Junk DNA hires a PR firm

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 9, 2015

'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Fights back.

Well, that seems to be what’s happening. Further to: New York Times science writer defends junk DNA (Old concepts die hard, especially when they are value-laden as “junk DNA” has been—it has been a key argument for Darwinism), one of the conundrums on which the junk DNA folk rely heavily is the “onion test” (why does the onion have such a large genome?). Without waiting to answer the question, the junk DNA folk assume that that’s because most of it is junk.

But let’s face it, when even Francis Collins, the original Christian Nobelist for Darwin, is abandoning ship, they really need to double down on that junk.

From Evolution News & Views:

What’s so striking about Zimmer’s current piece is his explicit worry that — should “junk” DNA turn out to be functional — the “creationists” (as he calls the baddies) would be vindicated. At least twice in this long article, Zimmer raises the alarm that genomes had BETTER be junky, OR…the bad guys will win. It’s the same anxiety driving Dan Graur and Lawrence Moran into their fits of rage about ENCODE.

Hence in a not-so-subtle way, project ENCODE researchers are put on notice that, should they continue looking for function in non-coding DNA, they will be traitors to evolution and science.

Doubtless, the ENCODE guys have already begun to stammer and splutter. That’s what tends to happen when Darwin’s boys arrive (except here). For ENCODE, when they could afford to be open, see, for example:

Latest ENCODE Research Validates ID Predictions On Non-Coding Repertoire

Junk DNA’s defender doesn’t “do” politeness (No, we bet not.)

and

At least Forbes.com’s John Farrell, while trashing Jonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA, doesn’t threaten to actually read the book, the way some do.

For free highlights of the junk DNA uproar, see:

Anyone remember ENCODE? Not much junk DNA? Still not much. (Paper is open access.)

Yes, Darwin’s followers did use junk DNA as an argument for their position.

Another response to Darwin’s followers’ attack on the “not-much-junk-DNA” ENCODE findings

Hey, by the time you can’t tell the difference between Darwin’s elite followers and his trolls, you know something is happening.

Plus, pass the chocs, will you?

Anyone else for the myth of junk DNA? Richard Dawkins, for one (Reliable Source Central 😉 )

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Diogenes, Why don't you remind us all how the genetic load is calculated...Quest_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Diogenes talking to Joe:
But tell me, Joe, how ID explains why the pufferfish has a genome 1/8 the size of the human genome, and why another fish, the African lungfish, has 50 times more DNA than a human and 400 times more than some other fish, via your hypothesis “God made all genomes by sorcery.”
Intelligent designers work in mysterious ways. Fish make excellent tasting food, if you're into seafood. It's all about the taste. Obviously, humans were not designed to be eaten. :-D And, BTW, what does sorcery have to do with intelligence? Enjoy playing with yourself much?Mapou_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

OH:
What’s the ID explanation for the size of the onion genome? I mean beyond “it must all be functional”. Why would an onion be so much more functional than, say, a human, or why would wheat be more functional than rice?
It all has to do with intelligent design, IMO. Some of the designers obviously were highly advanced chefs. The onion and its cousins can probably be bred into an amazing variety of flavors, shapes and appearances. It's all locked inside the onion genome, waiting to be discovered by future chefs. The advanced designers who designed life on earth seemed to have had an eye for beauty, taste and the good life. It could not have been evolution since evolution doesn't care about such things.Mapou_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

BA77, copying from creationist the Reverend Wells. So scientists removed more than 1 million bp's from the mouse and nothing bad happened. Looks like junk. Some other scientists removed 58,000 bp's and the mouse died. We are back to DNA being functional and the genome is the dictator. A minute ago, it wasn't. How many of those base pairs were functional? Ten, I'd guess. 100, if you're lucky. Now divide by 3.2 billion-- or let's say, 58,000. What fraction of the genome is functional, as shown by this experiment?Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Diogenes, so falsification of the modern synthesis means nothing to you as a neo-Darwinist? And having the genome be a organ instead of a dictator has no implications for how a genome can vary depending on the specific needs of an organism? Well, seeing as reason has completely left the building, and looney tunes has now entered, that all folks. Thats All Folks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3bbsDJWlXQbornagain77_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

And BA77 is now back to saying DNA is functional and the genome is again the dictator of the organism. A minute ago, DNA was not functional and not the dictator of the organism. Ahblblbllblbl. For Alu elements, BA77 links to ENV, a creationist website. Admission that BA77 learned all his science from creationist websites. I did not ask for creationist distortions. Here is what I asked, again:
But how many nucleotides within the Alu’s were found to be functional? Ten, I’d guess. 100, if you’re lucky. Now divide by 3.2 billion. How much of the genome are we talking about, percentage-wise? 0.001%? As usual.
Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Diogenes, instead of just insisting that most of genomes are junk without any real time evidence, (other than your 'hunch' that it must be that way because if you were god you would not do it that way), I suggest you actually prove your claim to be true for junk DNA by removing a large percentage of the DNA of a genome from an egg cell and see what you get! When that has been done thus far, the results are not consistent with your 'hunch': Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA - November 2011 Excerpt: Mice without “junk” DNA. In 2004, Edward Rubin] and a team of scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California reported that they had engineered mice missing over a million base pairs of non-protein-coding (“junk”) DNA and that they could “see no effect in them.” But molecular biologist Barbara Knowles (who reported the same month that other regions of non-protein-coding mouse DNA were functional) cautioned that the Lawrence Berkeley study didn’t prove that non-protein-coding DNA has no function. “Those mice were alive, that’s what we know about them,” she said. “We don’t know if they have abnormalities that we don’t test for.”And University of California biomolecular engineer David Haussler said that the deleted non-protein-coding DNA could have effects that the study missed. “Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years,” he argued. In 2010, Rubin was part of another team of scientists that engineered mice missing a 58,000-base stretch of so-called “junk” DNA. The team found that the DNA-deficient mice appeared normal until they (along with a control group of normal mice) were fed a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet for 20 weeks. By the end of the study, a substantially higher proportion of the DNA-deficient mice had died from heart disease. Clearly, removing so-called “junk” DNA can have effects that appear only later or under other circumstances. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-on-darwinism-science-and-junk-dna/bornagain77_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

BA77, the links you compiled are irrelevant to the topic at hand as always. Claims about how the genome is an organ of the cell etc. do not mean much and do not explain why organisms with the same complexity have widely varying amounts of DNA or why genetic load is tolerated. You cannot answer any of the questions, so you attempt Gish Gallop. IDers' predictions about junk DNA were falsified. However, now I see that your rationale for compiling irrelevant links is that you believe that, if ANY gap in science exists, then this vindicates ALL other claims of gaps-- the facts be damned-- and you fill all these gaps, imaginary or not, with God. A science stopper. BA77, donn't you claims about the genome not being the dictator of the organism constitute an admission that most DNA is non-functional? You IDiots were just saying all of the DNA is functional. Now none of it is functional? Which is it?Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

More Functions Discovered for "Jumping Genes" - March 2015 Excerpt: News from the University of Geneva shows that geneticists have changed their minds about these jumping genes. The "junk DNA" label is in their rear-view mirror: "Alu" sequences are small repetitive elements representing about 10% of our genome. Because of their ability to move around the genome, these "jumping genes" are considered as real motors of evolution. However, they were considered for a long time as "junk" DNA, because, although they are transcribed into RNA, they encode no proteins and do not seem to participate actively in the cell's functions. Now, the group of Katharina Strub, professor at the Faculty of Science of the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, has uncovered two key functions of Alu RNAs in human cells, which are the subject of two different articles published in Nucleic Acids Research. Alu RNA can bind to specific proteins forming a complex called Alu RNP. On the one hand, this complex allows the cells to adapt to stress caused for example by chemical poisoning or viral infection. On the other hand, the same complex plays a role in protein synthesis by regulating the number of active ribosomes, suggesting that it could be part of the innate system of cellular defense against certain viruses. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/more_functions_1094091.htmlbornagain77_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

PaV, as for your hypothesis about plants, note that you incorrectly assume plants have many duplicates of genes. Some do, some don't. Some are polyploid. The onion is not polyploid. In the C value paradox, the C is divided by ploidy. The bladderwort Utricularia has a very tiny genome, but it is a complex plant that eats animals. This would seem to falsify your hypothesis. The bladderwort has almost no non-coding DNA, but has slightly more genes than humans. This falsifies ENCODE's hypothesis that complexity is produced by "millions of switches" in non-coding DNA that greatly outweigh the size of all genes. As for being sessile, I just listed many animals that have far more DNA than humans but are NOT sessile.Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Diogenes, contrary to what you seem to believe, finding that “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” is in fact a direct falsification of the modern synthesis i.e. of neo-Darwinism, You being a neo-Darwinist, having your base position falsified IS NOT A MINOR PROBLEM FOR YOU!!! Why does your response remind me of the Black Knight's response? "It's just a flesh wound!" Monty Python-The Black Knight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4bornagain77_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

PaV, you did not link to any study on Alu elements. But how many nucleotides within the Alu's were found to be functional? Ten, I'd guess. 100, if you're lucky. Now divide by 3.2 billion. How much of the genome are we talking about, percentage-wise? 0.001%? As usual.Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

BA77, none of you IDers have attempted to answer either the Onion test, the C value paradox, the huge variations in genome size within single genera, the genetic load argument (every baby gets ~100 new mutations but doesn't die)-- or how IDers can predict how much junk DNA there is unless you assume you know the purposes of God. Instead, BA77 does the usual UD "response" of posting a list of canned creationist arglebargle IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. NO IDER CAN. Do you not see that these long, disorganized gabble of irrelevant creationist religious blurts make you, Kairosfocus, Wallstreeter etc. look insane? Do you think this arglebargle will persuade scientists that ID is a real theory? Who are you trying to persuade? What is the logic or rationale behind these long lists of irrelevant links? Just "God of the Gaps" times infinity? "Look at how complex science is. I can't understand it, so it must be magic"? Will this win over scientists, you think?Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H: About the onion: (1) Isn't it common for plants to have a high C-number? (2) If this is so, then there should be some 'reason' for this, (3) And probably it's because they are generally sessile organisms. I.e., they can't go scavenge for their food, so they might need duplicate copies of genes so as to 'multiply' the amount of certain gene products when the right moment comes---like when it rains, or when its fed plant food, or when some detritus comes its way.PaV_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Piotr: A recent study is out where they show that the Alu portions of the genome---what you might call "classic" "junk-DNA"---is actually involved in the cell and organism's immune system response. Alu portions account, they say in the study, for 10% of the genome. Isn't this a double-whammy for you?PaV_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

So still no thoughts of your own to contribute huh BA77? How's that SITC channel doing?CHartsil_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Actually, far from debunking the 'crap from IDers' refuting the infamous Onion test, the fact of the matter is that the case against neo-Darwinism's insistence on widespread junk DNA has gotten far worse for neo-Darwinists. For instance, we now know that the genome, much contrary to neo-Darwinian thought, is an 'organ of the cell, not its dictator':
“The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” - Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences http://musicoflife.co.uk/
Disagree that the genome is merely a organ of the cell and not its dictator? Well, then you have to deal with the fact that 'the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific',,,
Tissue-specific spatial organization of genomes - 2004 Excerpt: Using two-dimensional and three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization we have carried out a systematic analysis of the spatial positioning of a subset of mouse chromosomes in several tissues. We show that chromosomes exhibit tissue-specific organization. Chromosomes are distributed tissue-specifically with respect to their position relative to the center of the nucleus and also relative to each other. Subsets of chromosomes form distinct types of spatial clusters in different tissues and the relative distance between chromosome pairs varies among tissues. Consistent with the notion that nonrandom spatial proximity is functionally relevant in determining the outcome of chromosome translocation events, we find a correlation between tissue-specific spatial proximity and tissue-specific translocation prevalence. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that the spatial organization of genomes is tissue-specific and point to a role for tissue-specific spatial genome organization in the formation of recurrent chromosome arrangements among tissues. http://genomebiology.com/content/5/7/R44 “Three-Dimensional Connections Across the Genome“ Keith Dunaway - ENCODE 2012 Excerpt: These analyses portray a complex landscape of long-range gene-element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kb to several Mb, including interactions among unrelated genes (Supplementary Figure Y1). Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50-60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue specificity for gene-element connectivity http://www.nature.com/encode/threads/three-dimensional-connections-across-the-genome
Further evidence that the genome is subservient to the overall needs of the cell and organism that it is in is found in this recent article by Dr. Jonathan Wells on 'genetic mosaicism':
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
Further evidence that DNA is subservient to needs of the entire organism is found here:
What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean Timelapse Video Reveals Electric Face in Embryonic Tadpole - July 2011 Excerpt: "When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo. We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper." http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/timelapse-video-reveals-electric-face-in-embryonic-tadpole-718111 podcast - Jonathan Wells: Is There Biological Information Outside of the DNA?, pt. 3 - Bioelectric code http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-06-11T16_35_52-07_00 Not in the Genes: Embryonic Electric Fields - Jonathan Wells - December 2011 Excerpt: although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels -- which determines the form of the endogenous electric field -- constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/not_in_the_gene054071.html Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM
etc.. etc..bornagain77_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Joe Security Clearance says:
Your position can’t explain any of that. And ID doesn’t have anything to do with God.
Really? ID doesn't have anything to do with God? But Phillip Johnson, who founded ID as a political movement and the DI as a think tank, said Intelligent Design was simply ”the reality of God." Why do you not criticize him for saying that? If Phillip Johnson said that at UD, would you ban him, the way UD has banned evolutionists for saying the same thing-- by quoting Johnson? William Dembski didn't say that ID has nothing to do with God. He said Intelligent Design starts with the Gospel of John, and that ID was the bridge between science and theology. ID doesn't have anything to do with God? That's not what the Wedge Document says. It's not what the DI says to millionaire prospective donors when the DI needs money. Maybe ID has nothing to do with God when you have money, and is "the reality of God" when you don't? I repeat my question: How do you know how much junk DNA there can be or can't be, unless you assume you know the purposes of God? You IDers predicted NO Junk DNA because the God you believe in wouldn't do it that way. You were wrong. So either your God doesn't exist, or else your beliefs about him were wrong.Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Evolutionary biology actually has some pretty good answers about the evolution of genome size, Joe. You should read about themwd400_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Diogenes- You don't have an answer either. So perhaps you should just shut up.Joe_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

So the answer would be no, as BA77 proves by linking to ancient debunked crap from IDers, no, no IDer can explain why the onion genome is 5x the size of the human genome... or why the VARIATION in genome sizes within the genus Allium is several times larger than the whole human genome. Why is it that within some genera of frogs, where all the species look equally complex, some species have far less DNA than humans, while other species in the same genus, distinguishable only by experts, have far more DNA than humans? Why? And excluding frogs, all amphibians that have been studied, including caecilians that have no legs nor eyes, have much, much more DNA than humans. Why? Nor can any of you answer Wd400's frequently repeated question: if every baby born has ~ 100 more mutations than its parents, ~200 more than its grandparents etc. etc., and if all that DNA is functional, and mutations are "catastrophic" as IDcreationists always say, why don't all babies die? And nobody tried to answer my question:
Tell me, Joe, how ID explains why the pufferfish has a genome 1/8 the size of the human genome, and why another fish, the African lungfish, has 50 times more DNA than a human and 400 times more than some other fish, via your hypothesis “God made all genomes by sorcery.” Is it not true that to attempt to answer this question, you must know the purposes of God? And if your hypothesis depends on your beliefs about God’s purposes, doesn’t that make ID dependent on religion?
Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Diogenes:
Tell me, Joe, how ID explains why the pufferfish has a genome 1/8 the size of the human genome, and why another fish, the African lungfish, has 50 times more DNA than a human and 400 times more than some other fish,
Your position can't explain any of that. And ID doesn't have anything to do with God. Your desperation, while amusing, is not an argument.Joe_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Onion Exposé: Carl Zimmer on Why "Junk DNA" Had Better Be Real - March 6, 2015 Excerpt: For another take on the cherished onion, see the relevant section in Jonathan Wells's book, The Myth of Junk DNA, and Jonathan M.'s article at ENV, "Why the 'Onion Test' Fails as an Argument for 'Junk DNA.'" Casey Luskin took Carl's measure here, "Already Outdated: Will Carl Zimmer Update His New Evolution Textbook on Junk DNA?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/onion_expose_ca094161.html of note: the papers are linked on the site.bornagain77_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

What's the ID explanation for the size of the onion genome? I mean beyond "it must all be functional". Why would an onion be so much more functional than, say, a human, or why would wheat be more functional than rice?Bob O'H_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Leaving this strange fantasy of "Darwin's boys" strong-arming the scientific community to lie about their findings to one side for now. Can anyone explain why they are so sure most of the genome is not junk? Or answer Diogenes questions? Or mine from the other thread on this topic (if genomes are nearly 100% functional why aren't mutations mutations devastating to us)wd400_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

And Joe proves my point. Gish Gallop, change the subject to a different question no IDer can answer anyway. "God made genomes by sorcery" is not a scientific answer. You have no answer to EITHER question, not the topic of this thread NOR the subject you tried to change to. You change the subject consistently, every single time, because you lost the argument over Junk DNA. Gish gallop + evasion = you lose both arguments, the old one and the new one. I repeat my question that you evaded, and dare not answer:
Tell me, Joe, how ID explains why the pufferfish has a genome 1/8 the size of the human genome, and why another fish, the African lungfish, has 50 times more DNA than a human and 400 times more than some other fish, via your hypothesis “God made all genomes by sorcery.” Is it not true that to attempt to answer this question, you must know the purposes of God? And if your hypothesis depends on your beliefs about God’s purposes, doesn’t that make ID dependent on religion?
Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Diogenes, Your side cannot explain the existence of DNA. Your position doesn't have anything that can be tested. It is useless and barren. You don't even have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes. Also the junk DNA was never my argument and you need to define "junk" in a context-specific and meaningful way.Joe_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Joe, your side lost the argument on Junk DNA so now you seek to change the subject to "where did DNA come from?"-- which, besides being irrelevant to the subject at hand, and a calculated Gish Gallop, is a question your side cannot answer. "God made genomes by sorcery" is not supported by evidence; it can't be tested or falsified unless you assume you know the purposes of God in creating genomes. Which means the ID answer is not a scientific answer as it is not supported by evidence; it is a religious answer. To recap: some ENCODE scientists said IN A PRESS RELEASE in 2013 (NOT in a peer reviewed scientific article) that Junk DNA had been disproven; many other ENCODE scientists said that ENCODE could not disprove Junk DNA because ENCODE did NO functional assays OOPS. Those ENCODE scientists who said IN A PRESS RELEASE that junk DNA had been disproven, walked back their claims in a peer reviewed article (Kellis et all. 2014) and now claim they never said what they said in a 2013 PRESS RELEASE. The ENCODE scientists who said ENCODE never disproved Junk DNA because there's positive evidence there's a lot of it, never changed their story. But tell me, Joe, how ID explains why the pufferfish has a genome 1/8 the size of the human genome, and why another fish, the African lungfish, has 50 times more DNA than a human and 400 times more than some other fish, via your hypothesis "God made all genomes by sorcery." Is it not true that to attempt to answer this question, you must know the purposes of God? And if your hypothesis depends on your beliefs about God's purposes, doesn't that make ID dependent on religion?Diogenes_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -- Max Planck
There is truth in Planck's observation, but more to the point is the fact that the Truth has its own power and is irrepressible; it is an anvil that has worn out many hammers; it is Someone, not something. The discoveries of modern science have made words of St. Paul ring truer than ever:
For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them since God himself has made it plain. Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity - however invisible - have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse: they knew God and yet refused to honour him as God or to thank him; instead, they made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened. -- Rom 1:19-21
Those who deny the Truth have been reduced to arguing that the Universe popped into existence out of nothingness without a cause; reduced to arguing that the digital-information-based nanotechnology of life, the functional complexity of which we now know to be light years beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch, is a mindless accident; reduced to arguing that there are countless other universes that are all tuned differently, so one of them had to end up like ours, fine-tuned for life -- an incredibly lame response to the overwhelming evidence of the fine-tuning of the Universe for life, intended to make the notion that that fine-tuning was a mindless accident seem more plausible. A huge, irrational, blind faith is required to embrace modern atheism. Only a relatively small, and very reasonable faith is required to believe in one God instead of countless other universes; to believe ultra-sophisticated, digital-information-based nanotechnology does not emerge mindlessly and accidentally; and to believe things don't pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothingness.harry_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Piotr, your position can't account for any genomes. Perhaps you should focus on that.Joe_{March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply