Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Arguing with Evolutionists or How I Could be Rich


If I had a nickel for every time evolutionists insisted that they are merely following the evidence, immediately after (or before) making religious arguments, I think I would be a zillionaire. You can read about Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers insisting on their innocence here and here, but this self contradiction is not limited to the big shots. From laboratories to sanctuaries, and dorm rooms to chat rooms, the constant refrain of evolutionists is that the raw data make their idea a fact, but then the supporting arguments are religious. Evolutionists are the proverbial fish that doesn’t know it’s in water, the lampshade partier who doesn’t know he is drunk.  Read more

nullasalus, thanks for the tip to Craig. The whole thing for the Junk DNA controversy to me seems ridiculous. I mean here we are dealing with complexity that dwarfs our puny understanding, and evolutionists, though having no foundation to infer material processes can generate any information of any trivial sort, much less the stunning levels we find in life, have the audacity to declare that +95% of our DNA has no function. As Dr. Hunter says religion drives science and it matters. bornagain77
bornagain77, Well, we'll see. As I said, even if Sternberg was off with his figures, I think his larger point remains. I'll wait to see Sternberg's reply, if any, to Moran - at this point I've seen some of Matheson's reply, which seems to largely reduce to "Well, that's not what I meant by function!" and the usual barely-restrained fury and disgust at ID. Incidentally, you seem to be partial to quantum physics and cosmology (both of which I find interesting.) Have you ever read William Lane Craig's review of Vilenkin's "Many Worlds in One" book? I think you'd enjoy it. nullasalus
further note nullasalus: Canadian Team Develops Alternative Splicing Code from Mouse Tissue Data Excerpt: “Our method takes as an input a collection of exons and surrounding intron sequences and data profiling how those exons are spliced in different tissues,” Frey and his co-authors wrote. “The method assembles a code that can predict how a transcript will be spliced in different tissues.” http://www.genomeweb.com/informatics/canadian-team-develops-alternative-splicing-code-mouse-tissue-data Researchers Crack 'Splicing Code,' Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity Excerpt: "For example, three neurexin genes can generate over 3,000 genetic messages that help control the wiring of the brain," says Frey. "Previously, researchers couldn't predict how the genetic messages would be rearranged, or spliced, within a living cell," Frey said. "The splicing code that we discovered has been successfully used to predict how thousands of genetic messages are rearranged differently in many different tissues. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505133252.htm bornagain77
nullasalus: Frankly I don't think Moran has a leg to stand on, and here is why. They have just deciphered a second code in the Genome that uses "all" introns, along with exons, to predict when and where gene expression will occur: (the 22500 spliced genes as you put them will each produce hundreds to thousands of different protein products during the course of "building" an organism i.e. there is not a 1 to 1 correspondence) Nature Reports Discovery of “Second Genetic Code” But Misses Intelligent Design Implications - May 2010 Excerpt: Rebutting those who claim that much of our genome is useless, the article reports that "95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced, and that changes in this process accompany many diseases." ,,,, the complexity of this "splicing code" is mind-boggling:,,, A summary of this article also titled “Breaking the Second Genetic Code” in the print edition of Nature summarized this research thusly: “At face value, it all sounds simple: DNA makes RNA, which then makes protein. But the reality is much more complex.,,, So what we’re finding in biology are: # “beautiful” genetic codes that use a biochemical language; # Deeper layers of codes within codes showing an “expanding realm of complexity”; # Information processing systems that are far more complex than previously thought (and we already knew they were complex), including “the appearance of features deeper into introns than previously appreciated” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/nature_reports_discovery_of_se.html Further note In fact, The "second code", which controls, or "oversees", the expression of the genetic code seems to set the human genome completely apart from the chimpanzee genome since "junk" intron sequences were used in deciphering the "second genetic code" (the splicing code), and these "junk intron sequences" are found to be "exceptionally" different between chimpanzees and Humans: Modern origin of numerous alternatively spliced human introns from tandem arrays – 2006 Abstract excerpt: A comparison with orthologous regions in mouse and chimpanzee suggests a young age for the human introns with the most-similar boundaries. Finally, we show that these human introns are alternatively spliced with exceptionally high frequency. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/3/882.full The code within the code Excerpt: Such techniques revealed that 95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced,,,,, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100505/full/465016a.html bornagain77
re: 3, Moran's reply seems to center on taking Sternberg's numbers as he gives them: If there are 25000 genes, and 90% of them exhibit alternate splicing (Moran says he thinks it's closer to 5%, whereas the common estimate is around 50%), that gives us 22500 genes. So far, so good. Here's where the problem comes in: If there are 22500 'spliced' genes, and 190000 introns, and the minimum number of introns needing to be involved in a spliced gene is 1, then the lower bound on the number of 'important/useful' introns (in this context) is 22500. 1 per gene. Whereas Sternberg is saying that 90% of introns (171000) are important/useful in this context. Sternberg does at points say he's just giving a rough estimate, and he also throws out various other lines of evidence for the usefulness of introns. But Moran's reply is that Sternberg's straightforward calculation is flawed. I'd like to see Sternberg's reply on this - it seems like a minor point, but a point Moran may have got him on. I'll point out, though, that Sternberg was replying to Steve Matheson's estimates of how many "functional roles" there are for introns in the human genome. Matheson's figure? "Probably a dozen." Which he then claims to generously increase to 100, then 1000, only to contrast it with the 190000 estimated introns (which Moran also says was a high estimate that's since been reduced.) What I find funny is that Matheson is showing up at Moran's blog, going on and on about this mistake, but neither he nor anyone else there is talking about Matheson's original claim re: useful introns. (Remember: 12, theatrically increased to 1000). nullasalus
off topic: Veritas uploaded a video of William Lane Craig: 7 Reasons God Exists and 3 Reasons It Makes A Difference http://www.vimeo.com/12208081 bornagain77
off topic: It seems Dr. Sternberg has a rift going with biochemist Larry Moran over the "junk" status of Introns; My money is on Dr. Sternberg; Let's Do the Math Again Excerpt: So let’s do the math. Again. I will make the task easy for everyone—even Moran and Matheson: Step 1. There are ~25,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome. Step 2. There are 190,000 introns/25,000 protein-coding genes = 7.6 introns/gene on average. Step 3. Ninety percent (possibly more) of gene transcripts undergo alternative splicing. Hence, 0.9 x 25,000 = 22,500 genes (actually, their RNAs) undergo alternative splicing. Therefore, 22,500 genes x 7.6 introns/gene = 171,000 introns involved in alternative splicing. This is just a rough estimate, of course. And as I wrote in my original critique of Matheson, even if I’m off by a factor of two we are still left with far more functional introns than Matheson acknowledges. This compels me to ask Steve Matheson: How exactly did you come up with your estimates? And what about you, Larry Moran? What sort of arithmetic are you using? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/lets_do_the_math_again035381.html It is beyond funny to me that Moran would be so upset with someone proving to him that he is in fact not +95% junk. Well OK Larry if it will make you feel better,,, I do consider 95% of your ideas regarding how life came to be on this earth to be Junk. up at Creation Evolution News: Venter’s Synthetic Plagiarism Deflated by NY Times - June 2010 Excerpt: How significant was Craig Venter’s achievement of a so-called synthetic genome? Somewhat significant, but it pales in significance to creating life from scratch. It was only like “peering over a fortress that is the mighty cell,” wrote Natalie Angier for the New York Times Monday, May 31.,,, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100602a bornagain77
off topic - OK Go - This Too Shall Pass - Rube Goldberg Machine version - Official http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w bornagain77
Never mind the nickels, responses of Darwinists are priceless. inunison

Leave a Reply