Chinese Researchers Demolish Evolutionary Pseudo-Science

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 4, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In recent decades the genomes of several species have been mapped out and evolutionists are using these genome data to refine their theory. They are also making some high claims. The genome data sets, say evolutionists, are adding striking new confirmations for their theory. One piece of evidence evolutionists point to is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from a chimp-human common ancestor. Evolution professor Dennis Venema explains: Read more

Comments

Or:
“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition
Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

SO you mash two quotes up from two unrelated people and repeat them completely out of context? You are worse than BA, at least his quotes have sources and are correctly cited to their actual individual sources. I'm only going to say this once more: you have no idea what you are talking about.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”? Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is” page 281: On natural selection being a pressure or force
What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population
On the role of chance:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.
Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

“natural selection is blind and mindless- it just eliminates the less fit”
Do you not see the contradiction there?
That Dawkins and Mayr for ya- Dawkins and others say NS is blind and mindless and Mayr said it just eliminates the less fit. Again don't blame me for your ignorance.Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

"natural selection is blind and mindless- it just eliminates the less fit" Do you not see the contradiction there? If it does any type of "singling-out" then it is not "blind." You have absolutely no idea waht you are talking about. You have no knowledge to speak of on this topic, sorry.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Sounds like you are just a bloviating troll, AVS.Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

AVS:
The fact that you call it “unguided evolution” tells me everything I need to know about you.
So you are ignorant of what is being debated and you don't understand what Darwin nor the modern synthesis says. Here's a hint- natural selection is blind and mindless- it just eliminates the less fit (Mayr "What Evolution Is") and the mutations, ie genetic changes are just allegedly happenstance events, ie genetic accidents. Therefor it is unguided evolution. OTOH there is Intelligent Design evolution- ie evolution by design- see "Not By Chance" Spetner 1997. That said I get my knowledge wrt evolution from sources like Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Shubin, Coyne, et al. They all say that evolution is unguided. So what, exactly, is your issue, other than ignorance?Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about, Joe.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

The fact that you call it "unguided evolution" tells me everything I need to know about you. One of those things is that trying to talk to you about science would be like trying to talk to a wall. I would suggest that you get your science information from scientific sources, but I know that it will fall on deaf ears.AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

AVS sez:
You would have to trace the genome, transcriptome, proteome, and interactome of a species for thousands of years, if not more.
Sounds like evolutionism to me! "Oh it takes millions of years for blah, blah, blah" Nice job AVS!Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

AVS- Please produce testable hypotheses wrt unguided evolution or just admit that you are a clueless troll.Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

wd400- How does one test anything wrt unguided evolution?Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

You would have to trace the genome, transcriptome, proteome, and interactome of a species for thousands of years, if not more. Meaning it will not be done anytime soon, meaning our friends here are free to speculate anything they want. Because here at UD you can replace observing, hypothesizing, testing, and theorizing with one step: Speculating. SCIENCE....AVS_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Could it be Joe? How would you test that hypothesis?wd400_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Looking at non-coding sections and trying to determine something is so one dimensional. No it can't be that those non-coding sections are there for future considerations- like a stockroom of parts...Joe_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Ohno is saying the bits of the genome that aren't genes are (mostly) "dead" gene duplicates. Note, he is not saying because sequences are non-coding fossils of other genes that must be junk. Indeed, he includes non-coding regulatroy sequences in his functional set. Rather, his gene duplicates idea sets out to explain what the non-functional portion of the genome (established in his earlier paragraphs/citations) must be made of and how in accumulates. It turns out he wasn't entirely right. The junk sections aren't only pseudogenes. But pseduogenes do contribute to junkiness of our genome.wd400_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

wd400 @ 53 Querius wrote:
In fact, what Dr. Ohno actually wrote was
Our view is that they are the remains of nature’s experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?
You (wd400) responded to that part (I'm gathering):
I’ve read it. It’s amazing to me that you can read those words and get it so wrong. Nowhere in Ohno’s paper is the assumption that because a sequence in non-coding that it must be junk.
But if I read that excerpt Queris used, I am curious, what does the author of the paper claim are remains of "failed experiments"? And wouldn't the author then be imply that those remains are not useful, or useful? Does the author imply those failed remains are junk or not? Seems pretty difficult to think that can be interpreted to mean anything but the remains are junk. So, your amazement seems to be to my amazement. But then again.. I'm not tracking your entire conversation. :PJGuy_{January 7, 2014
January
01
Jan
7
07
2014
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

Of course! What we’re discussing are the evolutionary assumptions in Dr. Susumu Ohno’s paper, which was written in 1972, over 40 years ago. These assumptions have, as you pointed out, been falsified.
I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that even in Ohno's time it was well known that transcription wasn't exclusive to the protein encoding region of DNA, and that there were roles for RNA other than being translated to protein. (Taking another quick look at Ohno's 1972 paper, he doesn't seem to clearly state one way or another, but I may be missing something.) But even if Ohno did believe that only the protein encoding region of DNA was transcribed, why would that be an "evolutionary assumption"? Were non-evolutionists predicting otherwise?goodusername_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

(perhaps you confusion stems from the fact Ohno doesn't use the phrase non-coding? That phrase wasn't used at the time, even though non-protein genes were well enough known).wd400_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

I've read it. It's amazing to me that you can read those words and get it so wrong. Nowhere in Ohno's paper is the assumption that because a sequence in non-coding that it must be junk. Indeed, he includes regulatory elements in his set of genes, and elsewhere talks about fact spacer elements are subject to mutation too. As I say, he would also have known about functional RNAs. The first two paragraphs make the strongest argument for the presence of junk DNA - large variance in genome size among related groups (now shown to be correlated with effective population size and thus the strength of natural selection to remove weekly deleterious mutations) and limits on gene content set by mutational load. Ohno was wrong that most junk is the result of gene duplication. Nothing since Ohno's time has proved him wrong about the junkiness of our genome.wd400_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

goodusername @ 48 chimed in with
That much, if not most, of our DNA is transcribed to RNA has been known for decades.
Of course! What we're discussing are the evolutionary assumptions in Dr. Susumu Ohno's paper, which was written in 1972, over 40 years ago. These assumptions have, as you pointed out, been falsified. -QQuerius_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

wd400,
Because he was arguing most of the genome was junk, not simply non-coding.
Oh really? On what page in his paper did Dr. Ohno even mention non-coding DNA or its true function? :o In fact, what Dr. Ohno actually wrote was
Our view is that they are the remains of nature's experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?
He also speculated on some benefits of junk DNA, but my point was that Dr. Ohno made a poor assumption. A better assumption would have been that there is no "junk" in our DNA, which would be the ID assumption. As an intelligent scientist, Dr. Ohno made several bold predictions in his paper based on what he expected from the evolutionary process. The predictions have proved false. If you don't believe me, please read his paper again. http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html -QQuerius_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

So why wasn’t his paper titled SO MUCH NON-CODING DNA IN OUR GENOME? Because he was arguing most of the genome was junk, not simply non-coding.wd400_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

According to various definitions and estimates, the biochemically active fraction of DNA has increased from less than 2% to about 80%.
That much, if not most, of our DNA is transcribed to RNA has been known for decades.goodusername_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

wd400,
I do think Ohno new the difference between junk and non-coding.
So why wasn't his paper titled SO MUCH NON-CODING DNA IN OUR GENOME? -QQuerius_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

I do think Ohno new the difference between junk and non-coding. He wasn't a fool and would have known about tRNA, rRNA. In dicussions he also made the point that a spacer element is also subject to mutational load, which was the centre of his argument. He certainly wasn't saying "not protein therfore not functional". If want to share the argument that moves from "is transcribed" to "is functional" please go ahead - I've yet to hear it. If you could make that argument you'd manage to get every base of every intron into the functional set... ENCODE is OK for what it is, a giant data dump. Much of the press that surround that dump was terrible.wd400_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

wd400, 1. My point wasn't what some people now term "junk DNA," but rather the presumption of junk in Dr. Ohno's paper, SO MUCH "JUNK" DNA IN OUR GENOME. Yes, I've read his paper several times. Surely you won't insist that Dr. Ohno differentiated between "junk" DNA and non-coding DNA. Why do I often get the feeling that these discussions parallel Monty Python's dead parrot" skit or the "he's mostly dead" dialog on Princess Bride? According to various definitions and estimates, the biochemically active fraction of DNA has increased from less than 2% to about 80%. No, we don't know about the last 20%, but can we please not call it "junk"? What do you have against ENCODE? The project includes 442 scientists in 32 labs around the world. Sounds like a reasonable effort to me. 2. Look at the photos and descriptive text of the Biology textbooks here: http://www.discovery.org/a/3935. Their point is still recapitulation giving us "important clues" about evolution---one text book points out the "gill slits" in human development. Gill slits? Really? 3. In other words, you contend that there were spectacular changes during the half-billion (OK, the last 100 million) years of nautilus morphological stasis at a biochemical and molecular level. And where is the scientific evidence for these changes? There is none. The supposed changes are invisible. It's simply speculation. 4. Again, I'm NOT defending Dr. Grehan, but "he's a crank because he continues to use a flawed method," whether true or not, is still not a convincing scientific rebuttal. Watson and Crick had an uphill battle getting funding for their crank methods (and yes, they were crank) compared to Pauling and Corey, but remind me again, in which proceedings were Watson and Crick finally able to publish their one-page paper? -QQuerius_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Homology is always assumed. Asfar as the people who cry "homology" knows they are looking at homoplasy.Joe_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Querius, 1. Ohno's argument was no about non-coding DNA. If you read his initial presentation of the idea you'll see how people challanged him on roles for non-coding (then mainly called spacer DNA) and how he showed the same argument applies for any sequence-specific funcational element. Although everyone here seems to have swallowed ENCODE press releases whole, it simply isn't true that most of the genome has been revealed to have a function. 2. The embryoes depicted in that article are not used to support recapitulation, but homology. 3. So called living fossils evolve biochemically and at a molecular level (in fact, evolutionary change is an inevitable consequence of finite population sizes at mutation at the molecular level). Some organisms maintain ancestral morphologies (though, for instance, tuatara and coelcanths are quite derived). Why the maintanance of some body plans over millions of years is a problem for evolutionary biology I don't know. 4. The differnce btween Greehan and Watson and Crick is that when W&C presented their evidence everyone agreed it supported the double helix. Greehan is a crank because he continues to use a flawed method and refuses to accept the very good reasons that the scientific community has to exclude panbiogeography from science.wd400_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

hi dw400. even with ervs there is problems: http://creation.com/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses and we even find ervs in wrong places.mk_{January 6, 2014
January
01
Jan
6
06
2014
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply