Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Jonathan Wells

In a recent interview for Salvo magazine, I was asked what advice on junk DNA I would give to Francis Collins or Richard Dawkins.

On November 3, UD posted my response. According to the first comment following that post,

Jonathan Wells is the last person from whom Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins would solicit advice.

I agree. But the commenter, “Single Malt,” went on to question whether I’m qualified to give advice to anybody about anything in biology:

For those not familiar here is a quote…?“Father’s [Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” That’s incredibly damning if true. It basically tells us that before Wells had even studied the subject he had been instructed to devote his life to destroying it! ?Does this not color completely anything Wells publishes concerning the biological sciences?

Now, I don’t know who “Single Malt” is. To the best of my knowledge he (or she) has never met me, spoken with me on the telephone, or corresponded with me by letter or email. Since I like single malt scotch, however, if he or she had contacted me I would have been happy to explain over a friendly drink why I wrote the sentence quoted above.

Here’s what I would have said:

As an undergraduate at Princeton and Berkeley in the 1960s I studied mathematics, geology, physics and biology (with minors in philosophy and German). Along the way—despite my upbringing as a nominal Presbyterian—I became an agnostic and a Darwinist.(Note: By “Darwinism,” I mean the claim that all living things are descended from one or a few common ancestors, modified solely by unguided natural processes such as variation and selection. For the sake of brevity, I use the term here also to include Neo-Darwinism, which attributes new variations to genetic mutations.)

In 1963, I dropped out of Princeton and drove a New York City taxicab until I was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1964. While spending two years in Germany as a medical laboratory technologist, I became opposed to the Vietnam War, and after I was separated from active duty in 1966 I transferred to Berkeley and joined the antiwar movement.

The Army called me back as a reservist in 1967, but I refused and spent a year and a half in prison. After being released from Leavenworth in 1969, I completed my bachelor’s degree at Berkeley. By 1970, however, I was repulsed by the increasingly violent and hypocritical Berkeley Left, and I soon headed for the hills. Living in a cabin I built in the mountains of Mendocino County, I was transformed by the beauty, peace and evident design around me. I ceased being an agnostic and a Darwinist.

In 1974 I joined Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. In 1976 I entered Unification Theological Seminary in New York, where I studied the Pentateuch under a Romanian Orthodox Jewish rabbi; the New Testament under a Reformed Church of America minister; the Early Church Fathers under a Greek Orthodox priest; philosophy under a Polish Roman Catholic priest with three earned doctorates; medieval theology under a Church of Christ missionary with a doctorate from the University of Tübingen; and Reformation and modern theology under a Presbyterian with a doctorate from Harvard.

I read—and was repelled by—modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and tried to re-fashion Christian doctrine in the light of it. I also took advantage of a weekly seminary shuttle to New York City to do research at the Columbia University biology library, where I became convinced that the Darwinian mechanism of accidental mutations and natural selection is incapable of producing the changes required by evolution.

As I researched more I concluded that the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism is its assumption that genetic programs control embryo development, with DNA mutations supplying raw materials for evolution. At the time, however, I did not question Darwin’s claim that all living things are descended from a common ancestor.

Reverend Moon occasionally criticized Darwinism in his speeches, because it conflicted with reason and denied design. He often visited the seminary during my two years there, and we students would walk with him in the nearby fields and woods. He urged us (among other things) to pray in order to find out what God wanted us to do with our lives. I followed his advice, and my prayers strengthened the conviction I had arrived at through my studies that Darwinism (like Marxism and Freudianism) is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science—and that I should set out to destroy its dominance in our culture.

In 1978, I was one of a score of seminary graduates awarded church scholarships to pursue doctorates in religious studies at other schools. I went to Yale, where I did research on the nineteenth-century Darwinian controversies and received a Ph.D. in theology in 1985. After that, I was appointed Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City.

I still felt called to devote myself to toppling Darwinism, however, so in 1988 I resigned from my position to return to graduate school—this time in biology. I applied to several schools in California and moved there with my family, only to learn that I had not been admitted anywhere. I took a job as a medical laboratory technologist (the Army had taught me a trade!) and sometime afterwards went back to New York to attend a meeting between Unification Church leaders and Reverend Moon. When he learned that I was planning to go back to graduate school he admonished me not to do it, saying that I was too old (I was 45 at the time). After the meeting, however, I prayed for a long time and decided that I had to continue on my course.

I returned to California and applied again to various graduate schools. In 1989 I was granted interviews at Cal Tech, Stanford, U.C. Berkeley, and U.C. Davis. I chose Berkeley, where I completed a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology in 1994. By then—having been exposed to the actual evidence—I was skeptical of Darwin’s claim that all living things share a common ancestor.

A senior Unification Church leader then asked me to write something for other church members explaining why I went for a second Ph.D. even after Reverend Moon had admonished me against doing so. I wrote an essay that I thought would be for in-house use only, but it was subsequently posted on the Internet without my knowledge or permission.

I first learned that my essay was available online in 2001, when Jerry Coyne made it the alpha and omega of his review in Nature of my book Icons of Evolution.

Since then, many of my critics have quoted the now-infamous line, “Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” (For a sampling, just do a Google search on the words.) Remarkably, Darwinists never quote much else from my essay, even though the 18 words in this one line represent only 1% of it, while a subsequent passage dealing with my scientific reasons for rejecting Darwinism represents 37%. Talk about quote mining…

Nor (as far as I know) have any Darwinists bothered to learn anything about the context in which I wrote the essay. If they had, they would know that Reverend Moon did not instruct or command me to destroy Darwinism (though years later he commended me on publishing Icons of Evolution.)

So, can I be trusted to say anything concerning the biological sciences? I freely admit that I was motivated to pursue a biology Ph.D., in part, because of my religious views. On the other hand, Francis Crick freely admitted (to historian Horace Freeland Judson) that he went into biology, in part, because of his atheistic views. What ultimately mattered in Crick’s case was not his motivation, but whether his biological claims were consistent with the evidence. The same is true in my case. That’s why I cite abundant scientific references in my publications—such as Icons of Evolution, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, The Myth of Junk DNA, and “Why Darwinism Is False”, a detailed critique of Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution Is True.

I encourage readers not simply to take my word for anything, but to go the scientific literature and check for themselves. After all, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.

Now, wouldn’t it have been more enjoyable listening to that over a glass of Glenlivet or Macallan?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Joseph says,
It doesn’t and you cannot produce such a prediction.
IDiot Predictions Does Intelligent Design Creationism Make Scientific Predictions? Predictions of Intelligent Design Creationism Creationist Logic Stephen Meyer Talks About Junk DNA You're welcome.Larry Moran
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Joseph says,
That is just plain ignorant. Intelligent Design does not say the design is perfect. Intelligent Design does not say that even if the design started out perfect that it had to remain that way (entropy and all).
You may be correct. You seem to be promoting a new extended version of the the scientific theory of intelligent design. This new version seems to be compatible with any amount of junk DNA in the genome. According to the new scientific theory of intelligent design, junk DNA can be explained in three different way. 1. The intelligent designer made a mistake. 2. The original intelligently designed genes could have degenerated. 3. Junk DNA could have been put in the genome by the intelligent designer as preparation for future creations. This new scientific version of ID isn't widely known among my colleagues. I'd like to post it on my blog, giving full credit to whoever invented it (Joseph?). But first, let me hear from the other IDiots posting here. Do you agree that Joseph's version of intelligent design is correct? Does it mean that the IDiots no longer predict that most of our genome will have a function? I'd also like to run Joseph's claim past the leaders of the Intelligent Design Creationist movement but the best way to do that is to post on my blog and let them respond to those revisions. I'll wait 24 hours to see what others have to say on this thread. If nobody objects to Joseph's new version of ID, I'll assume that it's acceptable to the group here.Larry Moran
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Further notes that will be ignored: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heres-jonathan-wells-on-destroying-darwinism-and-responding-to-attacks-on-his-character-and-motives/comment-page-1/#comment-408046bornagain77
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Insults, rationalizations, and cherry picking, pretty much the trifecta for a neo-Darwinist. notes on wide scale 'non-local quantum' functionality (entanglement/information) across entire DNA structure: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heres-jonathan-wells-on-destroying-darwinism-and-responding-to-attacks-on-his-character-and-motives/comment-page-1/#comment-408027 further notes that Moran will rationalize away:
Larry Moran: Vitamin C Pseudogene is Powerful Evidence - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: In his on-going criticism of Jonathan Wells’ new book, The Myth of Junk DNA, evolutionist Larry Moran now asserts that the much discussed vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for evolution and common descent: The main argument of scientists like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne is not that the GULOP pseudogene exists. It's that the GULOP gene and its pseudogene are at the same location in the genomes of all mammals. In the primate lineage this gene is non-functional due to a number of mutations that make it impossible to produce a functional protein. Some of the same deactivating mutations are found in related species such as humans and chimpanzees. This suggests strongly that the non-functional pseudogene was inherited from a common ancestor. How did Moran arrive at such a conclusion? Why is the vitamin C pseudogene such strong evidence for inheritance via common descent? Unfortunately, Moran fails to explain his reasoning. He simply asserts this amazing claim. Evolution and common descent have failed to explain how the original vitamin C gene could have arisen. In fact they fail to explain how any protein could have arisen. They have also failed to explain how all of biology could have arisen. This is not a good start. So far this evidential claim of Moran’s seems unlikely. But let’s look at the pseudogene in particular. Perhaps there is something about this pseudogene that will make the evidence more obvious. For example, perhaps evolution made a strong, heroic prediction about this pseudogene. In fact, evolution and common descent made no such prediction. Well is there, at least, a powerful retrodiction? Again, no. Well perhaps evolution and common descent would absolutely be falsified if there were no such vitamin C pseudogene. Again, the answer is no. No prediction, no retrodiction, and no falsification. Evolution and common descent do not predict the vitamin C pseudogene, and they are not harmed if there was no such thing. This in addition to the fact that evolution and common descent do not explain how the original gene could have arisen in the first place. Moran’s assertion that the vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for his unlikely idea appears to be just that, an empty assertion. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/larry-moran-vitamin-c-pseudogene-is.html
bornagain77
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Eocene says,
It’s nobody’s fault for being ignorant. But it is your fault if you choose to stay there.
A few lines later, in response to my suggestion that he read my review, he says ...
Sorry, but I’ve seen the filth, vulgar insults, foul language and character assination fluff you call a scientific blog and the degenerates who are encouraged to comment over there. I’ll pass.
Larry Moran
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
bornagain77 says,
That’s pretty much a after the fact rationalization after function was discovered (As I listed several articles that do indeed show many ‘knowlegeable scientist’ predicted it:. But I guess you get to cherry pick who is a knowledgeable scientist and who is not???. ,,,
Long before the concept of junk DNA ever became popular, we knew about genes for functional RNA molecules (e.g. non-coding DNA), regulatory regions (noncoding DNA), origins of replication (noncoding DNA), and centromeres (noncoding DNA). Back in the early 1970s, no respectable scientist could possibly defend the position that all noncoding DNA was junk. They would be laughed off the stage.
Apparently you have never promoted the supposed Vitamin C pseudogene as powerful evidence of neo-Darwinism???
That's partially correct. I never claimed that pseudogenes were evidence of Darwinian evolution (e.g. evolution by natural selection). That would have been an incredibly stupid thing to have said. It would put me in the same category as most IDiots. But in addition to misreading what I said, you are making the same fundamental error that Wells made in his book. Just because scientists raise the problem of pseudogenes does not mean that they "predicted" the existence of junk DNA. And it certainly doesn't mean they "predicted" junk DNA based on evolution by natural selection. It also doesn't mean they "predicted" the presence of massive amounts of junk DNA in the human genome. Let me remind you of the quote I was responding to, since reading comprehension seems to one of your weak points. I was challenging Wells' claim that the presence of large amounts of junk DNA was a "prediction" of Darwinism.
But then that can’t be true Larry for then that would make you a liar for denying that you even have promoted junk DNA as proof of neo-Darwinism!?!
Those goalposts are moving so fast I can't keep up. Now you're referring to "neo-Darwinism" and you've forgotten about "prediction." Now do you know why you are called IDiots?Larry Moran
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
In the preface Wells states:
[T]he idea that most of our DNA is junk became the dominant view among biologists. That view has turned out to be spectacularly wrong ... Far from consisting mainly of junk ... our genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system
Here, Wells is making a direct claim that a majority of the genome is not junk. So in what way have I misrepresented his view? And to answer your question - no. I might have picked up a copy before reading the preface, but I wouldn't pay money for it after. I might still read it if I happen across a free copy. Does it matter? I have only made a minor reference to it, and only to its title. You are welcome to present any arguments you or Wells have against the several lines of evidence that I have already presented above. But the science at the moment really does fall on one side of this: large amounts of putative junk exist in the human genome.paulmc
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
So you are too lazy to do the work for yourself and you need me to spoon feed you. And if you want to make this personal then let's get together and take care of it- "I'm talking to you"- bully nonsense. The data exists whether or not it comes from me- moron.
Alu elements contain functional binding sites for transcription factors. RNAs derived from alu sequences repress transcription during cellular response to elevated temperatures. Alus are also involved in the editing and alternative splicing of RNAs and in the translation of RNAs into proteins.- page 62
Joseph
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
paukmc:
You really think ID has no prediction about how much DNA should be functional?
It doesn't and you cannot produce such a prediction.
wrote an entire book espousing junk DNA as a ‘myth’!
You didn't read the book, did you.Joseph
November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Larry 'The Closet IDiot' Moran: "Do you know why I refer to Intelligent Design Creationists as IDiots?" ==== Yes I do. You have accountability issues and hardcore resentment of definitions of what contitutes morality and immorality. Your pseudo-science smokescreen of a blog is dedicated to pimping just such a degenerate worldview. ---- Larry 'The Closet IDiot' Moran: "You’re not the least bit interested in learning about the evidence for junk DNA, are you?" ==== Larry, I'd rather have Science pursue a more mature honest approach to finding out just what ALL DNA's purpose and function is if they're not sure. No matter how long it takes. Making up a bogus term to mask and smoke screen one's inability at explaining something is nothing more than desparate ideological worldview promotion, not science. Back in October 2004, evolutionary biologist John S Mattick(who you and your girlfriend PZ Meyers figuratively spat and urinated on) gave his responsible take on the overbloated cowards egoistic term JUNK DNA: "The Hidden Genetic Program of Complex Organisms"(Scientific American) "Assumptions can be dangerous, especially in science. They usually start as the most plausible or comfortable interpretation of the available facts. But when their truth cannot be immediately tested and their flaws are not obvious, assumptions often graduate to articles of faith, and new observations are forced to fit them. Eventually, if the volume of troublesome information becomes unsustainable, the orthodoxy must collapse." It's nobody's fault for being ignorant. But it is your fault if you choose to stay there. ---- Larry 'The Closet IDiot' Moran: "I spent months understanding and reviewing The Myth of Junk DNA. Surely the least you could have done is read my reviews before exposing your stupidity for all the world to see?" ==== Sorry, but I've seen the filth, vulgar insults, foul language and character assination fluff you call a scientific blog and the degenerates who are encouraged to comment over there. I'll pass.Eocene
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Like I say - most happy to talk about that at some point. Just don't want to bury and/or derail the conversation at hand :)paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Thanks paulmc, it is your right on this board to decide what you will and will not respond to. cheersUpright BiPed
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, this appears to be heading off topic. ID's usefulness for explaining the mostly functional 9% of the genome is a separate issue. This is where I would see your information transfer question sitting. I would not be averse to discussing this in another thread, but really would like to discuss here the evidence or otherwise for function in 91% of the genome, which I have referred to here as putative junk.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
paulmc, A prediction of materialism is that the transfer of information from the genome is a purely physical transfer and is only analogous to the transfer of information in other forms. The rise of true symbol systems (displaying the physicality of true symbols systems) would not have happened in the advancement of organisms for billions of years into the future. On the other hand, ID predicts the transfer is (not only physical like any other transfer of information, but also) semiotic, and therefore not merely analogous to other transfer of information. The physical entailments of recorded information transfer are observable, and have been observed. They provide positive evidence of a semiotic state in protein synthesis, and therefore validate the ID prediction.Upright BiPed
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
I think I can safely say that nobody wants to remove 90% of the human genome from an embryo just to see what happens. You are flip-flopping here between the POV that the genome is filled to the brim with function (despite the lack of evidence), and the alternative POV that a lack of function in 90% of the genome is completely fine and unimportant to your theory's predictions. That doesn't match up with all your talk of frontloading. You really think ID has no prediction about how much DNA should be functional? Wells wrote an entire book espousing junk DNA as a 'myth'! A claim about function in putative junk is the sole example on this website's FAQ about ID making scientific predictions. If all ID says is that some, unquantified amount of function will eventually be found in what is putatively junk, then it is not making a fruitful scientific claim - it could be talking about 0.1% of the remaining genome or 90%. Where does that get us? If - as Demski says - intelligent design advocates "expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function" then 90% can't be a comfortable number.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
paulmc:
The tale you spin is a pure fantasy, at odds with everything that is known about genomes.
The theory of evolution is a pure fantasy, at odds with everything we know about genomes. But anyway when someone removes that alleged 90% from a human embryo and a human develops- without any difficulties and grows and reproduces, let me know.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
paulmc:
A question or two first: what do you think that 90% says about the designer?
It says the designer did a heck of a job seeing it can withstand such an onslaught.
And what does it say about ID in general, when ID predicts that DNA should largely be functional?
ID doesn't make such a prediction.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Joseph @ 17.1.1.1.1 The tale you spin is a pure fantasy, at odds with everything that is known about genomes. Redundancies with fallback capabilities? What - located in Alu repeats, perhaps? Could I trouble you for the evidence? Yes, of course with alternative splicing we might add some extra genes to the total (let's keep that in perspective too: the current known human total is 20,500 or thereabouts). That misses the point. The argument from Ohno is that with more than about 30,000 functional loci, deleterious mutations begin to unavoidably accumulate. Alternative splicing might concentrate function in the already-functional part of the genome, but it doesn't even begin to touch on why 91% of the genome appears to have no function at all.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
But anyway you didn’t read the book so you have no idea what Wells said.
What a feeble argument! I'm talking to you, not Wells. How does Wells explain why there are 1.1 million Alu's? Or 500,000 LINE1's? Lemme guess - the fact that some are found in functional sequence. They're ex-transposons; of course they are. And that functional role explains all of 'em - about 12 chromosomes' worth out of our 46? And that's just two particular elements; there are loads of less populous ones. There really is no methodological need to see junk in the genome, but - unless someone comes up with a better explanation than transpositional accumulation of copy number - there ain't much else we can call it. I'm betting you won't enlighten me and save me reading Wells's book to give me a functional explanation for this huge chunk of the genome without looking hopefully at something that happens in the other 72%. If I found 28% of a program consisting of unexecutable repeats of "LET A = 10,000", the existence of this line in executed parts of the code would not make that 28% any more functional. So, if "you haven't read it so you don't know The Answer" is your best shot, I will depart. Toodles!Chas D
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
Before you start claiming 3% is somehow trivial, you should recognise that it is more than all of the protein-coding genes in the genome. The 'trend' towards finding function in putative junk has to be put into perspective. I'm not sure what part of the quantitative argument are you not getting here. A microRNA here, a pseudogene there: these findings are not reducing in any meaningful way the 91% of the genome that lacks a known function. You guys seem so fond of analogies, so I'll give you one: just because occasionally the world record for the 100m sprint is broken, it doesn't mean that eventually humans will be able to run 100m in 1 second. The reality, it is, the record breakers are making incremental improvements. A great achievement - sure - but it must be kept in perspective.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
The Lynch paper is a nice story but the way you promoted it I thought there was going to be some actual experimental evidence- like with Lenski and citrate. I could use it to put my daughter to sleep but that is about it. 30,000 genes? Yet with alternative gene splicing and overlapping genes human genomes really have more than 30,000 genes. I worked for a company in which 1/2 of the operating equipment could be removed and the system wouldn't even notice- removed while the system was running even. Does that mean that 1/2 was junk? No, it was a redundant system with fallback capabilities. Also we had designed in features that would allow for future growth- add-ons, plug-ins, things that could be removed without affecting the performance of the system today. Again that does not mean those features are junk.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
well, I personally have some faith in ID. It seems to me that the trend is to find more and more function in junk DNA. By the way, the Nature study showing that "large" portions of DNA being removed... well apparently the large portion was "3%" of the genome. I was thinking maybe 40 to 80%.Collin
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Joseph:
It should be noted that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot account for regulatory networks.
This is a meaningless claim. Where is your proof? Whatever evidence you'd like to present to support this definitive claim should address this paper by Mike Lynch.
But anyway how can we test the claim that 90% of the human genome is useless?
We need a starting point to understand why the claim of junk is made in the first place. Ohno (1972) demonstrates that selection cannot maintain the integrity of more than about 30,000 genes under a mammalian mutation rate. This gives us a good reason to suspect that a majority of the genome is not experiencing purifying selection. This theoretical population genetics argument is supported by observations that these large tracts of apparently functionless DNA do in fact accumulate mutations much faster than functional sequences. Next we have tests in mice where putative junk has been removed with no observable effects on the mice. I have already cited this above. So there are arguments from theory and observation that supports the inference that mammalian genomes, including the human genome, contains large tracts of junk.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
A question or two first: what do you think that 90% says about the designer? And what does it say about ID in general, when ID predicts that DNA should largely be functional?paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Hear ye, hear ye- I have a solution that enables both ID and the blind watchmaker to coexist in this junk DNA thingy- (assuming a 10/90 split) ID accounts for the 10% functional part and the blind watchmaker can take credit for the 90% junk :)Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
paulmc:
Nonetheless, a large amount of junk DNA would be a threat to ID, as functionality for junk DNA is a prediction of ID.
Maybe a prediction of some IDists but not of ID. We don't understand the design well enough to say that. It should be noted that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot account for regulatory networks. That is what ID predicts- that non-coding DNA will be found to have a function- a function that blind, undirected processes cannot account for. If we observed one gene, one protein just being hammered out as a matter of course, ie just in turn down the DNA sequence, then I wouldn't infer design. But when we observe the coordinated gene regulation, overlapping genes and alternative gene splicing, it is obvious we have left the blind watchmaker behind. But anyway how can we test the claim that 90% of the human genome is useless?Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Yup one person's "junk" is another person's treasure. But anyway you didn't read the book so you have no idea what Wells said.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Again redundancy and future functions- you guys really need to get out of your little box.
You are permanently out of your little box. That sounds awfully like a substitution of more sciencey-sounding words for "junk". Redundancy Noun: 1) The state of being no longer needed or useful: "the redundancy of 19th-century heavy plant machinery". 2) The use of words or data that could be omitted without loss of meaning or function; repetition or superfluity of information. Of course, there is the redundancy of informatics/electronics too - keeping a backup in case of failure. But what on earth are these 1.5 million Alu/LINE1s backing up? Each other? So - in the absence of input from the man himself - are you saying that the big deal about The Myth of Junk DNA - what motivated Dr Wells to stick his neck out and write such a book - is the vital fact that junk is not junk but is, in fact, redundant? Hold the front page, we wuz such idiots not to see it. Future function - even if I were to agree that 1.5 million repeats of these two elements Alu/LINE1 could be beneficial as a source of future mutation, junk is about current function. Till you make your hovercraft on Junkyard Wars, it's a pile of junk. Some poor individuals may well think that keeping bottles of piss and old newspapers and every piece of food wrapping they ever bought means that there is no such thing as junk - "lookee - future function!" - but I don't think most would. You would chop your bollocks off rather than admit it, but "redundancy and future functions" = present JUNK!Chas D
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
PS, O/T: And I see the AntiEvo folks are off again barking out yet another mantra, this time falsely accusing me of lying. I note for record since clearly they monitor. It should be clear to any responsible person:
(i) that there are NO, ZIP, ZILCH responsible Bible believing Christians who support genocide, INCLUDING Dr Craig -- that should not even be a question, (ii) the spreading of a false accusation against any significant number of such will lead to the spreading of a much broader false accusation (one that by the way ALSO implies that Jews who take the scriptures seriously support genocide -- see how poisonous this is . . . ) against Christians in general (iii) Such poisonous slander can also be spread by making invidious associations and asking loaded questions, and it seems (iv) will easily be believed by a fringe of people who seem to harbour a lot of bigoted hostility against Christians -- "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" -- as we have seen here at UD in recent days [cf here and here, note onward links]
. . . so, it is high time that responsible people stop this nonsense before someone innocent gets seriously hurt as the unhinged fringe of the fringe goes off the deep end. Blood libel is how pogroms get started. If the lot at Anti Evo continue in this vein in the teeth of such warnings, that tells us that we are up against a very destructive and irresponsible, angry and in some cases evidently outright hateful movement. Of which, due notice will be taken. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
F/N: Let me draw this out a tad. 1: We know, long since, that the only observed source of FSCI, and of coded, symbolic information, especially of algorithmic coded information is design. 2: For cell based, dna driven life forms to exist, we are looking at creation of a von Neuman self replication facility that has to code for the key components of the entity, not just autocatalyse itself or something like that. 3: So, the cell is credibly -- save to those locked into a priori materialism wearing a lab coat -- designed. 4: Similarly, to get to major body plans up to our own but including dozens along the way, the only credible explanation is again design, just off the need to account for jumps in information that greatly exceed the capacity of blind chance and necessity on the gamut of our observed cosmos. 5: So, we have good grounds for inferring de4sign in teh first place, even if the genome is like odds and ends of working machinery amidst a junkyard. 6: But, we also know that there is a LOT about the cell that we do not know, and we do not know how to explain. 7: Common sense is to reason from what we can credibly know per good warrant, to what we do not yet know, leaving unresolved puzzles as we find them. 8: So, it makes good sense to see that we do not know enough to dismiss ever so much as "junk." Especially in a context where we know that designers generally have a purpose for the main features of the systems they have. 9: As a crude comparison, would you infer that, say, the Voynich manuscript is meaningless, simply because we have not as yet deciphered it? 10: Or that the endless repeats etc in a Word document are junk? Let's use a little common sense here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply