provide the right amount of binding power, along with the ability to modulate this bond strength when needed. So, time will tell here. And solid state physics might pave the way for understanding what is taking place in the cell. In the meantime, let's not take a very restrictive view of all of this. As to the twenty thousand, now twenty-five thousand, genes in human DNA, I think it is supremely silly to call functional segments of RNA "RNA genes." What confusion this will bring about. But, perhaps, this is exactly what evo's are trying to do. You know, it's all about genes. So, even though the whole understanding of the genome is changing, the language remains the same. How convenient! And deceptive. PaV

@bornagain77 I'm very familiar with the work of my colleagues at the University of Toronto. If you want to know what they did and what they think of junk DNA then you should read their paper. Don't rely on press releases for your scientific information. University of Toronto press release distorts conclusions of RNA paper Larry Moran

Origenes asks, If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this? Those are difficult, and loaded, questions. It would take a long time to explain why the questions have no meaning. Let's try another approach. Surely you can agree that professional biologists are interested in such questions, right? If those experts accept the evidence that 90% of our genome is junk, which most of them do, then this seems to be a paradox, right? The apparent paradox can be resolved in two ways. Either these experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome OR the evidence for junk DNA is wrong. Which do you think is more likely? Here's a hint. The pufferfish genome is only about 12% of the size of our genome but pufferfish have bodies and brains. Clearly, they don't need a lot of extra DNA to make their bodies. Humans don't need it either. Larry Moran

Interesting to see two fellow Canadians on opposite ends of the ongoing argument. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what they will discuss at that meeting if it takes place. Science research continues to provide more discoveries shedding light on the wonderful molecular and cellular choreographies seen in the biological systems, unveiling an amazing informational complexity that can be explained only one way. Dionisio

Larry Moran, it seems that some researcher(s) at your own university disagree with you about junk DNA.

Shedding light on the 'dark matter' of the genome - May 19, 2016 - University of Toronto Excerpt: What used to be dismissed by many as “junk DNA” is back with a vengeance as growing data points to the importance of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) — genome’s messages that do not code for proteins — in development and disease.,, ncRNAs come in multiple flavours: there’s rRNA, tRNA, snRNA, snoRNA, piRNA, miRNA, and lncRNA, to name a few, where prefixes reflect the RNA’s place in the cell or some aspect of its function. But the truth is that no one really knows the extent to which these ncRNAs control what goes on in the cell, nor how they do this. The new technology developed by Blencowe’s group has been able to pick up new interactions involving all classes of RNAs and has already revealed some unexpected findings. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160519120935.htm

Moreover, the story behind the so-called retraction of ENCODE is interesting. The main response of Darwinian die-hards, to the ENCODE findings of widespread functionality in the genome, was to assume that Darwinian evolution was true. In other words, the die hards smuggled in the assumption of evolution by arguing that the 'conservation of sequences' between organisms, which assumes evolution as true from the outset, is what determines true functionality in the genome, instead of the actual empirically demonstrated functionality of a sequences determining true functionality as ENCODE did in its research in looking for actual biochemical function. To call this tactic of 'assuming your conclusion' unscientific and dishonest is to put it mildly!

The ENCODE Embroilment, - part 3 Excerpt: Very Little DNA Is "Conserved" After raising the C-value paradox, ENCODE critics often follow with a logical argument. "Only about 10 percent of our DNA is 'conserved,' or has a similar sequence, compared to the genomes of other mammals," they point out. "This means that only about 10 percent of our genome is under selection to preserve the DNA sequence." They then reason: "Since natural selection is the only force that creates and preserves functional elements in our genome, it's impossible that more than about 10 percent of our genome is functional." This argument was on display in a 2014 paper claiming that only 8.2 percent of human DNA is functional because only that percentage of our genome is "conserved" between humans and other mammals like mice and pandas.7 But there's a glaring problem with this thinking: it assumes that all DNA sequences are the result of undirected mutation and selection to begin with, and that biological function only comes from natural selection. Throw out the assumption of an evolutionary origin of species and there's no reason to believe that only conserved DNA can be functional. After all, an intelligent agent could independently design functional genetic elements with widely divergent DNA sequences in the genomes of different species—no "conservation" required. Only if we assume that strictly unguided evolutionary mechanisms produced our genome can we infer that such a small fraction of our genome is functional. Under this logic, when evolutionists cite the preponderance of junk DNA as evidence for evolution, they engage in circular reasoning. Junk proponents seem blind to these flaws. A co-author of the 8.2-percent paper boasted, "our approach is largely free from assumptions or hypotheses."8 Apparently he was forgetting about assumptions and hypotheses like evolution. Even worse, ENCODE critic Dan Graur called it "'idiotic' to suggest that a part of the genome could be functional if it didn't respond to pressure from natural selection."9 He further charges that "what ENCODE researchers did not take into account . . . is that everything is shaped by evolution."10 In Graur's Darwinian world, the possibility that some important functional genetic element arose from a cause other than natural selection is simply inconceivable.... In any case, ENCODE provides a nice empirical test of the evolutionary assumption that only conserved DNA can be functional: It finds evidence of mass functionality in "non-conserved" (i.e., unique) DNA sequences. As one lead ENCODE researcher explains: "Most elements defined by biochemical signatures lacked strong evolutionary conservation."12 Other ENCODE defenders argue that the research shows that "absence of conservation cannot be interpreted as evidence for the lack of function."13 - They conclude that ENCODE's empirical evidence for functionality is the ultimate test: "differential expression (including extensive alternative splicing) of RNAs is a far more accurate guide to the functional content of the human genome than logically circular assessments of sequence conservation."21 Bottom line: good evidence trumps bad theory.,,, A Great Divorce Critics like Dan Graur charge that ENCODE is guilty of "divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context"22—and that's exactly right. ENCODE's empirically based finding that the vast majority of our genome is functional has withstood theoretical, evolution-based objections from critics. Maybe a divorce from evolutionary thinking is exactly what we need to liberate biology from bad evolutionary assumptions and explain what's happening inside our cells.,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo33/the-encode-embroilment-part-III.php

Much more detail on the fallacious reasoning of Darwinists in response to ENCODE research is discussed in the following lecture video:

Biological Information – (The Dan Graur incident) Criticizing ENCODE 12-13-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlFJO1WqVk

Moreover, the Darwinian assumption that conservation of sequence equals important functionality is now known, empirically, to be wrong

(ORFan genes) evolutionists thought that these rapidly-evolving unique genes must not code for functional or important proteins. But again, many of the unique proteins were in fact found to play essential roles. (Chen, Zhang and Long 1010; Daubin and Ochman; Pilcher) As one researcher explained, “This goes against the textbooks, which say the genes encoding essential functions were created in ancient times.” (Pilcher) https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/similar-species-share-similar-genes Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved ,,,This prediction has been falsified in the many examples of functionally-unconstrained, highly similar stretches of DNA that have been discovered in otherwise distant species. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/functionally-unconstrained-dna-is-not-conserved Protracted Unrest Between ENCODE Researchers and Junk-DNA Advocates Goes On - November 26, 2014 Excerpt: It's not exactly Fergusson, Mo., but the battle between ENCODE researchers and junk-DNA holdouts goes on.,,, ,,,"Evolutionary conservation of primary sequence is typically considered synonymous with conserved function, but this finding suggests that this concept should be reinterpreted, because insertions of retrotransposon elements in new genomic regions are not conserved between species." In short, the Mouse ENCODE group takes direct aim at the arguments of Dan Graur and the other junk-DNA faithful, who say that everything evolution did not conserve is junk.,,, ,,,much of what Darwinian evolutionists had dismissed as junk appears functional. Non-coding regions of the mouse genome are transcribed, and appear to function in previously unimagined ways, such as regulation of gene expression, chromosomal stability, and maintenance of species identity. Carninci offers further thoughts: ,,,"we should rethink the relationship between genomic function and evolutionary conservation. Regulatory regions and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are not subject to the evolutionary constraints of protein-coding genes, which may help to explain the sequence drifts reported in these papers. However, it is striking that transcription-factor networks are conserved despite low conservation of their binding positions in the genome." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/protracted_unre091501.html

Of related note: ENCODE also discovered "highly non-random patterns of RNA production--patterns which indicate that these vast quantities of RNA transcripts aren't junk"

Toppling Another Evolutionary Icon, ENCODE Suggests Endogenous Retroviruses Are Functional - Casey Luskin - September 7, 2015 Excerpt: ENCODE didn't merely study the genome to determine which DNA elements are biochemically active and making RNA. It also studied patterns of biochemical activity, uncovering highly non-random patterns of RNA production--patterns which indicate that these vast quantities of RNA transcripts aren't junk.... ENCODE's results suggest that a cell's type and functional role in an organism are critically influenced by complex and carefully orchestrated patterns of expression of RNAs inside that cell. As Stamatoyannopoulos observes, ENCODE found that "the majority of regulatory DNA regions are highly cell type-selective," and "the genomic landscape rapidly becomes crowded with regulatory DNA as the number of cell types" studied increases. Thus, as two pro-ENCODE biochemists explain, "Assertions that the observed transcription represents random noise . . . is more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/toppling_anothe099111.html

bornagain77

Larry Moran @7, If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this? Stephen Meyer:

Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body-plan. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form. [Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans – video]

Origenes

Larry Moran at 6, Denyse O'Leary would be happy to be there but will do no travelling while certain persons in their nineties are still with us. Do however, save me a beer. However, I am negotiating for a cheaper riot. We want something comparatively genteel. We need not employ persons known to the authorities. Added; We absolutely would not want property damage or inconvenience to persons. But someone above had suggested there might be a riot and we felt it our duty to provide a genteel one. News

bornagain77 whines, Indeed, he, and few other crogidy old Darwinists, came across to most onlookers looking like grumpy old die-hards who refused to admit they were wrong even when faced of tremendous empirical evidence to the contrary. The ENCODE leaders retracted their claim in 2014. They say their views about the demise of junk DNA were misinterpreted by the media. A huge majority of knowledgeable evolutionary biologists and molecular biologists now agree that most of our genome is junk. bornagain77 and his diehard friends are the ones who refuse to admit they were wrong. Many ID proponents have conceded that there's a lot of junk DNA in our genome. Larry Moran

Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I've already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay. I'm really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights. However, I do think the Royal Society is going to regret its decision to host the meeting. This is not a group that enjoys negative publicity and there's going to be a lot of negative publicity. I'm predicting that they may cancel the meeting because the IDiots and the kooks are gloating about destroying evolution. It will be interesting to see how many ID people show up. I'm betting that Denyse O'Leary won't be there. I'll buy her a beer if she comes. Larry Moran

News :) ,,, on a more serious note Of semi related interest to 'just inviting trouble' Noble and Shapiro, is this recent article from Jonathan Wells in Salvo:

Greater Than the Sum - Why the Design in Living Things Goes Far Beyond Machinery by Jonathan Wells – Summer 2016 Excerpt: An organism, however, in contrast to an isolated structure, rearranges its parts over time. An organism imposes organization on the materials it comprises, and its organization changes throughout its life cycle. To see how remarkable this is, imagine a machine familiar to most of us: a laptop computer. If a laptop computer were a plant or animal, it would start out as a protocomputer consisting of perhaps a few transistors, a little memory with some software, and a battery on a small circuit board. Then it would obtain materials from its surroundings to fabricate other components, and it would make its circuit board larger and more complex. Along the way, it would find ways to recharge its own battery. It would also write more programs. After reaching maturity, the laptop would run its programs by itself—imagine keys on the keyboard going up and down as though pressed by some unseen finger. If components were damaged, the computer could repair or replace them while continuing to operate. Eventually, the computer would fabricate one or more protocomputers, each capable of developing into other laptops just like it. A lot of design goes into laptop computers. How much more design would have to go into making a laptop computer that could do all the things listed above? No one knows. But such a computer would certainly require more design, not less. And the design would be radically different from human design, because, after the origin of the protocomputer, the design would be intrinsic rather than extrinsic. So the inference to design from molecular machines is robust, but it's only the beginning. There is design in living things that far transcends the machine metaphor—and it should inspire awe. http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo37/greater-than-the-sum.php

bornagain77

Hey look bornagain77, Moran'll have to put up with AWFUl food due to Brexit. Have some pity, will you? This is probably merely self-defence on his part. You and I could make do with the local chip cart, but ... News

So Larry Moran wants the meet canceled because it might make the Royal Society look bad? Larry Moran, if he is so concerned with looking good rather than being right, should have thought of that little detail a few years ago with his response to ENCODE research. He certainly did not come out of that exchange looking very good. Indeed, he, and few other crogidy old Darwinists, came across to most onlookers looking like grumpy old die-hards who refused to admit they were wrong even when faced of tremendous empirical evidence to the contrary. No, Larry Moran is not one to be lecturing anybody on the finer details of trying to look good in the public eye since he has made quite an unattractive spectacle of himself in the past. bornagain77

Oh yes, and - much worse - really, really bad hors d'oeuvres and dreadful music. Boring conversation partners. Overpriced accommodations. We will be overcharged for the riot as well. Those people can usually be hired cheaper during fine weather but the RS is likely a tourist trap so ... . News

When you have speakers like Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro you are just inviting trouble. Trouble? Will there be, what, riots in the street or something? mike1962