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
tjguy: "So would you be comfortable to be a guinea pig and volunteer to have that 90% of your genome deleted from your cells to see if it will have any kind of an effect on you?" ==== Careful, don't give them any new ideas. Some of young generation in these modern times actually like body mutilation. I can just see some future clinics advertising the latest iconic rage of becomming a new kind of generation Freak. Move over tatoos, piercings, black death makeup, Junk DNA removal is the new kid in town.Eocene
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT
F/N: We should all do the exercise of opening a Word Document, and typing in just one short sentence. Save, close and re-open in something that will inspect the underlying content, like Notebook; using Open With. Let us know what you see. say: ÐÏࡱá >  þÿ   !  #  þÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ . . .  þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ That is, MOST of the document looks like junk. Next, snip out some of the seeming junk at-random more or less. Say: þÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Effect on returning to Word: Word Cannot open the document. But, that was just one odd character and a lot of useless looking repeats of the y-like character? Live experiment over. Take home lesson: if we do not know yet, it would be unwise to pretend to dismissal of what LOOKS like junk to us, even evidently endless repeats of a silly looking pattern. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
I must be emphatic: it is not fairer to say that we simply do not know its function. It is also certainly far from clear that "much" of the DNA fulfills a regulatory function. All of the known coding, regulatory, and structural DNA in the human genome - from microRNAs to cistrons - fits into about 9%. If you have evidence of more regulatory DNA than this, it is new to science to the best of my knowledge. If the remaining DNA were to to be functional, then its sequence should be important. If its sequence is important then it should show signs of evolutionary constraint. About 90% of the human genome does not fit this bill. About half of the genome is made of highly repetitive transposable elements. While a tiny, known number of these are functional (i.e. active) almost all contain disabling mutations and have no known or suspected function. They are typically repetitive sequences that only vary because when they experience mutation, there is no constraint from purifying natural selection acting upon them. In a separate line of argument, if more than about 10% of the genome were subject to purifying selection, the mutation rate would be excessively high. See Ohno 1972, and subsequent work. Note the 9% above and Ohno's 10% are entirely independent predictions, but happen to closely agree. Again, if there is a function somehow it is not dependent on sequence specificity. Please address how that is likely to be the case.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
So would you be comfortable to be a guinea pig and volunteer to have that 90% of your genome deleted from your cells to see if it will have any kind of an effect on you?tjguy
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
"If you find 98% of the genome to have no discernible function, then that is an objective fact. If function is discovered for it, then your percentage goes down from 98% – turns out your provisional estimate was wrong, and your new one could be too." How can it be an observable fact if it is later overturned. It was something that was thought to be true - assumed to be true. Why? Because the function was not immediately apparent and was therefore assumed to be without function. This assumption was easy to make. I think scientists were actually eager to make that assumption because it fit so well with their ideas of evolution. This is an example of how worldview often colors our interpretation of what we observe. Scientists are NOT as objective as they want us to believe. Worldview/belief system plays a huge role in their interpretations. I don't know, but I don't think finding a little real junk(however, I doubt that can ever be really proven)would be a problem for ID science. Over time, as mutations build up in the genome, this certainly could happen, although not to a really large extent. Anyway, all the evolutionists can say now is that as of yet, a function hasn't been found for a large portion of the genome. That does not mean that there is none. It simply means that one has not been found yet. No one really knows whether one will ever be found or not. A person's particular belief regarding that will largely depend upon his worldview. Many evolutionists would be happy if we quit looking for functions in this non-coding section of "junk" because the continued ignorance of function serves their purposes well. This is how evolution can also be a science stopper!tjguy
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
tjguy: "Well, I’m glad that you and Dr. Moran are clearly on the record stating that your faith is in the junk DNA position." ==== And ultimately that is what all of this JUNK subject is all about, their FAITH. It's also about their inability to admit they don't know something and therefore the intellectual need to invent a terminology to prop up a Dogma. The biggest difference between Evolutionists and IDers when it comes to the term FAITH is not that one has it and the other doesn't. They clearly both have it. It's that IDers are the only ones who admit it.Eocene
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
Well, I'm glad that you and Dr. Moran are clearly on the record stating that your faith is in the junk DNA position. As you know, more and more functions are being found for "junk" DNA so the trend is clearly not in your favor. I guess we will have to revisit the issue in 5 years and see who is right. It is interesting that you are taking a stand here on something that has not been proven and may never be able to be completely proven. It is just something that you currently "believe" or place your faith in based on your interpretation of the facts/observations. It is similar to IDer's placing their faith in some kind of Intelligence to explain the seemingly chance-defying design of the cell, etc. Are they right? We'll have to wait and see. The evidence for this position is increasing more each year. Can it be 100% proven? No, but I think there is enough evidence to make faith in an Intelligent Designer seem quite reasonable. Faith is involved on both sides here.tjguy
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
letztes Jahr: 1) "If all DNA was one day discovered to have a function, what would that mean for the theory of Intelligent Design?" ==== Off hand I'd say the theory would end. I.D.'s faith and hope that DNA would all have purpose and function would cease to exist as the fact would prove the reality of what they have been saying and believing in all along. ---- letztes Jahr: 2) "Why?" ==== I think the why would be obvious! ---- kairosfocus: "We must remember, too, that if you go to a junkyard and find some working machinery amidst the piles of non-functional junk, the presence of junk does not negate the design of the working machinery, or even of what has now deteriorated into junk." ==== Hey - Junk is in the eye of the beholder - *smile* I'd say you could compare it to say, 'Windows 7' and setting up your raw brand new PC. Once the various setups are in place and all functional, those instructions for setup are dormant, but still functional if need be called on again to reboot or delete and set up again. In perfect human beings where all switches and control mechanisms would be functional for renewal, then repairing and rebuilding could be turned on again as in the case of injury. Though not always functional all the time, such systems could be retreived at any time in a perfectly running biological human machine. Unforunately, as a result of improper behavior of one man, epigenetics took over and switched off some of the original functional programming for renewal. Genesis 2:16-17 , Eodus 20:5 , Jeremiah 31:29 , Lamenations 5:7 , Romans 5:12 , Romans 7:23Eocene
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
Please see just above. A fairer view is that we do not know the function of a lot of DNA, though it should be clear (on inference) that much of it fulfills body-plan specific regulatory function, which obviously would vary with the organism.kairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
You hit the nail on the head Bruce. It is nothing more than a worldview battle or belief system battle as you mentioned. Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-theistic motivation: ‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’ Huxley, A., Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff. I suspect this is the reason why so many atheists are so passionate about their anti-god beliefs. We are all bias when it comes to what we believe and I bet that what we want to believe has a much stronger influence on us than we realize.tjguy
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
Despite this, all the evidence suggests that most human DNA (~90%) must be non-functional, or functional in some currently unknown way that requires neither sequence specificity nor conservation. Mutational load alone makes this argument, but it is also evidenced by the observed lack of sequence conservation in that 90%.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
F/n 3: Resemblance to the ion driven motors found in the cell -- cf the flagellum top this and every UD page -- are NOT coincidental.kairosfocus
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
F/n 2: Oddly, the difficult case is the single phase AC motor [not the polyphase one!], which depends on engineering tricks to get relative rotation, especially to start. The capacitor start motor is a classic, depending on phase relationships in ac components.kairosfocus
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
LYO: The inference to design is independent of whether the percentage of DNA found to be specifically functional is or is close to 100%, as the issue is, once you have enough to pass th4e FSCI threshold, we are already in territory only plausibly accounted for on design. In addition, the presence of codes, implementing machines to put codes to work algorithmically, etc and the associated von Neumann self replicator facility all point to irreducible complexity and systems that are inherently informational, symbol based and linguistic, so reflective of mind. But that most DNA is functional in some way is something that design would tend to point to; needs not be true, but it is unlikely that most of the DNA is non-functional, if the system is designed. (We must remember, too, that if you go to a junkyard and find some working machinery amidst the piles of non-functional junk, the presence of junk does not negate the design of the working machinery, or even of what has now deteriorated into junk.) KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
F/N: The secret to the classic squirrel cage induction motor is that the cage is a circuit free to carry an induced current. The induction is occasioned by a slip between the rotating B-field in the AC-fired stator coils and the rotating cage, typically a few percent. This also implies capacity for a short spike in power if some resistance is momentarily encountered as the slip will spike, leading to a brief power surge. A subtle and beautiful design. _________ (BTW, the induced current is best explained, in my view, by using the Lorentz force relationship, F = q * v x B. I used to use a sacrificial CRO set to x-y mode and a bar magnet to show the deflection of the electron-beam dot on the screen, and how it would be pulled by rotation of the bar magnet. Once you have SEEN this, all else follows at once, bang, bang, bang. Maybe, someone with an old analogue CRO and a bar magnet of moderate intensity would care to do a YouTube video and let us all have a link? A great trick would be to mount the bar magnet on a plexiglass rod and spin it with a crank. That would be a gift to global education. And, of course the Lorentz force approach unifies motors, generators, induction, transformers, televisions and particle physics. I used to teach the hand rules, together, as shorthand. To tell the difference, you crank the generator right handed . . . . )kairosfocus
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Collin: I don't know about this case, but the report I have had was that Tesla could build a motor etc in his head, run it there for two weeks or whatever, then disassemble it mentally and inspect the wear. That speaks of someone with a huge base of shop experience to intuitively know the wear patterns etc, and a visualising capacity that is extraordinarily powerful. (Unfortunately, much of what is on the web about him is just a tad fringe-ish. ) So, to hit on the idea of a motor that works by letting a rotating magnetic field pull a conductor free to carry an induced current through a vision while reading a poet would be par for the course for that man. Of course, there is the famous story of Kekule in Chemistry and how he finally solved the Benzine structure problem: the dream of the snake swallowing its tail. Einstein took an imaginary ride on a beam of light, too. Thought experiments and thought exercises can be very powerful. Today, computer simulations with 3-D animations do some of the same things, but we have to be very wary of GIGO. Rule of thumb: a computer simulation is a thought world exercise, not an observation of a real world event. (Those who fell for Dawkins' Weasel and kin should have remembered that.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Dr. Wells, if you're still reading this thread, I have a couple of questions: 1) If all DNA was one day discovered to have a function, what would that mean for the theory of Intelligent Design? 2) Why?lastyearon
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
I didn't know that about Tesla. Thanks.Collin
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
As far as Dr. Wells is concerned, true science stands or falls on the evidence and not the worldview of the scientist. To suggest that his views on ID should be rejected because of his association with Moon's Unification Church is to commit a genetic fallacy, which states that something should be rejected because of its source. For example, the alternating current motor is accepted as scientific even though Tesla got the idea from a vision he had while reading the German poet Goethe. This theory withstood the test of scientific investigation and had scientific justification. It wasn't rejected because of its source.Barb
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Chas D - so, if there is no apparent function, should biologists and scientists stop looking for one? Interestingly, some of the malfunctions in noncoding RNA are associated with diseases including cancer, psoriasis, and Alzheimer's. It's possible that further study might lead to improved treatments and diagnoses for these diseases.Barb
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Let's assume that Wells's motives are terrible. Perhaps he wants to overthrow Darwinism for some totally evil purpose. Are his arguments therefore wrong? Put a different way, if a bad man tells you that 2 plus 2 equals 4 are you going to say that 2 plus 2 actually equals 5 because you don't want to agree with a bad man? Now, I'm NOT saying Wells has bad motives. I actually think it is a good thing for him to be out to destroy Darwinism if that is indeed his goal. But his arguments should be taken at face value no matter what his motives.Collin
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
I’m quite sure you wouldn’t call it a ‘scientific’ discovery that you made “in the mountains of Mendocino County”, but rather something else entirely.
Fortunately science is not the only way to make discoveries nor advance knowldge. As for how many Darwinists are "out there"- all of them! :)Joseph
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
As with redundant systems you can take 1/2 of the stuff out and it still works.Joseph
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Junk was not a prediction of neoDarwinian evolutionary biologists per se, but the story is not so simple as it is sometimes made out to be. In fact, Ohno's (1972) paper where the term, in scarequotes, was introduced placed a limit on the number of genes that could occur in the mammalian genome with the rate of mutation as it was (i.e. a limit on the amount of purifying selection that a population can tolerate before being doomed to extinction as deleterious mutations become too numerous to escape). From this reasoning, Ohno predicted that 30,000 genes was the upper limit for humans (rather accurate in hindsight) and that because of the typical size of genes, 90% of the genome would have to be without a sequence-specific function. This was a bold claim as the composition of the genome was unknown. It was an argument from logic because of the necessary consequence of mutation. This genetic load argument for 'junk' - or at least for DNA sequences that are not subject to purifying natural selection - is one that is difficult to sidestep. The theoretical prediction is closely matched by what we know quantitatively about function in the genome today.paulmc
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Substantial amount of non-coding DNA have been deleted from mice and engineered yeast chromosomes have been built without it, without apparent ill effect.DrREC
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
The mouse has 10% more DNA than a human
Wrong way round! ... but approx the same no. of genes.Chas D
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Biologists found that only 2% of the genome consisted of code for proteins. The other 98% was (wrongly) assumed to be evolutionary junk. Dr. John Mattick, professor of molecular biology at University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that the ‘junk DNA’ theory was an example of scientific tradition derailing objective analysis of the facts.
Not exactly a long tradition - junk has only been around as a concept for about 40 years. And it's not really a theory. If you find 98% of the genome to have no discernible function, then that is an objective fact. If function is discovered for it, then your percentage goes down from 98% - turns out your provisional estimate was wrong, and your new one could be too.
Much of what used to be considered ‘junk’ is now noted to contain a recipe, if you will, for regulatory RNA, which plays a key role in how the cell develops, matures, and functions.
And an awful lot of the rest remains without an apparent function - including, for example, 11% of the genome devoted to 1.1 million inactive copies of the 300-base repetitive sequence Alu, and 17% devoted to about 500,000 copies of the longer LINE1. While some of these have become inserted into functional positions, the bulk remain in intergenic space, without even being transcribed to support a hypothetical "regulatory RNA" role. Unless a role is found, which also takes account of their substantial numbers, they remain in the wishful thinking pile, if one is wedded to the idea that every base is sacred (or the 'junk' pile, if not).Chas D
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Single Malt: As if "qualifications" meant anything. Ad hominem attacks are irrelevant to the merits of what is being discussed. What do they teach kids these days, anyway?scribo
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Evolutionary theory does not make specific predictions about the amount of DNA expected in any particular group of organisms, nor its distribution between coding/noncoding and functional/nonfunctional. I'm not aware of any "evi/evo/evotard" claiming the kind of retrospective prediction you suggest. The mouse has 10% more DNA than a human - who'd have thought it? Certainly not an evolutionary theorist. In the 1970's, the expectation was that DNA would be mostly functional. In this context, the huge excess of apparently nonfunctional sequence discovered in the 1980's came as something of a surprise. We now find that some apparently nonfunctional sequence is functional after all - ie, as was thought in the 1970's. Both the 1970's and the 1980's positions have been refined - quelle surprise. Nonetheless, this discovered function covers a fraction of the genome - the rest remains, provisionally, junk. That may be proved wrong in the fullness of time, but it is a bit early to be invoking the 1-2% of discovered function as strong evidence for the remaining 90-odd percent - "we don't know it isn't functional, so it must be functional". We will have to see. Undoubtedly, you will be after some POSITIVE EVIDENCE that it isn't functional ... Either way, evolutionary theory will be untroubled by the eventual percentage, since it does not depend upon it in any way.Chas D
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Hi Jonathan, Unlike Single Malt, we have met before, on more than one occasion. In fact, you singled me out after a lecture by Dembski, to discuss (and compliment, thank you) a point I raised, with which you agreed. Unfortunately, I missed the talk you gave at that event and would have liked to have heard it in person, though this written summary is welcome also. If you don't mind, I'd be glad for some clarification on two things regarding what you wrote above. "I was transformed by the beauty, peace and evident design around me." - Dr. Wells Would you be willing to substitute 'order' for 'design' in the above sentence? Iow, you were transformed by finding 'meaning' of some kind (presumably) 'in' or 'beyond' nature, a new (transcendental) recognition of sorts that you hadn't discerned before, is that right? I'm quite sure you wouldn't call it a 'scientific' discovery that you made "in the mountains of Mendocino County", but rather something else entirely. You didn't do any 'scientific' experiments after all, to reach your new conclusion or awareness, if I understand your words. By the way, the hills are a great place for discoveries, I most certainly agree! My second question is a sociological one about these 'Darwinists,' as you call them, i.e. meaning people who hold a particular ideology while they do biological science. I notice you did not identify Teilhard de Chardinists, Bertalanffyians, Dobzhanskyists, Laszloists, Gouldians or Margulisians, of course, as that would distinguish their 'scientific contribution' from Darwin's. The question then is: What percentage of living biologists (practising) today in the USA do you consider to be 'Darwinists'? Or, if you'd like to go further than that, what percentage of US citizens today do you consider to be 'Darwinists'? What I'm trying to understand is exactly how big or widespread you believe this 'ideology' actually is 'in biology' - i.e. "materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical [biological] science" - which you attribute solely to the name 'Charles Robert Darwin' of Down, England, that you felt and still feel it needs to be 'destroyed'. Nietzscheans and Derrideans aside, I'm just curious how many Darwinists you think are 'out there' as of November 2011. Thanks, Gregory p.s. as a midget in biology, I would have no hesitation to discuss this subject with you over a malt (but let's make it a double in this unfortunate culture war environment, please! ; )Gregory
November 7, 2011
November
11
Nov
7
07
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply