Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinists Spin ENCODE Findings More Than Even I Thought Possible

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I was certain the Darwinists would spin the ENCODE findings, but even I am stunned at their sheer audacity. In response to my previous post, Critical Rationalist says that the ENCODE findings, which falsify a prediction Darwinists have been making for decades, far from being a crushing defeat for the theory and its proponents is a positively good thing for Darwinists.

CR writes: “all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows . . . Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win win situation, which doesn’t represent a blow to human intellect.”

Then CR makes the outlandish suggestion that ENCODE is somehow a loss for ID. He writes: “[When ID] Merely assum[es] the entire genome ‘should be functional’ [it] does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized.”

CR is wrong on both counts. Yes, Darwinism will survive ENCODE as he suggests, but not because it is the best explanation for the data. It will survive because materialists have hegemonic control of the academy and for them Darwin is quite simply the only game in town. That’s what Dawkins means when he says he would choose Darwinism even if there were no evidence for it.

No, CR, ID proponents did not merely say that the code “should be functional.” They made a testable prediction in the teeth of the overwhelming opposition from Darwinists. They said, “Darwinists are wrong when they say the vast majority of DNA is junk. We predict that function will be found.” And that prediction was confirmed.

Sorry CR. No matter how you try to spin ENCODE, it is a crushing defeat for Darwinism.

Comments
Larry Moran @33:
It’s not nice to lie no matter who you do it for.
Let's think through the logic for a minute. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that would suggest pervasive transcription. Indeed, we can see this by simply looking at how many were surprised at the results of the ENCODE work. Now, it is possible that you are a lot smarter than many other people and that you previously predicted nearly all of human DNA would be transcribed. Did you? If so, congratulations. Either way, you certainly would not have gained that expectation from evolutionary theory itself. Perhaps from some good bench science; but not from evolutionary theory. Further, it is one thing to place some RNA polymerase from bacteria into cow DNA and notice that transcription takes place (which is very good and interesting science, by the way). Indeed, we might not even be particularly surprised that transcription takes place as soon as we insert the new material. It is quite another thing to have a genome in a population undergo pervasive transcription for millions of years without selection doing anything about it. Some of us note, rightly so, that it is a little bit too convenient for the evolutionary story to say that selection is so very capable when it suits the story and so very inept when it suits some other aspect of the story, as I noted on the other thread here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-rest-of-the-science-community-starting-to-catch-up-with-id-on-junk-dna-it-aint/#comment-432893 Part of what we have been discussing on these threads is what selection is alleged to be able to do and not do, coupled with the position some are taking that the vast majority of the genome is junk. We're being asked to believe that: (i) the vast majority of the genome is pure junk (way more than 50%, perhaps as high as 80-90%); (ii) significant cellular resources are spent in transcription, identification, breakdown, and, upon replication, copying all this junk, all without a single hitch to normal cellular function; (iii) selection hasn't done anything much about this tremendous waste of resources for millions of years (while at the same time selection has just happened to fix numerous other genomic changes in the population; whew, what a lucky accident for us); and (iv) this was all expected by evolutionary theory. Sorry, some people may be interested in buying that bridge, but others of us are not that gullible. I'll be more charitable than you and not say that you are intentionally lying. I think it is just a case of being stuck in a broken paradigm that clouds one's thinking.Eric Anderson
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Larry, That it is known does not mean it was expected- you know a prediction of the theory made BEFORE the biochemstry was known- ie before your undergraduate labs and even before you. And as you just provided evidence for, the observation is now being accomodated.Joe
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson says,
The idea of pervasive transcription itself is a surprise for the evolutionary story. Oh, sure, it is now being accommodated, but let’s remember that it was a surprise (i.e., certainly not predicted or expected by the theory). This isn’t a knock-down proof one way or another, but it is a failure of expectations based on the theory, and on the other hand a vindication of expecations based on design, and we should be honest enough to admit as much.
That's an untrue statement, otherwise known as a lie. We've been running an undergraduate lab experiment on RNA polymerase for 25 years. Students isolate RNA polymerase from bacteria (E. coli) then add the purified enzyme to DNA from cows (calf thymus DNA). They get lots of transcription even though there are no bacterial promoters in the cow genome. That's because RNA polymerase is known to bind nonspecifically and initiate transcription at many, many, sites in cow DNA. We know this because the binding constants for RNA polymerase were worked out over thirty years ago. The same thing is true for human RNA polymerase and human DNA. There will be specific transcription from strong fnctional promoters but there will also be tons of low-level nonspecific transcription (pervasive transcription). Those of us who understood basic biochemistry EXPECTED pervasive, nonspecific transcription and we demonstrate it in undergraduate labs. The explanation is in all the textbooks on biochemistry and molecular biology. It's been there for decades. Look on pages 636-643 of my textbook. It's not nice to lie no matter who you do it for.Larry Moran
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Nick you state:
What you guys aren’t getting is that nature has basically already done this experiment, and we know it works. Closely related species — same genus, hard to tell apart — are often known to have drastically smaller genome sizes than their relatives.
Well Nick now this should be a snap for you since you already got a blueprint from the smaller genome. All you have to do to verify your +50% junk claim is snip out all, or lots, of the 'extra junk' (close to 50% or thereabouts) of the larger genome and see if your hypothesis holds up. Do you care to take any wagers on your experiment that you will never get anywhere near deleting 50%???bornagain77
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke:
Closely related species — same genus, hard to tell apart — are often known to have drastically smaller genome sizes than their relatives.
That is not a prediction of the theory of evolution.Joe
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
14 JoeCoderSeptember 10, 2012 at 12:28 pm For those interested, 10 of the ENCODE scientists are currently accepting questions on reddit’s r/askscience: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/znlk6/askscience_special_ama_we_are_the_encyclopedia_of/
Heh. The very first thing an ENCODE person said on the 80% functional claim, was that he likes the post I linked to here on this thread, which you guys instantly ignored/dismissed:
[–]langoustine 34 points 1 day ago How do you feel the PR for this was handled? There's some blowback over claims that 80% of the genome has some sort of function, the trope that "we've refuted 'junk' DNA", etc. In a similar vein, do you agree with your work being distilled into these claims? permalink [–]mlibbrechtENCODE Consortium 28 points 1 day ago Regarding the 80% claim, I like this post: http://selab.janelia.org/people/eddys/blog/?p=683 permalink parent
NickMatzke_UD
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
The real null hypothesis for the junk DNA claims is to get rid of all the alleged ‘junk’ and see if the organism can thrive, reproduce through multiple generations, fend off disease, respond to environmental pressures, etc. without the alleged junk. Even then it would not be definitive proof of non-function, but I would view it as evidence that needs to be seriously considered (unlike the current claims, which essentially amount to: “well it looks strange, and anyway we haven’t found a function for it yet”).
What you guys aren't getting is that nature has basically already done this experiment, and we know it works. Closely related species -- same genus, hard to tell apart -- are often known to have drastically smaller genome sizes than their relatives.NickMatzke_UD
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
notes:
Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8 Junk DNA Not Junk After All Sept. 9, 2012 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php 8 Important Facts You Didn't Know about ENCODE and the Human Genome Sept. 7, 2012 http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/11970/20120907/8-important-facts-didnt-know-encode-human.htm
The title of this following paper is catchy :)
ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA - Sept. 7, 2012 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/1159.summary
bornagain77
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
I especially liked this response to Dr. Moran's question by rule_30:
"That said, I can’t help but notice a trend: over time, “junk DNA” is disappearing. Good riddance: this is just a term for DNA that we don’t have any guesses about its function. The more we learn about the genome, the more functions we uncover, thus fewer unknowns and a more seemingly “useful” genome. Where will it end? I have no idea,,," http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/znlk6/askscience_special_ama_we_are_the_encyclopedia_of/c667vqi
that comment reminds me of this video from ENV a while back:
Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html
bornagain77
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
The ENCODE team's answers to Larry Moran don't seem to confirm the idea that they accidentally spun their results to suggest more function in DNA than there actually is. The word "putdown" comes to mind.Jon Garvey
September 11, 2012
September
09
Sep
11
11
2012
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
I wish we had a forum here so we didn't have to hijack threads for interesting topics and announcements.JoeCoder
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
OT:
Michael Denton: Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis - podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/09/michael_denton_remarkable_coin.html
bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Barry, thanks for the OP. It's all a hoot. I hope I'm not taking advantage of your hospitality by posting this link. But back in the 1990s on a nationally syndicated TV show I sparred with anti-ID gal Eugenie Scott for one hour. The best (only?) evidence she offered for evolution was Junk DNA. I challenged her to retract. She didn't :) It's at http://realsciencefriday.com/eugenie-scottBob Enyart
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
Thanks JoeCoder, will make a note correcting the error. Thanks for the correction since it is certainly 'non-trivial' as to the topic.bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
@ba77: 1mb from a mouse genome is about .03%, not 1%. The mouse genome has about 2.8 billion base pairs. It looks like an error in the original nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.htmlJoeCoder
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Larry Moran asked one of the ENCODE researchers:
How about we define junk DNA as the DNA that could be deleted without affecting the survival of the individual or the species. How much of the genome is junk by that definition? http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/znlk6/askscience_special_ama_we_are_the_encyclopedia_of/c667vqi
Don't know if Dr. Moran was being sarcastic in that question (it's hard to tell with him), but if that definition he suggested is used then we find that the percentage for 'junk' drops to far less than the 20% he is so upset about,,,
Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA - November 2011 Excerpt: Mice without “junk” DNA. In 2004, Edward Rubin?] and a team of scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California reported that they had engineered mice missing over a million base pairs of non-protein-coding (“junk”) DNA—about 1% of the mouse genome—and that they could “see no effect in them.” But molecular biologist Barbara Knowles (who reported the same month that other regions of non-protein-coding mouse DNA were functional) cautioned that the Lawrence Berkeley study didn’t prove that non-protein-coding DNA has no function. “Those mice were alive, that’s what we know about them,” she said. “We don’t know if they have abnormalities that we don’t test for.”And University of California biomolecular engineer David Haussler? said that the deleted non-protein-coding DNA could have effects that the study missed. “Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years,” he argued. In 2010, Rubin was part of another team of scientists that engineered mice missing a 58,000-base stretch of so-called “junk” DNA. The team found that the DNA-deficient mice appeared normal until they (along with a control group of normal mice) were fed a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet for 20 weeks. By the end of the study, a substantially higher proportion of the DNA-deficient mice had died from heart disease. Clearly, removing so-called “junk” DNA can have effects that appear only later or under other circumstances. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-on-darwinism-science-and-junk-dna/
Moreover, there is 'redundancy' considerations to deal with:
Minimal genome should be twice the size - 2006 Excerpt: “Previous attempts to work out the minimal genome have relied on deleting individual genes in order to infer which genes are essential for maintaining life,” said Professor Laurence Hurst from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath. “This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product. “When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene. “But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead. “Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/03/30/16976.aspx Mouse Genome Knockout Experiment https://uncommondescent.com/books-of-interest/new-book-junk-dna-junked-in-favour-of-what/comment-page-3/#comment-374647
bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
semi OT:
Harvard Scientists Write the Book on Intelligent Design—in DNA - Dr. Fazale Rana - September 10, 2012 Excerpt: One gram of DNA can hold up to 455 exabytes (one exabyte equals 10^18 bytes). In comparison, a CD-ROM holds about 700 million (7 x 10^8) bytes of data. (One gram of DNA holds the equivalent amount of data as 600 billion CD-ROMs. Assuming a typical book requires 1 megabyte of data-storage capacity, then one gram of DNA could harbor 455 trillion books.) http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dna
bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found.
Mung
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Looks like Larry Moran found the reddit thread also: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/znlk6/askscience_special_ama_we_are_the_encyclopedia_of/c667vqi
Could each of you please give me your personal opinion on how much of our genome has no biological function? In other words, how much of our genome is composed of junk DNA? Please don't quibble about "biochemical function." That's not a biological function. You don't need an elaborate answer. Something like 10% or 50-60% will do nicely.
JoeCoder
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Here are a few additional examples from a comment on another thread...
...even the statement that “all swans are white”, which is found in conflict with observations and therefore false as a whole, is better than merely “all swans have a color” as the former has more ways to be found wrong. All theories usually contains errors to some degree. In my example, the error is “all”, but it does bring us closer to the truth than merely “all swans have a color” because it encompasses the theory that there are *white* swans. Popper called this property Verisimilitude. [...] ...it’s logically possible one or more designers intentionally went out of its way to obscure its role in designing biological organisms. Even if this was the case, Darwinism would still be the best explanation because it encompasses the theory that the biosphere appears *as if* adaptations of organisms were created by genetic variation that was random to any specific problem to solve and natural selection. IOW, the theory encompasses a specific means by which the designer set out to obscure it’s role, which could also be found false as compared to some other specific means of obscuring its role. As such, this too represents a better theory than merely an abstract designer with no defined limitations. This is one example of what I mean when I say the current crop of ID is a bad explanation.
critical rationalist
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
BA writes…
CR writes: “all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows . . . Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win win situation, which doesn’t represent a blow to human intellect.” Then CR makes the outlandish suggestion that ENCODE is somehow a loss for ID. He writes: “[When ID] Merely assum[es] the entire genome ‘should be functional’ [it] does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized.”> CR is wrong on both counts.
Now the missing link becomes more apparent, as you've taken my comment out of context. I wrote:
The assumption that Darwinists will change their story suggests finding errors in a theory is somehow a bad thing. This is illogical, as it conflicts with our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge. Namely, all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows. It also assumes some ultimate explanation can be found.
several paragraphs later I wrote…
Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win-win situation, which doesn’t represent a blow to human intellect. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Our ability to devise specific tests that would falsify one theory, but not the other, is an example of human intellect. This is what allows us to make progress.
Also, I wrote:
For example, even when found to be in error as a whole, as it was in this case, a theory that only roughly 2% of the genome has a specific purpose is better than the vague claim that 100% of the genome “should be functional”. This is because it encompasses the theory that roughly 2% of the genome a specific function, rather than some other specific function, which can be found in error Merely assuming the entire genome “should be functional” does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized. Furthermore, if we do not conjecture a specific theory of what specific function they do perform, then we do not know what tests to run. And without tests, we do not know what observations to make. So, merely saying “all genes should be functional” doesn’t tell us where we should look or what we should look for. In addition, [as] replicators, we know that genes to serve a purpose. They play a casual role in getting copied. So, of course, they “do something”. The question is, what hard to vary role do they play in adaptations of biological organisms?
The key point I was illustrating is how even different theories that have been shown wrong, *as a whole*, via observations can be closer to the truth than others because they have more informational content that can be found false. This is a property Popper called "Verisimilitude". IOW, I said no such thing about ENCODE being a loss for ID. And it's out ability to devise specific tests that would falsify one theory, but not the other, that is a example of human intellect, which is independent of Darwinism. Having developed a universal theory of how knowledge grows is yet another such an example.critical rationalist
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
For those interested, 10 of the ENCODE scientists are currently accepting questions on reddit's r/askscience: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/znlk6/askscience_special_ama_we_are_the_encyclopedia_of/JoeCoder
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Barry, Is there a particular reason why you did not include a link to my actual comment?
BA: The ID community, including many writers here at UD, has been predicting for years that so-called junk DNA would be found to be functional. The Darwinists have scoffed. Now ID proponents are being vindicated. My prediction: The Darwinists will change their story to “we’ve been saying this all along.”
The assumption that Darwinists will change their story suggests finding errors in a theory is somehow a bad thing. This is illogical, as it conflicts with our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge. Namely, all theories contain errors of varying degree and that finding them is how knowledge grows. It also assumes some ultimate explanation can be found. For example, even when found to be in error as a whole, as it was in this case, a theory that only roughly 2% of the genome has a specific purpose is better than the vague claim that 100% of the genome “should be functional”. This is because it encompasses the theory that roughly 2% of the genome a specific function, rather than some other specific function, which can be found in error. Merely assuming the entire genome “should be functional” does not stick its neck out in a way that allows itself to be criticized. Furthermore, if we do not conjecture a specific theory of what specific function they do perform, then we do not know what tests to run. And without tests, we do not know what observations to make. So, merely saying “all genes should be functional” doesn’t tell us where we should look or what we should look for. In addition, a replicators, we know that genes to serve a purpose. They play a casual role in getting copied. So, of course, they “do something”. The question is, what hard to vary role do they play in adaptations of biological organisms. IOW, proposing the remaining 98% of the genome did not play a role in building biological adaptations means that the 2% should play the entire role. That’s a testable prediction that can be criticized. Surviving criticism and *not* surviving criticized is a win-win situation, which doesn’t represent a blow to human intellect. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Our ability to devise specific tests that would falsify one theory, but not the other, is an example of human intellect. This is what allows us to make progress. Furthermore human designers regularly make things that are merely cosmetic or inadvertently end up creating things that serve no purpose. In addition, a designer could make genes non functional in an attempt to obscure its role in the process. IOW, it’s not clear why you would expect an abstract designer with no defined limitations to make all genes functional.
critical rationalist
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
The article Nick linked to makes an interesting suggestion. Create an entirely random sequence of DNA and see if it gets transcribed (what he calls the null hypothesis against the ENCODE results). The author suggests that it will. And on its face, this may not be a bad idea nor a bad expectation of the transcription outcome. However -- and these are the kinds of caveats you'll rarely hear from someone who is enamored of the idea of pervasive junk DNA -- we have to consider the following: - The idea of pervasive transcription itself is a surprise for the evolutionary story. Oh, sure, it is now being accommodated, but let's remember that it was a surprise (i.e., certainly not predicted or expected by the theory). This isn't a knock-down proof one way or another, but it is a failure of expectations based on the theory, and on the other hand a vindication of expecations based on design, and we should be honest enough to admit as much. - DNA is a 3D structure, with positioning of elements important in some cases, with more cases almost surely to be found. Thus, it is possible that certain portions of DNA are there solely for structural positioning, without regard to specific sequence. - Some studies have started to discover that timing is important. Thus, there may be strings withing DNA that get transcribed purely as a timing element (and without any specific sequence needed), similar to a 'wait loop' in a computer program. Based on our own computer design experience, in fact I would expect to see such timing elements. We'll see if more of these get found. - The cell still has to deal with expenditure of resources in DNA replication during cell replication, identifying and breaking down unneeded RNA transcripts, and so forth. As we've been noting on another thread the last few days, this is not an insignificant use of resources, particularly for those who claim that somewhere betwen 60-90% of DNA is junk. The Darwinist response to date is simply that selection works sometimes and doesn't work other times. Stuff happens. - The real null hypothesis for the junk DNA claims is to get rid of all the alleged 'junk' and see if the organism can thrive, reproduce through multiple generations, fend off disease, respond to environmental pressures, etc. without the alleged junk. Even then it would not be definitive proof of non-function, but I would view it as evidence that needs to be seriously considered (unlike the current claims, which essentially amount to: "well it looks strange, and anyway we haven't found a function for it yet").Eric Anderson
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
The 'denialism' of these ENCODE findings by Darwinists is reminiscent of the 'denialism' Darwinists went through with the finding of digital information in DNA. I've lost count of how many times Darwinists have denied that the coded information we find in DNA is not really coded information. Here is one such episode of denial by, of all people, a software engineer at Google:
Every Bit Digital: DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics - March 2010 http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo12/12luskin2.php
But as with Junk DNA now, ID has recently been vindicated with big time proof that the information we find in DNA is in fact 'digitally encoded' information:
Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute - video https://vimeo.com/47615970 Quote from preceding video: "The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA." Sriram Kosuri PhD. - Wyss Institute Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram - Sebastian Anthony - August 17, 2012 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram
This is simply completely insane,,,
you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA.
,,,just how far beyond this is for the capacity of anything man has designed to store information in computers! ,,, And yet Darwinists, without even a batting a eye, think nothing of declaring the information that is stored in this astonishing DNA molecule to be mostly junk. It would be absolutely hilarious, on par with a modern scientist believing in a flat earth, if it were not for the fact that, in much of America, these Darwinists are allowed to teach impressionable young minds without restraint!.bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
From the New York Times reporting on the ENCODE announcement: “There is another sort of hairball as well: the complex three-dimensional structure of DNA. Human DNA is such a long strand — about 10 feet of DNA stuffed into a microscopic nucleus of a cell — that it fits only because it is tightly wound and coiled around itself. When they looked at the three-dimensional structure — the hairball — Encode researchers discovered that small segments of dark-matter [a.k.a. junk] DNA are often quite close to genes they control. In the past, when they analyzed only the uncoiled length of DNA, those controlling regions appeared to be far from the genes they affect.” Emphasis mine. Based on the above text, it seems that the dark matter DNA segments act as both “spacers” and controllers of their respective genes. Taking into account the 3D structure of DNA and its arrangement of genes proximate to the DNA that controls them, “junk” DNA wound around histones functioning as a “spacer” for the controlling of genes should be considered sufficiently functional to disqualify it as “junk”. Acting as spacers may not be as gloriously functional as a gene but is essential nonetheless.RexTugwell
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Casey Luskin has a article up on the Darwinian spin, oops, I meant Darwinian response, to the ENCODE findings:
What an Evolution Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Evolution Debate - Casey Luskin September 10, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/what_an_evoluti_1064101.html
bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
One of the greatest scientific revolutions in history is occurring before our eyes and the cultural and psychological aspects are almost as fascinating as the discoveries themselves. While scientists who seek design in the genome are finding it, others desperately continue clinging to a steam-age myth that has put blinders on biologists for a century and a half. This is going to be fun.sagebrush gardener
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Nick Matzke, The problem is that your version of "evolution" can explain lots of junk, some junk or no junk DNA. And THAT is the problem if it can "explain" everything as it explains nothing.Joe
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from the fossil record;
"What Would Disprove Evolution?" - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Fossils are found in the "wrong place" all the time (either too early, or too late). Paleontological theory, however, allows for such devices as "ghost lineages" to repair the damage; see ENV's coverage here and here. (links on the site) Again, discordance between molecular and anatomical phylogenies is commonplace in systematics; see here.(link on the site) But we expect Coyne is able to handle these anomalies via his shock-absorbing adjective "complete," which allows an indefinitely large range of possibilities, short of "complete" discordance (whatever that means). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_would_disp061891.html Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID – Casey Luskin – Audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-03-26T14_56_42-07_00
Here is how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:
More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism – March 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the032471.html The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011 Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html
Let's not forget another prevalent means in which neo-Darwinism avoids falsification; the fraudulent, and very deceptive, practice of literature bluffing; In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.
What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - April 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-04-06T11_39_03-07_00
The deception (literature bluffing), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;
The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251
A very good site with many references exposing many more instances of Darwinism avoiding falsification from the empirical data, by ad hoc models (rationalizations), is found in this following site:
Darwin’s Predictions – Cornelius Hunter PhD. http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
Quote of note:
"But how could it be otherwise that Darwinism would fail to make accurate predictions? It is simply impossible for a materialistic theory which denies the reality of 'mind' to have have any real predictive power with any sort of integrity since it clearly takes a 'mind' to foresee the future and predict it fairly accurately in the first place!" Blogger
Music and verse:
Hold Us Together (w. lyrics) -- Matt Maher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0ENzQcjrM Matthew 7:16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
bornagain77
September 10, 2012
September
09
Sep
10
10
2012
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply