Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolutionary Biologist Rick Sternberg Defends Stephen Meyer, Challenges Darrel Falk

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Rick Sternberg, PhD PhD is one of the finest and most courageous evolutionary biologists on the planet. He recently has come to the defense of Stephen Meyer by Asking Darrel Falk to Pick a Number

Rick points out a peculiar claim by Darrel Falk which can be falsified:

almost certainly much, if not most, of the DNA plays no role, and in many cases can be harmful

Darrel Falk
Professor of Biology

Sternberg counters with an implicit wager after first providing some insights:

I have long questioned the assumption that most genomic DNA sequences are “nonsensical” or “junk.” And given the data that have emerged over the past seven or so years, a functionalist view of genome has robust empirical support. It is for this reason that I think many of the arguments presented by the Biologos Foundation are “wrong on many counts,” to borrow a phrase from Darrel Falk.

and

Here is an example. While reading the ”critique” of Steve Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell, by Francisco Ayala, a number struck me that I know to be incorrect. The integer that I am referring to is “25,000” and it is claimed to be the known tally of genes in our chromosomes:

The human genome includes about twenty-five thousand genes and lots of other (mostly short) switch sequences…

Now, the problem with such a statement is this: While there are ~25,000 protein-coding genes in our DNA, the number of RNA-coding genes is predicted to be much higher, >450,000.1 Some of the latter range in length from being quite short—only 20 or so genetic letters—to being millions of letters long. Since 2004 we have learned that over 90% of our DNA is transcribed into RNA sequences at some developmental stage, in different cell and tissue types.2, 3, 4 (Our brain cells are unusually rich in these non-translated RNAs.) These RNAs are then processed into regulatory and structural sequences of all sizes.

It could of course be argued, as it has been, that most of these RNA transcripts are themselves junk. But a host of them are packaged into complexes with different proteins.1

So the true number of genes in our DNA is probably “450,000 + 25,000 = 475,000”. What is more, these 450,000 genes cover more than 88.5% of our 3 billion genetic letters. That’s right—most, if not close to all, of our chromosomal DNA consists of different types of genes that have only recently been discovered.

And this leads to what I characterize as a friendly gentleman’s wager:

How do these facts square with this comment made by Falk?

but this still doesn’t negate the fact that almost certainly much, if not most, of the DNA plays no role, and in many cases can be harmful.

Well, it all depends on how he is using the words “much” and “most.” I really don’t know. So I have a question for him: Exactly what fraction of the transcribed 88.5% of our DNA are you willing to say “plays no role” or can be harmful? All I am asking for is a prediction, such as “90% of these DNA letters is superfluous” (“or 79.5% of the RNAs are nonsensical”). Since he also said “almost certainly” in the above statement, he must have a figure in mind. So I say pick a number, any number…But to be a good sport, I’ll show my prediction: All of the expressed 88.5% of our DNA has diverse roles in our development.

Comments
Gee, Nakashima-san, I can take the doors off of my car and it still drives just fine. I can remove all the glass and it would drive just fine. The point being removing DNA from an organism really doesn't tell us very much- we could have removed a redundant system.Joseph
March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Mr BA^77, No worries. :) The issue for a sutdy like this is that Sternberg has predicted "all", so even one tenth of one percent is going to force him to rework or nuance his position away from how it is stated here. It seems from this megabase deletion research that there are some stretches of ncDNA (what they call a 'gene desert') which can be deleted and some which can't. That in turn suggests that some of the RNA is functional and some isn't. Sternberg has staked out an extreme position by predicting all of it will be functional. Another fallback objection by Sternberg could be - oh, that might be true for mice, I'm only making a prediction about humans. To your points on morphology and gentic reductionism - It isn't my position, or a standard 'Neo-Darwinian' position that every change to DNA should cause a change to the phenotype. That is, if anything, Sternberg's position. Remember that Neo-Darwinians have lots of places in the process of phenotype building to point and say, "See, a change back there isn't going to make a difference after this point." 1 - Trimming exons. 2 - Genetic code. A base change might still code for the same amino acid. 3 - Protein folding - even a different AA might get buried inside the protein, or have the same polarity as the previous AA before the base change, and therefore affect protein shape and function very little. 4 - Developmental issues - even a changed protein might only be expressed in a few cell types, or during one phase of development. 5 - The existence of another version of the original gene elsewhere in the genome. If there are multiple genes for the same protein, then the other copy could take up the slack. Any of the above would be a reason to NOT expect a direct DNA-morphology linkage. Do I hold to some kind of Genetic Reductionism? Yes, I think that heredity is a matter of copying physical, material objects by some imperfect physical, material process. Those material objects could be (and mostly are) bases of DNA, but they are not only bases of DNA. We know about histone changes being heritable. We know about maternal mitochondria, and prions or bacteria living inside egg cell cytoplasm. So to me, evolution's "heritable variation" is a case of imperfect copying of physical objects, but not a belief that all variation is mutation of DNA.Nakashima
March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Nak. Thanks for being objective. I'm surprised that you would admit to the weakness of your evidence,bornagain77
March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Mr BA^77, A good response, especially as it contained your own thoughts and no links. A better response would be that while one million bases sounds like a lot, the mouse genome is almost as big as ours - 2.7 gigabases. Chopping a million bases out of it is less than one tenth of one percent.Nakashima
March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
Nak, Looked at another way you can say that particular experiment is one more nail in the coffin for the Neo-Darwinian view of morphological novelty being related to DNA variability, since no "loss of" morphological novelty was witnessed. Don't you hold to the falsified Neo-Darwinian view of Genetic Reductionism? Furthermore, in that particular experiment, the author was clear that the experiment did not mean the DNA was functionless i.e. Junk, as you want it to mean. As well, the testing did not include testing for reproductive variability with control group, nor disease stress.bornagain77
March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
scordova, Sternberg should easily account for this result, then: Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. Nature 431, 988-993 (21 October 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature03022;Nakashima
March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Sal, I think I read a while back that Dr. Sternberg has a book on "Junk" DNA in the works. Since many Top evolutionists seem to think this one point of evidence of "Junk" DNA, derived from their severely prejudiced reading of the evidence and their ignoring of the mountain of evidence in favor of ID, is the final word on the case for evolution, the book should be a severe thorn in the side for top evolutionists, since they will no longer have their major rhetorical device to work with.bornagain77
March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
BA77, I've looked through the UD archives and I don't see a specific post in the aftermath of Sternberg and Meyer buldozing over Shermer and Prothero. Think I should post links to the audio and solicit comments? Here is one characterization of the debate and how Rick Sternberg rolled over the Darwinists:
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to junk DNA — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.
You're the best Rick!scordova
March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
BornAgain77, YOU DA MAN!!!!! Thanks. Sternberg hits the issue of ERV's and pseudo genes out of the park!!!!! WHOA! WHOA!!!! Ken Miller (Dover's star witness) was wrong. Behe prevails. No surprise. Nice to hear the applause at the end. So much good info. So little time. Score another point against the judicial bozo presiding over Kitzmiller vs. Doverscordova
March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
This is an excerpt from the debate - Meyer-Sternberg vs Shermer-Prothero at the 2:30 mark Sternberg addresses pseudogenes: Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - Richard Sternberg PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119/refutation_of_endogenous_retrovirus_richard_sternberg_phd/bornagain77
March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
One technical question which I don't have an answer for, but would be appreciative if some one in the know could clairfy. Would the DNA sternberg refers to include pseudo genes? Ken Miller has used the pseudo-gene argument against Behe. If Sternberg's hypothesis covers pseudo genes, then Ken Miller's claims have been potentially falsified as well. Thanks in advance to those with info.scordova
March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply