Are Some of Our Opponents in the Grip of a “Domineering Parasitical Ideology”?

_{Barry Arrington

November 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

[It] is now obvious that the root is we are dealing with a domineering parasitical ideology in the course of destroying its host; through its inherent undermining of responsible rational freedom, the foundation of a sound life of the mind. Immediately, science, science education, the media and policy are being eaten out from within.

Indeed. The immediate context of KF’s observation is the seeming inability of the Darwinists to understand plain English over the past few days. Allow me to establish some context. In a post over at his Sandwalk blog Larry Moran quoted me when I wrote:

For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function. Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.

He then wrote:

But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists.

I then provided quotations from two famous Darwinists (Collins and Coyne) using the very word “prediction”:

Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process. That is exactly what is observed.

From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed.

I also linked to Casey Luskin’s excellent article an ENV showing several more such statements. There cannot be the slightest doubt that many famous Darwinists said the theory predicts junk DNA.

“But those statements cannot possibly be predictions, because they came after junk DNA was discovered,” the Darwinists shout. One in particular (lutesuite) has started beating a drum calling for a retraction of my claim. We have two choices here:

Agree with Moran and lutesuite. But this would require us to believe Collins and Coyne are too stupid to understand what the word “prediction” means.

Disagree with Moran and lutesuite. This would require us to believe that Collins and Coyne were using the word “prediction” in a different sense than “to forecast in advance.”

I vote for (2). Is there a sense of the word “prediction” that means something other than “to forecast in advance”? It turns out there is. Collins and Coyne are not stupid. Instead, they are engaging in the commonplace act of using the term “prediction” in the sense of “retrodiction” or “postdiction”. What is that? Wikipedia explains:

Retrodiction (or postdiction . . .) is the act of making a “prediction” about the past.

My dictionary agrees.

There you have it. The mystery is solved. Collins and Coyne are not so stupid that they don’t know the meaning of the word “prediction.” Moran and lutesuite are simply wrong when they suggest they are. A prediction does not have to be temporally prior to that which is predicted if the word is used in the sense of a retrodiction.

What does all of this have to do with KF’s observation? Everything. Sadly, both Moran and lutesuite are hosting a domineering parasitical ideology that is undermining their responsible rational freedom and destroying their capacity to think clearly.

Consider this. It really is the case that for Moran and lutesuite to be correct, it must also be the case that two of the most famous scientists in the world are so staggeringly stupid that they don’t know what the word “predict” means. I do not always agree with Collins and Coyne, but it really is a little much for Moran and lutesuite to imply they are imbeciles.

The only rational conclusion is that Moran and lutesuite are wrong, and not only are they wrong, they are wrong about a very simple matter that would take only two seconds of rational thought to sort out.

But two seconds is a long time, and rational thought is hard when one is in the grip of a domineering parasitical ideology.

Comments

@ Barry (#19)
What do you think Collins meant by the word “predicts” then?
He means "predicts" in the sense that I used the term. But he is talking about what is predicted after the existence of junk DNA has already been confirmed. So, back to my baseball example: Suppose prior to the World Series I had predicted the NY Mets were going to win. That prediction would have turned out to be wrong. However, once we know that the KC Royals won, I could make a further prediction that several of their star players would sign new contracts for a higher salary. The 2nd prediction is not contingent on the first. Do we really need to teach you basic grammar before we get around to discussing biology?lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

lutesuite:
I mean that Barry has not given a single example of a prediction that junk DNA would exist, which was made prior to the discovery of the existence of junk DNA.
So? This whole line of argument saying he ought to do so is a red herring. Apparently red herrings are the common offspring of the non-sequitur. LM:
But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists.
A non-sequitur.Mung_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Part 2, Of course, Johnson replied later that year, and I clip with a bonus from RationalWiki on the sort of mind-bending distortion of scientific reasoning that is now ever so common:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses."
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And if the latter is twisted into a caricature god of the gaps strawman, then locked out, huge questions are being oh so conveniently begged.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
KFkairosfocus_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran and lutesuite, How does Darwinism “predict” the genomes with none or almost none of junk DNA, such as the puffer fish?
. That's exactly what it would have predicted. But it would have predicted that to have been the case for all organisms. That prediction was wrong.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

BA, as you used a clip from me, surely you will not mind my documenting from a capital example precisely the parasitical ideology I have had in mind. Namely, Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
More to follow -- it is time to call things by their right names (if we are to have any hope of rescue for our dying civilisation), as I have to watch the links budget. KFkairosfocus_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

lutesuite, Please explain what you actually meant by your statement: “You have yet to provide a singe example of anyone, never mind a “Darwinist”, having predicted the existence of junk DNA before its existence was demonstrated experimentally.”, Other than I had already suggested.
I mean that Barry has not given a single example of a prediction that junk DNA would exist, which was made prior to the discovery of the existence of junk DNA. What is giving you difficulty?lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

We have two choices here:
I think there are three: 1) Moran was completely unaware that anyone had come up with such a postdiction for junk dna over the past 50 years. 2) Moran was lying and knew about such postdictions, but thought that Sandwalk readers and Barry would be completely unaware of any such postdictions - even though such postdictions have appeared on Sandwalk and UD. 3) That when Moran used “prediction” he didn’t mean it as “posdiction”, but as - you know - a “prediction” - and thus when he said “nobody predicted junk DNA” he meant - in “plain english” - that “nobody predicted junk DNA”. Nah, 3 is too far fetched. Gotta be 1 or 2.goodusername_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Larry, here are some additional quotes from Luskin's article in addition to Collins and Coyne:
In an April 1980 issue, Nature published papers by influential biologists arguing that evolution predicts our genomes should be full of junk DNA. The first article, "Selfish Genes, the Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution," by W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza, maintained that "Natural selection operating within genomes will inevitably result in the appearance of DNAs with no phenotypic expression whose only 'function' is survival within genomes." A second paper, "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite," was by Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for determining the structure of DNA, and the eminent origin-of-life theorist Leslie Orgel. They concluded, "Much DNA in higher organisms is little better than junk," and "it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively for" its function. Fifteen years later, the junk-DNA paradigm was alive and well, as Scientific American reported:
These regions have traditionally been regarded as useless accumulations of material from millions of years of evolution ... In humans, about 97 percent of the genome is junk.
I could give numerous other examples, but will allow just one more to suffice. In 2007, Columbia University philosopher of science Philip Kitcher published his Oxford University Press book Living with Darwin. Citing the mass of "genomic junk" that "litters the genome," Kitcher announced, "The most striking feature of the genomic analyses we now have is how much apparently nonfunctional DNA there is." In his view, "From the Darwinian perspective all this is explicable," but "if you were designing the genomes of organisms, you would certainly not fill them up with junk."
Are you willing to stake your reputation that you understand evolution on your claim that no Darwinist ever predicted (in the sense of retrodicted) that the human genome is mostly junk?Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

bFast says,
On this topic, I contend that the neo-Darwinian model should properly expect junk DNA. Therefore, to say that the model “predicts” junk DNA is appropriate. To the extent that scientists who had the model in front of them did not recognize this natural prediction, I charge them with lacking understanding about their theory. So if scientists didn’t figure out that their theory calls for junk DNA before evidence of junk was found, then their lack of ability is shown.
Are you being serious? According to the ID version Neo-Darwinism, evolution consists of random mutations and natural selection. Please explain how you get from there to the prediction that the genome of Escherichia coli should be full of junk DNA. (BTW, the E. coli genome is NOT full of junk DNA.)Larry Moran_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington says,
Yes, Collins says Darwin’s theory predicts (in the sense of retrodiction as explained in the OP) that junk DNA will accumulate.
No, he does not "predict" that junk DNA will accumulate. If you are going to be picky then I can play by the same rules. I think it's silly but that's what you want.
I will continue the discussion with you just as soon as you show you are willing to concede a basic obvious point that cannot possibly be disputed in good faith. Concede that a Darwnist, i.e., Collins, said that Darwin’s theory predicts that junk DNA will accumulate over time, and that is exactly what is observed. If you are unwilling to concede something that is in black and white right there in front of you, that is the very definition of someone unwilling to engage in rational debate.
Are you ready to hang your reputation on defending that statement as the best proof that you understand evolution after studying it for 20 years?Larry Moran_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Andre says,
Somebody called Prof Moran names and now he wants to cry, never mind the insults we’ve had to endure from him and his band of merry men at Sandwalk.
I'm not talking about insults. I'm talking about hypocrisy. But I guess you wouldn't know about that.Larry Moran_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Larry @ 17. Now you are just being childish and stupid. Do you really mean to suggest that the Darwinists do not retrodict about Darwinism? If you do, you are woefully ignorant. If you don't you are being misleading. Either way, further discussion with you is pointless.Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

lutesuite (1):
Moran is using the term “predict” in the usual sense of “to forecast in advance”.
Y'know we are suffering again from the "what I said" and "what I mean" silliness. Gets back to the famous defense "it depends what the the meaning of 'is' is." (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html) Dictionaries have used the a: b: c: definition system for a long time to reference this name overloading phenomenon in the English language. On this topic, I contend that the neo-Darwinian model should properly expect junk DNA. Therefore, to say that the model "predicts" junk DNA is appropriate. To the extent that scientists who had the model in front of them did not recognize this natural prediction, I charge them with lacking understanding about their theory. So if scientists didn't figure out that their theory calls for junk DNA before evidence of junk was found, then their lack of ability is shown. Neo-Darwinism, with its variants such as drift theory, needs junk DNA. If junk DNA the theory(ies) is(are) supported. ID does not need junk DNA. Many ID theorists expect that there will not be junk DNA. To the extent that there is not junk DNA, ID is supported. I personally puzzle at the expectation that junk DNA is contrary to ID theory for at least two reasons: 1 - It seems wise that there would be a staging area, a "sandbox" so to speak where DNA experiments would grow and develop. This would have all of the appearance of junk DNA. Recently VJTorley showed that most of an important de-novo gene in humans exists as non-functioning DNA in chimps. In the UCD version of ID, the natural assumption is that this segment was being grown in the LCA, to be revealed as important in the human line. This is a very reasonable finding, one could say that this is predicted, by the UCD version of ID. 2 - Human, coders do it. As a programmer who understands the lower levels of what's going on in code, I'll tell you that writing a simple "hello world" program compiles with a modern compiler to about 1.5 meg of machine language. The used portion of that program is about 45k, so the compiler has added an enormous amount of unused code.bFast_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

bFast asks, Do they exist in another thread? Yes. There have been several recent posts with my name in the title. I think you have been active in every one of them. I guess you didn't notice how some of your fellow ID supporter were behaving.Larry Moran_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

lucite @ 10: What do you think Collins meant by the word "predicts" then?Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Boo hoo Somebody called Prof Moran names and now he wants to cry, never mind the insults we've had to endure from him and his band of merry men at Sandwalk. Cry me a river https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksSPZTZES0Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

lutesuite says,
No, because that would be a very stupid thing for someone who understands the meaning of the term “to predict” to say. If I said, today, “I predict the Kansas City Royals won the 2015 World Series,” would that make any sense?
No, that would not make sense. But here's some other "predictions" that make sense according to Barry Arrington. "If the Kansas City Royals really won the 2015 World Series then I predict that their win conforms to the theory of baseball." "Some of the strikes called in the last game of the World Series were not correct therefore my version of the theory of baseball is refuted and I predict that Kansas City didn't win the World Series." "If the Kansas City Royals really won the 2015 World Series then I predict that the scores, hits, errors, game attendance, and opponents in all their playoff games make up such a totally improbable event that I predict it must have been designed."Larry Moran_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran and lutesuite, How does Darwinism "predict" the genomes with none or almost none of junk DNA, such as the puffer fish?J-Mac_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran, I am puzzled at your quotes. I searched this webpage to find the bottom two of your quotes, which I agree are inflammatory and unproductive, but I only find your quote, I don't find the original. Have these been deleted from this thread? Do they exist in another thread? I agree with you that the quotes seem to extend well beyond civility, I just don't seem to be able to source them.bFast_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

lutesuite, Please explain what you actually meant by your statement: "You have yet to provide a singe example of anyone, never mind a “Darwinist”, having predicted the existence of junk DNA before its existence was demonstrated experimentally.", Other than I had already suggested.J-Mac_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran writes:
Here’s the quote from Francis Collins in 2006.
Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA”) will accumulate steadily over time.
Barry, do you think this counts as a prediction of junk DNA and that junk DNA counts as “powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis”? Collins is saying that IF there’s junk DNA, THEN mutations will accumulate
Well Larry, let’s look at the quote in full.
Darwin's theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function (namely, those located in "junk DNA") will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding regions of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, since most of these will be deleterious, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process. That is exactly what is observed.
Yes, Collins says Darwin’s theory predicts (in the sense of retrodiction as explained in the OP) that junk DNA will accumulate. But he does not stop there as you imply. He goes on to say “That is exactly what is observed.” So when we put back in the part you left out, Collins says that Darwin’s theory makes a prediction and the prediction is confirmed by observations. And the whole point of that is what Larry? Do you think Collins is making an idle observation about nothing in particular? No, the point of the passage is that Darwin’s theory made a prediction, and the prediction was confirmed by observations, and therefore the confirmed prediction is powerful evidence in favor of the theory. Duh. I will continue the discussion with you just as soon as you show you are willing to concede a basic obvious point that cannot possibly be disputed in good faith. Concede that a Darwnist, i.e., Collins, said that Darwin’s theory predicts that junk DNA will accumulate over time, and that is exactly what is observed. If you are unwilling to concede something that is in black and white right there in front of you, that is the very definition of someone unwilling to engage in rational debate.Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Rather than risk losing the forest for the trees, we should recall that the main point here is Barry Arrington's claim that he thoroughly understands modern evolutionary theory (to which he refers as "Darwinism", which is already telling). His responses to Larry's last couple posts, should he venture to offer any, promise to be rather enlightening in this regard.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

BTW, do you think this is conducive to rational discussion?
[It] is now obvious that the root is we are dealing with a domineering parasitical ideology in the course of destroying its host; through its inherent undermining of responsible rational freedom, the foundation of a sound life of the mind. Immediately, science, science education, the media and policy are being eaten out from within.
How about this?
Larry has nothing. The science has passed him by and he is left with hollow rhetoric and imagination. It’s a fascinating time to be alive as Darwinism crumbles to the ground under the science and its apostles are reduced to cartoon characters. Larry is Monty Python’s Black Knight guarding the bridge. His arms and legs are chopped off and he is surrounded by a pool of his own blood but he fights on all the while claiming victory (Larry desperately needs that irreducibly complex blood clotting mechanism for which he has no explanation). Fight on, Larry. At least you’re entertaining as a comic if pathetic as a scientist.
What about this?
My analysis has indicated that LM is a very disturbed individual; for reasons he and us may never know. I know one thing though, that a boy raised in a household without the real father, with the one he only can call by “the man with the last name as mine” gives one clue as to what his childhood was like. He may very well need sympathy rather than rejection.
Larry Moran_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

I think that you’re unequivocally suggesting that some, including Darwinists, began predicting the existence of junk DNA after its existence was demonstrated experimentally?
No, because that would be a very stupid thing for someone who understands the meaning of the term "to predict" to say. If I said, today, "I predict the Kansas City Royals won the 2015 World Series," would that make any sense?lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Is there a reason you did not answer my questions in comments #2 and 4, Barry? But, by all means, answer Larry's questions first.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

lutesuite,
"You have yet to provide a singe example of anyone, never mind a “Darwinist”, having predicted the existence of junk DNA before its existence was demonstrated experimentally
I think that you're unequivocally suggesting that some, including Darwinists, began predicting the existence of junk DNA after its existence was demonstrated experimentally?J-Mac_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA”) will accumulate steadily over time.- Collins
And where did that junk DNA come from?
Do you think that this statement about the existence of pseudogenes is a prediction that most of our genome is junk DNA?
Where did the junk DNA come from? If bacteria doesn't have much, if any, would it be safe to say that under evolutionism today's junk was from copying errors of useful DNA?Virgil Cain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

This is getting really tedious. Here's the quote from Francis Collins in 2006.
Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA”) will accumulate steadily over time.
Barry, do you think this counts as a prediction of junk DNA and that junk DNA counts as "powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis"? Collins is saying that IF there's junk DNA, THEN mutations will accumulate. As you know, Collins has rejected the idea that most of our genome is junk since about 2002. Also, could you briefly explain how these mutations could accumulate over time according to the version of Darwinism you wrote for the glossary? Remember we're talking about the fixation of neutral alleles by random genetic drift, which Francis Collins incorrectly refers to as "Darwin's Theory." I don't see that in your version of Darwinism—the version of evolutionary theory that you describe as follows ...
Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.
The quote from Jerry Coyne in 2009 is ...
.... when a trait is no longer used or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don’t instantly disappear from the genome: Evolution stops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed. In other words, there should be vestigial genes. . . . the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled – amply.
Do you think that this statement about the existence of pseudogenes is a prediction that most of our genome is junk DNA? And if you agree that pseudogenes are junk (<1% of our genome), and that's what this issue is all about, then why did you say ...
What a profoundly stupid thing to say. No one believes that. Many Darwinists used to before ENCODE. ID proponents predicted function would be ultimately found. The Darwinists were wrong. The ID proponents were correct. Larry, how can we even begin to debate you when you make Romper Room mistakes like this and don’t even seen to have a grasp on the question we are discussing. Now, you go do your homework. See if you can catch up with the rest of us, and if you can, come and back and we will be happy to discuss it with you.
Because the ENCODE Consortium said, "... we annotated 11,224 pseudogenes of which 863 were transcribed and associated with active chromatin." That's more than 10,000 pseudogenes with no evidence of function. We know from reading the papers that the ENCODE Consortium believes that the human genome contains thousands of non-functional pseudogenes. That makes your statements very confusing. If Jerry Coyne's statement about pseudogenes is your proof that "Darwinists" predicted junk DNA then your claim that ENCODE refutes that statement is a lie. On the other hand, if your claim is that ENCODE refutes the idea that most of the genome is junk EXCEPT pseudogenes then the statement by Jerry Coyne is irrelevant. Could you please clarify these points for me? I am trying to engage you in rational discussion as requested.Larry Moran_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

OK lutesuite. You are unable to take your blinders off even for a moment and having lost this round you want to talk about something else. I get that. Not everyone has the capacity to engage in a rational discussion. But your participation is valuable nevertheless. In comments 1, 2 and 4 you proved the point of the OP beyond the slightest doubt. Thanks for that anyway.Barry Arrington_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

I said Darwinists said Darwinism predicts junk DNA.
Where did you write that? It's not stated above, except in the posts you wrote after Moran made his comment. More to the point: Are you still saying that Darwinism, as you understand it, would have predicted the existence of junk DNA?lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply