Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francis Collins Admits His Own Prediction About Junk DNA was False

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As we have been discussing, in 2006 Francis Collins said that Darwinism predicts (in the sense of retrodiction) that mutations located in “junk DNA” will accumulate steadily over time.

A couple of years ago I said that Darwinist predictions (again, in the sense of retrodiction) about junk DNA turned out to be wrong, while ID Proponents predictions (this time in the actual sense of making an assertion about future findings) turned out to be true.

It is good to know that even Collins admits this:  Earlier this year he confessed that his use of the term “junk DNA” was wrong, even hubristic.  At the 33rd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco on January 13, 2015 he said:

I would say, in terms of junk DNA, we don’t use that term any more ’cause I think it was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.  There will be parts of the genome that are just, you know, random collections of repeats, like Alu’s, but most of the genome that we used to think was there for spacer turns out to be doing stuff and most of that stuff is about regulation and that’s where the epigenome gets involved, and is teaching us a lot.

Comments
I'm looking at this post over a month later. It was linked from a current post, so I'm just now looking at this post. There's a couple of issues that need to be highlighted: Larry Moran, you ask a question of "bornagain" regarding Casey Luskin's interview of Dr. Cornelius Hunter. BA wrote this:
Casey Luskin sits down with Dr. Cornelius Hunter for a discussion about “junk” DNA and the ENCODE project. Dr. Hunter lends his insight into how non-coding DNA fits into the ongoing debate between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design, noting how Darwinian evolutionists have changed their predictions and explanations in order to accommodate contradictory evidence that would falsify their theory.
Here's your question:
I thought it was perfectly reasonable to ask why ID proponents should pay any attention to Cornelius Hunter instead of Dr. Larry Moran. Or lawyers Barry Arrington and Casey Luskin, for that matter. It’s a simple enough question.
The germane response is this: Dr. Hunter is an historian of science, and is well-versed in biology---his area of specialty. When you're discussing issues such as "how Darwinian evolutionists have changed their predictions and explanations in order to accommodate contradictory evidence that would falsify their theory," well, this falls under the purview of the history of evolutionary theory. You will notice that Luskin didn't ask, "What is your professional opinion on the status of so-called 'junk-DNA.'" Second issue: wd400 wrote this:
Plenty of so-called Darwinists pointed this out. Indeed they still do because it remains a fact the best evidence points to a human genome that is mostly junk and the nearly-neutral theory is the best way to explain both the presence and distribution of junk across genomes.
Every day turns up new evidence demonstrating that what was once thought to be "junk-DNA" is, in fact, functional. What makes you, wd400, believe that this trend will suddenly end?PaV
December 21, 2015
December
12
Dec
21
21
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington says,
Then he cannot back it up. Like a dog with a bone, he fixates on a single quotation from Francis Collins to the exclusion of all others.
I didn't choose that quotation to prove my point. You did. Not only that, you opened up a whole new blog post on addressing that quotation. The title is "Francis Collins Admits His Own Prediction About Junk DNA was False." It's this post, Barry, that we are discussing right here. Try and keep up. I know that staying on topic is hard for you.Larry Moran
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Virgil Cains asks,
How can we test the claim that natural selection and/ or drift can produce multi-protein machinery, for example any bacterial flagellum?
It's very hard to test such a claim directly. The best we can do is to extrapolate from the data we have and make inferences about how multi-protein machinery came to be. So far, there seem to be very good explanations for all kinds of multi-protein structures based on what we know about biochemistry and evolution. Other structures, especially complex ones, are more challenging but there's no reason to assume that something magical is going on. BTW, how can we test the idea that an intelligent designer made bacterial flagella?Larry Moran
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
"LarTanner- Larry Moran can’t even answer the basic questions pertaining to the science of evolutionism. How can we test the claim that natural selection and/ or drift can produce multi-protein machinery, for example any bacterial flagellum? Not one of your alleged pro-science twerps can answer the questions required to show their claims are scientific. Why is that?" Mr Cain, he does not even know whether he believes evolution happens according to need or irregardless of need. He talks like he is the ultimate authority but when it comes to basic questions then he goes into his shell. Larry Moran is full of hot air and it is funny seeing him and his Moranites like LarTanner get bludgeoned over and over again.Jack Jones
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Yes, it is incorrect to say that evolutionism (Darwinism- neo-darwinism) predicted junk DNA. That is because the concept doesn't make any coherent predictions.Virgil Cain
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
LarTanner- Larry Moran can't even answer the basic questions pertaining to the science of evolutionism. How can we test the claim that natural selection and/ or drift can produce multi-protein machinery, for example any bacterial flagellum? Not one of your alleged pro-science twerps can answer the questions required to show their claims are scientific. Why is that?Virgil Cain
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
So, let's recap the recaps. If by "Darwinism" you mean theories fo evolution that emphasize selection (what the word usually means in science) then it's clear that junk DNA is a non-Darwinian idea (indeed one of the first papers on the topic was called "Non Darwinian Evolution. Darwinists didn't only fail to predict junk DNA, they balked at the idea when it was presented to them. If you mean creationist-Darwinism (all of evolutionary biology?) then, yes, junk DNA is good evidence for evolution. Plenty of so-called Darwinists pointed this out. Indeed they still do because it remains a fact the best evidence points to a human genome that is mostly junk and the nearly-neutral theory is the best way to explain both the presence and distribution of junk across genomes. The only quote anyone has been able to dig up of an evolutionary biologist changing their minds about junk DNA and what we "expect" from evolution is from Richard Dawkins. Dawkins was once a great popularizer of evolutionary biology (as far as I can tell he has since become a full-time internet troll), but he's not actually an evolutionary biologist, far less a spokesman for the field. So, what are we left with? Junk DNA remains strong evidence for non-Darwinian evolution. And Richard Dawkins talks rubbish sometimes? Not much new in there.wd400
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
@33"Before we close this thread let’s summarize what we know about Larry Moran. He makes a claim that I do not understand Darwinism. Then he cannot back it up. Like a dog with a bone, he fixates on a single quotation from Francis Collins to the exclusion of all others, including those from the world’s most famous Darwinist (Richard Dawkins) that the accumulation of junk DNA is exactly what the theory suggests occurs. It is certainly a fact that prominent Darwinists touted junk DNA as evidence for Darwinism. When Larry denies this it demonstrates that he is either ignorant of this fact or willfully falsifying the record. I will leave it to readers to decide which. It having been proven beyond any doubt that his claim was based on nothing but his prejudice and bigotry, he not only refuses to withdraw and apologize, he continues to push it, making himself look more and more foolish every day." Professor Moran and his Moranites have taken a really bad beating but like the suckers for punishment they are, they keep coming back for more and keep on failing. Seeing Moran and his Moranites get kicked around like an old football is entertaining though.Jack Jones
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Dr. Moran, What do you think should be (or are) the criteria for someone to be considered an expert on evolution?J-Mac
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
@31 "What’s better: (a) Witnessing the spanking that Larry Moran and other pro-science commenters continue to deliver to Barry and the UD regulars." Tell us when it happens, So far, you and your crowd have been getting torn to shreds. "(b) Watching Jack Jones’ desperate attempts for attention" I caught your attention, It really bugs you, that your master moran does not even know what his own faith teaches. hahahahaJack Jones
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Before we close this thread let's summarize what we know about Larry Moran. He makes a claim that I do not understand Darwinism. Then he cannot back it up. Like a dog with a bone, he fixates on a single quotation from Francis Collins to the exclusion of all others, including those from the world's most famous Darwinist (Richard Dawkins) that the accumulation of junk DNA is exactly what the theory suggests occurs. It is certainly a fact that prominent Darwinists touted junk DNA as evidence for Darwinism. When Larry denies this it demonstrates that he is either ignorant of this fact or willfully falsifying the record. I will leave it to readers to decide which. It having been proven beyond any doubt that his claim was based on nothing but his prejudice and bigotry, he not only refuses to withdraw and apologize, he continues to push it, making himself look more and more foolish every day.Barry Arrington
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Dr. Moran, no matter how enamored you may be when you look at yourself in the mirror, you, since you hold a 'bottom up' view of life, are certainly no 'expert' on the genome. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/are-some-of-our-opponents-in-the-grip-of-a-domineering-parasitical-ideology/#comment-587726bornagain
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
What's better: (a) Witnessing the spanking that Larry Moran and other pro-science commenters continue to deliver to Barry and the UD regulars. (b) Watching Jack Jones' desperate attempts for attention.LarTanner
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Larry:
Barry Arrington thinks you are all committing the “genetic fallacy” when you dispute what I say on the grounds that I’m not a leading expert in evolutionary biology.
Well, I never said that and I don't know who said that about you. But if someone did, what you say is certainly true. Barry Arrington
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
bornagain says,
I did answer your question.
The simple question was ...
Do ID proponents consider Cornelius Hunter to be a leading expert on molecular evolution and the structure of genomes?
You did not answer that question. I asked that question because many of the commenters on this blog have disputed what I say on the grounds that I am not an expert on evolution. That fine. I understand that. So, when bornagain said,
Casey Luskin sits down with Dr. Cornelius Hunter for a discussion about “junk” DNA and the ENCODE project. Dr. Hunter lends his insight into how non-coding DNA fits into the ongoing debate between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design, noting how Darwinian evolutionists have changed their predictions and explanations in order to accommodate contradictory evidence that would falsify their theory.
I thought it was perfectly reasonable to ask why ID proponents should pay any attention to Cornelius Hunter instead of Dr. Larry Moran. Or lawyers Barry Arrington and Casey Luskin, for that matter. It's a simple enough question. Why is it so hard to answer? Barry Arrington thinks you are all committing the "genetic fallacy" when you dispute what I say on the grounds that I'm not a leading expert in evolutionary biology. Do you agree with him?Larry Moran
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Before this thread closes, let's summarize what we know about Francis Collins' views on junk DNA—the idea that most of our genome is junk. In 2003 he declares that he doesn't believe in junk DNA (#16). He's clearly referring to the idea that most of our genome is junk. In 2015 he says, once again, that he doesn't believe in junk DNA but mentions that there may be some parts of the genome that are junk (Alu's). There are many other quotation we could post that are consistent with those views throughout the period from 2003 to 2015. We know he believes in pseudogenes, for example. In 2006 he says ...
Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function (namely, those located in “junk DNA”) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding regions of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, since most of these will be deleterious, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process. That is exactly what is observed.
This is a true statement about fixation of neutral alleles and beneficial alleles. The fixation of neutral alleles by random genetic drift is not part of "Darwin's theory" so he got that part wrong. He could be talking about pseudogenes. The statement says nothing about whether most of our genome is junk so it's perfectly consistent with his statements in 2003 and 2015. Nevertheless, in introducing this 2006 quotation, Barry Arrington said this on Nov. 8th, "No Darwinist ever said the theory predicts junk DNA? What about world famous Darwinist Francis Collins: ..." And in the post above he says,
As we have been discussing, in 2006 Francis Collins said that Darwinism predicts (in the sense of retrodiction) that mutations located in “junk DNA” will accumulate steadily over time. A couple of years ago I said that Darwinist predictions (again, in the sense of retrodiction) about junk DNA turned out to be wrong, while ID Proponents predictions (this time in the actual sense of making an assertion about future findings) turned out to be true. It is good to know that even Collins admits this: Earlier this year he confessed that his use of the term “junk DNA” was wrong, even hubristic.
There are several ways of interpreting Barry Arrington's claims so I'm hoping for some clarification. If the only thing that Barry is emphasizing is the Francis Collins statement that, "mutations located in “junk DNA” will accumulate steadily over time" then that statement has NOT turned out to be wrong. It's as true in 2015 as it was in 1970. That's one way to interpret Barry. But we know what Barry Arrington said in 2013 ...
Let us take just one example. For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function. Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.
The 2006 quotation from Francis Collins was intended to back up the first part of his claim; namely, "Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis." We're left with a bit of a problem. We know that Francis Collins did not "tout" junk DNA except insofar as admitting that some small parts of the genome are junk. He then points out all mutations in this part of the genome will accumulate in agreement with modern evolutionary theory (non-Darwinian evolution). But that claim has NOT been refuted—no prominent ID proponents will go that far. It seems to me that Barry Arrington was using the 2006 quotation as support for his belief that prominent Darwinists thought that most of our genome is junk. You now know that this is not what Francis Collins believed in 2003 and in 2015. He probably didn't believe it in 2006. I don't know how to reconcile all these facts with the idea that Barry Arrington understands Darwinism and says that Darwinists like Francis Collins predicted junk DNA in 2006. That's probably because I'm missing some important step in the train of thought or I'm failing to see the logic.Larry Moran
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Evolve, "The 2015 Collins quote only says what experts already know." It's part of the charm of being an expert: to pretend you always knew that. Experts say that with confidence, which is achieved through hard work and experience. By that standard, every evolutionist is an expert ;)EugeneS
November 13, 2015
November
11
Nov
13
13
2015
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
The 2015 Collins quote only says what experts already know. Some non-coding DNA has turned out to be functional (and some more may follow), but the majority still has no known function. And it will remain that way if neutral theory is correct, much to the chagrin of creationists.Evolve
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Larry @ 16, good one!Evolve
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
bornagain Professor Moran does not even know whether this "modern evolutionary theory" that he mentions, teaches that evolution happens according to need or happens irregardless of need. Yet he acts as if he is the number 1 authority and keeps chirping about a "modern evolutionary theory" hahahaJack Jones
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Dr. Moran asks: "Why do ID proponents have so much difficulty answering simple questions but demand answers from evolution supporters?" I did answer your question.
if Dr. Moran would have actually listened to the podcast, instead of commenting on what he thought the podcast said, Dr Moran would have found that Dr. Hunter readily admits to his (and everybody else’s) ignorance on what is happening in the genome.
Moreover, due to the sheer complexity being dealt with in the genome, I consider anyone who proclaims themselves, or anybody else, to be a "expert" on the genome is severely deluding themselves. Moreover, due to the stunning integrated complexity discovered thus far, I hold that researchers have barely scratched the surface of the total integrated complexity of the genome and that the genome has far more to reveal to us than it has revealed to us thus far. As to IDists "demanding" answers from Darwinists, that, i.e. "demanding", is an interesting position for you to take on the one simple question that IDists ask. Namely, the one simple question that IDists want an answer to, the one question I have been asking Darwinists for years, is, "Where did the information come from?"
Information Enigma (Where did the information come from?) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
I can see where you would be upset with that simple question Dr. Moran, and accuse us of "demanding" an answer to it, instead of rightly surmising that it is just an honest, indeed, just a simple 'scientific' question, because it is THE one simple scientific question that exposes the bankruptcy of materialistic thought to its core. That bankruptcy being, of course, that unguided material processes can't possibly explain information that far outclasses any information created by the intelligence of man:
Complex grammar of the genomic language - November 9, 2015 Excerpt: The 'grammar' of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world. The findings explain why the human genome is so difficult to decipher --,,, ,,, in their recent study in Nature, the Taipale team examines the binding preferences of pairs of transcription factors, and systematically maps the compound DNA words they bind to. Their analysis reveals that the grammar of the genetic code is much more complex than that of even the most complex human languages. Instead of simply joining two words together by deleting a space, the individual words that are joined together in compound DNA words are altered, leading to a large number of completely new words. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151109140252.htm
bornagain
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Why do ID proponents have so much difficulty answering simple questions but demand answers from evolution supporters? I can't answer that.Mung
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
@Curly, I mean Larry. Why is it that You have so much difficulty in answering simple questions but demand answers from ID Proponents? As you believe humans are bags of chemicals governed by natural laws then how can you say they are wrong in their conclusions? Which chemical elements are free?Jack Jones
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
@bornagain Why do ID proponents have so much difficulty answering simple questions but demand answers from evolution supporters?Larry Moran
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
"Do ID proponents consider Cornelius Hunter Larry Moran to be a leading expert on molecular evolution and the structure of genomes?" No! Thanks for asking. :) By the way, if Dr. Moran would have actually listened to the podcast, instead of commenting on what he thought the podcast said, Dr Moran would have found that Dr. Hunter readily admits to his (and everybody else's) ignorance on what is happening in the genome. Rather than going over the sheer complexity of the genome, Dr. Hunter instead focuses in on how Darwinists use the junk DNA argument as a non-falsifiable theological argument against Design.bornagain
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Professor Moran And as you can see Francis Collins also thought like you that it was junk difference is he went where the evidence lead. Unlike you who seem to be stuck in 1970 evolutionary biology.Andre
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
bornagain says,
Casey Luskin sits down with Dr. Cornelius Hunter ...
Do ID proponents consider Cornelius Hunter to be a leading expert on molecular evolution and the structure of genomes? Just askin'.Larry Moran
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington says,
As we have been discussing, in 2006 Francis Collins said that Darwinism predicts (in the sense of retrodiction) that mutations located in “junk DNA” will accumulate steadily over time.
For the record, here's what Francis Collins said in 2003—that's three years before 2006 and twelve years before 2015.
“Junk” DNA may not be junk after all. I have been troubled for a long time about the way in which we dismissed about 95% of the genome as being junk because we didn’t know what its function was. We did not think it had one because we had not discovered one yet. I found it quite gratifying to discover that when you have the whole genome in front of you, it is pretty clear that a lot of the stuff we call “junk” has the fingerprints of being a DNA sequence that is actually doing something, at least, judging by the way evolution has treated it. So I think we should probably remove the term “junk” from the genome. At least most of it looks like it may very well have some kind of function.
Collins, F.S. (2003) Faith and the Human Genome. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55: 142-153. [PDF] This makes the "retro-diction" claim somewhat complicated. I don't know how Barry Arrington will deal with it.Larry Moran
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Hi gpuccio, Could you share your thoughts about repetitive elements in more detail please. That is indeed interesting. Thanks.EugeneS
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Indeed, repetitive elements could well be the most interesting part!gpuccio
November 12, 2015
November
11
Nov
12
12
2015
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply