Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Even IF the Genome is Full of “Junk”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I particularly enjoyed Denyse’s comment here about how, according to some evolutionary theorists — who should be more accurately depicted as evolutionary storytellers — Darwinian evolution programmed us to find Darwinian evolution difficult to believe.

This is called science?

A much more reasonable explanation is that our minds were programmed to invent computer programs, and to find Darwinism difficult to believe because it makes no rational sense.

But I digress from the theme of my post.

I enjoyed Jonathan’s presentation about junk DNA at the link provided above. Let us presume that the genome does include junk. What does this have to do with the evidence for design found elsewhere, such as in the highly sophisticated, functionally integrated, information-processing machinery about which we know a great deal?

I’m sure that Francis Collins is a very fine fellow. I have no doubt about his Christian conversion. (I underwent a similar one.) I have no doubt about his intellect or problem-solving IQ.

However, there is something missing in his reasoning, which basically goes like this:

A troglodyte discovers a car in a junkyard. The engine runs. The transmission works, and the car can be driven. But wait: The headlights don’t work and do nothing (of course, the troglodyte has no idea what a headlight is, but he sees such structures and assumes that they have no purpose).

Even if (and that’s a BIG if) the genome is full of junk (that is, degenerate stuff that provides no function), the existence of that junk has nothing to do with an inference to design from the stuff that is obviously not junk, but highly sophisticated technology.

Based upon my experience, design theorists are not the troglodytes who refuse to follow the evidence where it leads — Darwinists are.

Comments
CLAVDIVS- ID doesn't care about materialism. And the only thing ID assumes is that we can determine the causal chain when investigating something.Joe
June 1, 2012
June
06
Jun
1
01
2012
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Joe @ 66
Right- ID does not “assume” materialism is false as it is obvious that it is- no assumptions required.
It may be obvious to you that materialism is false, Joe, but amongst philosophers it is still an open question. And, as you say, the question is currently far beyond resolution by empirical science. Accordingly, as science, ID cannot simply assume the truth or falsity of materialism; to do so would be to take a metaphysical position beyond what the scientific evidence can tell us. CheersCLAVDIVS
June 1, 2012
June
06
Jun
1
01
2012
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Right- ID does not "assume" materialism is false as it is obvious that it is- no assumptions required. ;)Joe
June 1, 2012
June
06
Jun
1
01
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Joe @ 64
C: Therefore, it seems to me that ID theory must, in principle, accommodate strict materialism as an open possibility. J: It does. However it is obvious that materialism cannot be tested and therefor is not science.
Well okay, then; We agree that ID theory can assume neither the truth nor the falsity of materialism. CheersCLAVDIVS
June 1, 2012
June
06
Jun
1
01
2012
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
But ID theory doesn’t allow one to define the characteristics of the designer of life on earth.
That is false. ID is NOT about the designer but ID does not prevent anyone from trying to define the characteristics of the designer. ID makes the designer and the specific processes separate questions from the detection and study of the design.
So how do you know that designer of life on earth cannot possibly be an entity that developed via purely reductionist materialistic processes?
If the designer of life on earth is so reducible then it figures that life on earth is also so reducible. Also the design inference extends beyond biology which means this solar system and especially our earth/ moon system would have also had to arise via necessity and chance.
Therefore, it seems to me that ID theory must, in principle, accommodate strict materialism as an open possibility.
It does. However it is obvious that materialism cannot be tested and therefor is not science.Joe
June 1, 2012
June
06
Jun
1
01
2012
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Joe @ 62
Mini-id- as in living organisms on this planet were designed. However Intelligent Design requires that all living organisms- on every planet- be traceable back to a designer. Intelligent Design is not OK with materialism being true.
But ID theory doesn't allow one to define the characteristics of the designer of life on earth. So how do you know that designer of life on earth cannot possibly be an entity that developed via purely reductionist materialistic processes? How do you know it/they had to be designed? It can't be because of ID theory, because the background and nature of the designer of life on earth are by definition outside ID theory. Therefore, it seems to me that ID theory must, in principle, accommodate strict materialism as an open possibility. CheersCLAVDIVS
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
Assume, for the sake of discussion, that reductionist materialism is true; that an alien intelligence evolved elsewhere in the universe; and billions of years ago they visited earth and seeded it with living organisations they designed, which have evolved since then. This scenario seems compatible with ID to me.
Mini-id- as in living organisms on this planet were designed. However Intelligent Design requires that all living organisms- on every planet- be traceable back to a designer. Intelligent Design is not OK with materialism being true.Joe
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Joe @ 58
What ID does predict is that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance.
This got me thinking. Assume, for the sake of discussion, that reductionist materialism is true; that an alien intelligence evolved elsewhere in the universe; and billions of years ago they visited earth and seeded it with living organisations they designed, which have evolved since then. This scenario seems compatible with ID to me. So why do you say ID requires reductionist materialism to be false? CheersCLAVDIVS
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Eugene, Yup, could be the case. So the designer is not maintaining the system then? Everything was frontloaded at some point and then let go? Or . . . . Just trying to get a handle on the implications of what you are suggesting.Jerad
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Jerad, IF the genome is full of ‘junk’ and was designed it does make you wonder why the junk was put in or left there. It costs resources to perpetuate the ‘junk’ so . . . . sounds like very shoddy design for a living, self-replicating system. Or the original design was flooded by noise for some reason. Say you have a nice new radio receiver and then you drop it off the third floor. Well, it still can work but it's not as good as new any more.Eugene S
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- Right now there may not be any practical way to test it but even being able to test it doesn't make it a valid prediction for any specific model. So we are in agreement on that. What ID does predict is that living organisms are not reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance. It also predicts that when agencies act they tend to leave traces of their involvement behind. And we can detect and study those traces.Joe
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Jerad- No, I do not think, believe nor accept that we are part of a computer simulation.Joe
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Joe @ 54 Well, if there's no practical way to test it then its not really a prediction, and should not have been promoted as such. CheersCLAVDIVS
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Joe, You're just not going to answer the computer simulation question are you? Oh well, I'll stop asking then.Jerad
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- Another issue with the "prediction" and alleged falsification is how can we test it? That is how can we really tell how much of our genome is required? How much is for future purposes? How much is redundant (a design feature)? How much is just for software storage? We just do not know...Joe
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Meh...Joe
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson @ 45
I guess this underscores that there has been a significant disconnect in the evolutionary community about what to expect with regard to junk DNA. Perhaps this is not unusual, given that evolutionary theory can accommodate any outcome so there is no theoretical reason to expect a particular result.
That's a bit snarky. Evolutionary theory cannot accommodate any outcome. It can, however, accommodate a genome that has widely varying amounts of "junk".
- Is it your view that careful researchers have always suspected function for most junk DNA, or did they just suspect that some occasional functions might be found amid the sea of junk?
Opinion amongst researchers has been widely spread, not clustered at the "mostly useless" end or the "mostly functional" end. Here are the results of a 2008 survey asking "How much of our genome could be deleted without having any significant effect on our species?" (n=595): 15% - None 18% - less than 10% 16% - between 11% and 49% 12% - between 50% and 74% 13% - between 75% and 89% 23% - 90% or more
- Is it your view that careful researchers have always suspected function for most junk DNA and that it is just the loud propagandizers (Dawkins, Myers, Moran, et al.) who continue to push the incorrect idea that there is pervasive junk DNA?
Yes, careful researchers have always suspected function for junk DNA. I do not know whether loud propagandisers push the idea that there is "pervasive" junk DNA. Of the five comments you cited only two (Futuyma & Avise) actually suggest junk DNA predominates; the others merely say that junk DNA exists or there is "lots" of it - which is completely non-committal on the subject of how much of the genome is junk. This is roughly in line with the survey I posted above - namely, opinion is fairly widely spread on this subject. In any case, my comment was about predictions of ID advocates who have stated that it is a prediction of ID theory that there will be very little non-functional DNA. And I was just pointing out, as a logical matter, if the genome is full of junk then these predictions would be falsified. CheersCLAVDIVS
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Joe, External to the organism. If we're part of a computer simulation then we are part of the software really I suppose. Some people think that is a possibility. What do you think?Jerad
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Jerad:
Could the software be external?
External to what, the organism? How does it get in?Joe
May 31, 2012
May
05
May
31
31
2012
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Joe, Could the software be external? Could we be part of a computer simulation? Clearly intelligently designed.Jerad
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
wd400, I disagree. From what I have read, it appears to me that information may be more fundamental than matter and energy. Here's an interesting place to start. http://evoinfo.org/Collin
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
wd400- Toward synthetic life They only used synthetic ribosomal RNA and now it only cranks out one polypeptide. Life what a concept- see page 52:
We talked about the ribosome; we tried to make synthetic ribosomes, starting with the genetic code and building them — the ribosome is such an incredibly beautiful complex entity, you can make synthetic ribosomes, but they don't function totally yet. Nobody knows how to get ones that can actually do protein synthesis. But starting with an intact ribosome is cheating anyway right?
BTW information is neither matter nor energy...Joe
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- The software could be copying itself without any errors. Until we can actually read the software we won't know.Joe
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Clavdivs @24: Apologies that I don't have time right now to respond in detail and am heading out of town in about 24 hours. Just a couple of quick comments: - Thank you for the quotes about junk DNA possibly having function. I think the quotes are not as strong as you suggest they are, particularly not the Ohno quote, which can easily be understood as meaning "yes, eventually, in the course of eons natural selection might weed out the junk," and is not necessarily stating that he thinks there isn't currently pervasive junk. - Nevertheless, I accept your point that some individuals were looking into the possibility of junk DNA having function early on, so thanks for the quotes. - In light of the many statements made by evolutionary proponents about pervasive junk DNA (including the comments I cited in https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/vidthe-debate-that-never-was-craig-vs-dawkins-junk-dna-does-show-up-though/#comment-408575), I guess this underscores that there has been a significant disconnect in the evolutionary community about what to expect with regard to junk DNA. Perhaps this is not unusual, given that evolutionary theory can accommodate any outcome so there is no theoretical reason to expect a particular result. - I note that lots of prominent folks even now (go search Panda's Thumb, for example) continue to promote the idea that junk DNA: is almost all junk, is evidence for evolution, and is evidence against design. - So while I am happy that there have been researchers who have speculated about possible function for junk DNA, this appears to have been a minority (or perhaps just quiet?) position, swamped by the more outspoken elements. In light of this: - Is it your view that careful researchers have always suspected function for most junk DNA, or did they just suspect that some occasional functions might be found amid the sea of junk? - Is it your view that careful researchers have always suspected function for most junk DNA and that it is just the loud propagandizers (Dawkins, Myers, Moran, et al.) who continue to push the incorrect idea that there is pervasive junk DNA?Eric Anderson
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Joe, In my case the DNA was indeed synthesised. The RNA pol was probably expressed in bactrial cells, but could easily have been from cell-free media. The ribosomes come from wheatgerm, you need to provide a citation for "synthesized ribosomes do not function" (if you mean if you just bang our RNAs and proteins then you don't get functional ribosomes that's fine, but hardly a show stopper). Collin, Information isn't methaphysical - it's just a name with give to certain patterns of energy and matter.wd400
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Chance @ 22: Good analogy and well stated.Eric Anderson
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Joe @ 27
The problem with the no junk DNA prediction is the people who make it appear to think that DNA is the software and as such shouldn’t be able to tolerate junk. I say that is a mistake and that the software is separate from the DNA. The DNA may be a storage medium as well as being able to transfer information (software) to the RNAs it encodes. But it isn’t the software.
And in any case, clearly one of the software's functions is to copy itself with a low, but non-zero, error rate. This by itself is likely to lead to non-functional areas. CheersCLAVDIVS
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
wd400, I don't know if I'm a vitalist, but I agree with Joe that matter/energy is not enough. Information is also a fundamental part of life, imo.Collin
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
You might want to answer my questions- 1- Did you synthesize the DNA? 2- Did you syntheisze the ribosomes? 3- Did you synthesize the RNA Pol? Note- synthesized ribosomes do not function.Joe
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
You might want to read up on this a little Joe...wd400
May 30, 2012
May
05
May
30
30
2012
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply