Intelligent Design

Junk DNA label a mistake? Genome region linked to heart failure

Spread the love

We’ll let ScienceDaily tell it:

In the new study, the investigators found that unlike other RNA molecules, expression patterns of long noncoding RNAs could distinguish between two major types of heart failure and between failing hearts before and after they received LVAD support.

“We don’t know whether these changes in long noncoding RNAs are a cause or an effect of heart failure,” Nerbonne said. “But it seems likely they play some role in coordinating the regulation of multiple genes involved in heart function.”

Look, if Darwin’s people say it’s junk, it’s junk. Why you asking, anyway?

59 Replies to “Junk DNA label a mistake? Genome region linked to heart failure

  1. 1
    awstar says:

    “We took an unbiased approach to investigating which types of RNA might be linked to heart failure,” said senior author Jeanne M. Nerbonne, PhD, the Alumni Endowed Professor of Molecular Biology and Pharmacology. “We were surprised to find that long noncoding RNAs stood out. In fact, the field is evolving so rapidly that when we did a slightly earlier, similar investigation in mice, we didn’t even think to include long noncoding RNAs in the analysis.”

    “unbiased approach” must be code for “in spite of beliefs based on evolution mythology” They did sneak the word “evolution” in there so they could pass the Darwin police word scanners, however.

  2. 2
    TZ says:

    Genome regions once mislabeled ‘junk’ linked to heart failure

    once mislabeled ?
    Why? By whom?

  3. 3
    sixthbook says:

    Obviously these are functionless genes because they make the heart not work! Duh!

    Anyways, the reason evolutionists believe that most of the DNA is junk has nothing to do with any claims of lack of function, regardless of what they have been writing for decades.

  4. 4
    PaV says:

    awstar:

    I noticed that same wording, too. Yes, “unbiased.” You know, as in: “Well, most of the time we have this bias; and, well, we can’t help ourselves. And, yes, of course it does get in the way of good research, but, hey, what the heck, we’re able to put that bias to the one side every now and then, and take a good look at how things really are. So, I guess that’s not so bad.”

  5. 5
    gpuccio says:

    awstar and PaV:

    Are you suggesting that, say, Larry Moran is biased? That’s really naughty! 🙂

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    awstar @ 1

    They did sneak the word “evolution” in there so they could pass the Darwin police word scanners, however.

    That seems like a ‘sneaky’ trick if one wants to publish a paper in a ‘high impact’ webzine run by the academic ‘politburo’ out there.

  7. 7
    Dionisio says:

    Look, if Darwin’s people say it’s junk, it’s junk. Why you asking, anyway?

    I totally agree with News on this, why do we keep bothering with this annoying criticism of this term ‘junk’ DNA ?

    Can’t we just get over it?

    It’s a done deal, a settled issue.
    No more discussions. That’s it.
    Ok?

    Anyways, this shows we just don’t understand evolution 😉

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Former Junk DNA Candidate Proves Indispensable
    by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. – April 2014
    Excerpt: Amazingly, these ecRNAs persist in experiments when the chromosomes are destroyed. Clearly they are very stable and an important part of the chromosomal matrix in the cell nucleus. In fact, when the ecRNAs themselves were destroyed with an enzyme called RNase, the chromosomes rapidly condensed and collapsed. If it were not for the presence of the ecRNAs, chromosome stability and function would not even be possible!
    While nearly all the other types of former “Junk DNA” have been debunked, this most recent study is truly the icing on the cake. The seemingly most scientifically neglected and scoffed at sequences in the genome are now appearing to be the key elements involved in constructing the functional matrix that allows chromosomes to operate.
    http://www.icr.org/article/8041/

    Articles by Jeffrey Tomkins
    http://www.icr.org/index.php?s.....thorID=207

  9. 9
    AVS says:

    Relax ladies. The phrase “unbiased approach” just means that the system they used did not favor analysis of any certain type of transcript, long/short, coding/noncoding, etc. They did many reads (deep sequencing) of the transcriptome to make sure they were not missing anything, hence “unbiased.”

  10. 10
    gpuccio says:

    AVS:

    Excuse me if I am fastidious. I will copy the paragraph adding a different emphasis:

    “We took an unbiased approach to nvestigating which types of RNA might be linked to heart failure,” said senior author Jeanne M. Nerbonne, PhD, the Alumni Endowed Professor of Molecular Biology and farmacology. “We were surprised to find that long noncoding RNAs stood out. In fact, the field is evolving so rapidly that when we did a slightly earlier, similar investigation in mice, we didn’t even think to include long noncoding RNAs in the analysis.”

    So, in their previous study they “didn’t even think” to include non coding RNAs in the analysis. Why? Because they did not expect that it could be functionally relevant. Guess why?

    And indeed, when they did include it, using an “unbiased approach”, they “were surprised” that long noncoding RNAs stood out.

    Do you know how it is called when someone looks for what he expects, and so does not find what he does not expect?

    It’s called “cognitive bias”, and in particular “confirmation bias”.

    From Wikipedia:

    “Confirmation bias: The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.”

  11. 11
    AVS says:

    Relax poochy, it’s not like they consciously chose to ignore lnRNAs, it just didn’t fall within the scope of their mice project. Maybe they were lazy, I don’t know.
    The next time around though, when testing human tissue, they went the whole nine yards.
    You’re losing your head over nothing.

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    AVS,

    There you go again with your offensive attitude to write your usual redundant nonsense. Please, try to learn and be more civilized and respectful. Stop being so miserably arrogant.

    What both awstar and PaV wrote in their comments seem to describe precisely what the phrase ‘unbiased approach’ appears to mean in the context it was found.

    The second part of the text quoted by awstar @ his comment #1, clearly shows how the long established neo-Darwinian biased approach to scientific research, based on misleading preconceived beliefs (like the so-called ‘junk’ DNA), has caused so much delay to the discoveries of new treatments for diseases. It’s a sad reality no honest scientist can deny these days.

    Let’s take a quick look at the second part of the text quoted in the first comment in this thread:

    “We were surprised to find that long noncoding RNAs stood out. In fact, the field is evolving so rapidly that when we did a slightly earlier, similar investigation in mice, we didn’t even think to include long noncoding RNAs in the analysis.”

    Note the revealing phrases:

    surprised to find that…” surprised to find that their preconceived ideas didn’t match the observed evidences? duh!

    the field is evolving so rapidly that…” yes, thank God science, specially biology, is moving ahead so fast, that the biased folks are surprised by so many discoveries that seem to trash their outdated ideas. How come? Well, one possible explanation could be that many hardworking dedicated scientists out there are starting to be more independent, pragmatic and open-minded in their approaches, thus finally abandoning the outdated neo-Darwinian biased approaches that had done so much damage to the free scientific thinking.

    we didn’t even think to include…” same nonsense as explained before. Why did they think not to include that part of the DNA in their research? Based on what?

    So, next time, take it easy, buddy. Chill out. Go out, breathe some fresh air, calm down. Then, come back.

    These are exciting times to be in science. Since I’m not a scientist, and my limited knowledge does not qualify me to work with scientists, not even cleaning their bathrooms, I’m content to just observe it from the sidelines, looking forward with great anticipation to the results from research, which keep shedding light on the wonders of God’s amazing creation.

    In the meantime I sing hallelujah!

  13. 13
    AVS says:

    No, Dio. You couldn’t be more wrong.
    As you said, you are certainly not a scientist, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Neither you or the other commenters have any idea what the phrases “unbiased approach” or “biased approach” mean in a scientific context.

    Feel free to do some research on genomic studies and find out. Careful though, you might learn something!

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    AVS,

    Hopefully your disrespectful attitude is not associated with a desperate panicking reaction to the visible crumbling of neo-Darwinism we are witnessing these days. Because it ain’t gonna get better. You ain’t seen nothing yet, buddy.

    In any case, I pray for you. I really mean it. God loves you, even though you don’t reciprocate. If it is God’s will, He will help you, so that you, like many of us here, can enjoy the wonderful things science is discovering these days. Please, think about this seriously. I want the best for you. I’m serious.

  15. 15
    AVS says:

    Please Dio. It’s not, don’t worry. As I’ve let you guys know on here numerous times now, the evolution/abiogenesis content in college level textbooks is only increasing. The fact that you apparently think evolution is “crumbling,” is laughable. You guys on here would love to make people think that, but it couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Pray in one hand and spit in the other, we’ll see which one fills up first. =)
    Thanks though!

  16. 16
    Dionisio says:

    …the evolution/abiogenesis content in college level textbooks is only increasing.

    What matters in science is the unbiased information coming out of research labs around the world. Many hardworking dedicated research scientists are publishing reports that in some ways conflict with the college text books you mentioned. Just read the leading-edge publications and see it yourself. Apparently you’re not aware of what is being published out there in cell.com and many other magazines I’m subscribed to. Go and read them. You’ll see what I mean.
    They’ll have to reprint them. Hopefully the following editions are on eBooks, so they don’t have to waste so much paper.

  17. 17
    AVS says:

    You don’t understand what is really going on Dio.
    Yes there are many researchers that are debating many of the details about how evolution works, but there is no massive undermining of the theory occurring, as you would like to believe.
    The research is constantly refining the theory of evolution, not overthrowing it. For the last time, you have no idea what you are talking about because you get your information from sites like UD.
    What happened to you being broke? You have enough money to pay for subscriptions to these magazines though?
    You’re either a complete idiot, or quite a storyteller.
    Most likely both. =)

  18. 18
    gpuccio says:

    AVS:

    Just to understand, why do you think that confirmation bias should be “conscious”? That would simply be fraud.

    Please, review what “confirmation bias” means:

    “The tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. In addition, individuals may discredit information that does not support their views. The confirmation bias is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance. Whereby, individuals may reduce inconsistency by searching for information which re-confirms their views”

  19. 19
    AVS says:

    I never said it should be conscious, and I never agreed that the researchers had shown any type of confirmation bias.
    Like I said, the study of lnRNAs simply did not fall within the scope of the first investigation. They included it in the second investigation most likely because human heart tissue relevant to their study is hard to get, so they tested everything they could.

    You are losing your mind over nothing.

  20. 20
    Mung says:

    You have to love AVS’ unbiased approach to ID. Or is it a biased approach.

  21. 21
    AVS says:

    Don’t quit your day job Mungy

  22. 22
    Optimus says:

    The takeaway (obscured by the AVS’ pathological quarrelsomeness) is that this points to another possible example of function associated with non-coding regions. Let’s not take our eye off the ball…

  23. 23
    AVS says:

    Hey, it takes two to tango, optimus.
    Want to dance?

  24. 24
    Optimus says:

    I think bipedal locomotion is a prerequisite for pairs dancing, AVS;-) But thanks for the offer!

  25. 25
    Mung says:

    AVS, I can retire any time I choose. It’s a great position to be in.

    Funny you should ask Optimist about dancing, when you dance around subjects that must be near and dear to your heart, such as protocells (bridging non-living and living matter) and cell membranes.

  26. 26
    AVS says:

    Why are you a quadriped, optimus?

  27. 27
    AVS says:

    Do you “retire” from a job as a janitor? I guess you can call it whatever you want Mungy!

    Was it you Mung that tried to tell me you had a book about protocells that refuted what I was saying and then never provided said information? Refresh my memory.

  28. 28
    Optimus says:

    AVS @ 26
    Nope!

  29. 29
    AVS says:

    Denial is to be expected optimus.
    Admitting it is the first step.
    It’s ok, we’re here for you!

  30. 30
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    Was it you Mung that tried to tell me you had a book about protocells that refuted what I was saying and then never provided said information? Refresh my memory.

    I have numerous books that refute what you say, but much of what you say doesn’t require resorting to any book.

    So let me refresh your memory. If you want to talk science, I stand ready, as do many others here at UD. If you want to trade insults, many others here at UD are probably just as willing.

    Do you want to talk science or trade insults?

  31. 31
    AVS says:

    So it was you Mung?
    Well let me know when you’re ready tell us all about how that book refutes what I had said.
    I’ve been doing both , feel free to add to any of the conversations.
    Or are you just making more empty threats and baseless claims?
    =)

  32. 32
    Mung says:

    AVS, do you want to talk science or trade insults? That’s all I care to know.

    If you don’t want to talk science let me know and I will ignore you. I have far better ways to spend my time.

  33. 33
    AVS says:

    I’ve tried to talk science with you. It ends with you claiming “I have this book that refutes you” and then leaving.
    Remember?

  34. 34
    gpuccio says:

    AVS in #11:

    “it’s not like they consciously chose to ignore lnRNAs,”

    AVS in #19:

    “I never said it should be conscious,”

  35. 35
    Creationsgardener says:

    AVS just drags down the comments every time he or she takes part. That you can argue with the extremely clear implications, even statements of this post shows you have no hope at seeing beyond your biases. You act like you are more intelligent than everyone but you actually look incredibly stupid and like a stubborn and misbehaving child. Please go away and work out your issues where you don’t waste everyone’s time.

  36. 36
    Dionisio says:

    Creationsgardener @ 35

    I agree.

    Can we ask the blog moderators to screen out anyone who drags down the discussions?

    They opened OT threads, for OT comments. Good! (some unsolicited OT comments are probably mine).

    What about filtering out anyone who is disrespectful to most participants in the threads?

    I enjoy discussing with someone who has different opinions on subjects. That’s actually interesting. But both sides must be willing to calmly listen to one another with respect.

    If I want to call someone ignorant, I don’t have to look around, because I’m the one. Specially in this blog, where many participants display a visible willingness to share what they know in a nice friendly manner. Most of what you all write is above my pay grade. Not all the topics discussed in this blog are interesting to me, but some are very interesting.

    I’ve said before that I’m learning quite a bit from reading some OP and the follow-up comments. But greatly dislike the frequent distractions caused by annoying disrespectful comments that disrupt the discussions.

    Finally, let this be also a lesson to all, so we remember that it’s important to be respectful to others. If anyone notice something disrespectful in my comments, please let me know about it, so I can correct it right away and apologize to you for my mistake.

    One of the several reasons I’m participating in this blog, is to learn how to write and express my thoughts to different people. I had never done it before. And English is not my first language. For years I worked as an intermediary tool, expressing someone else’s ideas to computers, using programming languages. That’s much easier than writing to thinking people like you all. So please, let me know if I write anything inappropriate. Thank you.

    Remember that God loves you. I know God loves me, and you all are much better persons than I am. 🙂

  37. 37
    Axel says:

    Dionisio, your English seems impossibly flawless for a non-native speaker. Likewise GP. After living a few
    months abroad, it is said that people are wont to suffer from a degree of ‘word-blindness’ – a loss of fluency in their native tongue.

    It’s always struck me as a little odd that academically-educated foreigners, while possessing an English vocabulary of more esoteric words, comparable to that in their own language, are – evidently with rare exceptions – fairly easily identifiable by their poorer fluency in their use of the smaller, Anglo-Saxon-type conjunctions, prepositions, and associated phrases. But vernacular speech is more idiosyncratic, isn’t it? For Italian, multiply that by 10, a GP will vouch!

  38. 38
    sixthbook says:

    I have an idea, how about make a thread for AVS to talk to himself? That way he can’t complain about being censored or his posts being deleted, they are all just moved to a thread that we can all ignore and never look at because it has no meaningful content.

  39. 39
    Axel says:

    Well, I seem to have displayed an extraordinary concordant world-blindness in my post, since neither Dionisio nor gpucci are writing in their native language in a foreign country!

    As regards the second paragraph, it must, indeed, be their use of prepositions and conjunctions that impresses us.

  40. 40
    gpuccio says:

    Axel:

    Indeed, I had not understood well what you meant! 🙂

  41. 41
    jerry says:

    Can we ask the blog moderators to screen out anyone who drags down the discussions?

    My son who is a web architect and developer said it would be easy to write a program that would eliminate the comments by a specific author if one wanted to. I could probably do it but it would take a couple weeks.

    Just run the thread through an app and put in the name of the author and presto all the comments from that author would be gone from your viewing. Of course the easy thing is never to answer a comment by this author that is not courteous or serious. Why people answer these comments is beyond me.

  42. 42
    jerry says:

    English seems impossibly flawless for a non-native speaker

    I was recently in Botswana on a tour and the tour guide in our jeep was a native from Botswana. He said his first language was Setswana but everyone in Botswana speaks English. He was about 30 years old and his English was impeccable and he had all the idioms and colloquialisms down perfectly. His accent seemed like someone who was from the US. I assumed he went to school here for several years. But he said he had never been out of Africa, was born in Zimbabwe and had a degree from a university in Namibia.

    I do not know how well he wrote but if you met him here you would think he was a well educated American. Maybe it was watching a lot of movies and TV shows. That is where you will pick up the informal spoken language. No one speaks the formal language you learn in a language course. However, that is what one often uses when writing. Blogs are different though.

    Also some people are just gifted in language skills. I had a high school classmate who was average is a lot of ways but when tested in college found out he had extraordinary language skills. He then learned several languages and makes a good living that way negotiating business deals in foreign languages all of which he could speak fluently. (Arabic, Russian and German are some of them.)

  43. 43
    Dionisio says:

    jerry @ 41

    Why people answer these comments is beyond me.

    I agree. My stupid mistake. 🙁

  44. 44
    PaV says:

    AVS:

    Relax ladies. The phrase “unbiased approach” just means that the system they used did not favor analysis of any certain type of transcript, long/short, coding/noncoding, etc. They did many reads (deep sequencing) of the transcriptome to make sure they were not missing anything, hence “unbiased.”

    I don’t think I thought anything other than what you’ve stated. However, it is very likely that they used the “unbiased” approach because the “biased” approach didn’t give them the answers to their questions.

    This, then, simply serves to underline the fact that they didn’t think—ahead of time—that long nc stretches of DNA could do very much, and they had to be disabused of the idea. It is standard evolutionary biology that says that “junk” is really “junk.” [Although the whole time denying it] So, they ended up having to do it twice because they were “biased”, in the sense that the left out the nc DNA, since, of course, what purpose would that serve!!

    No need to reply. You’re steadfast in your views, and I in mine. Others can come to their own conclusions.

  45. 45
    AVS says:

    Again, Pav, another example of a fundamental misunderstanding from the UD crowd. As I said, looking at lnRNAs simply did not fall within the scope of the first study. They included it in the second study. They did not “do it twice” and you would realize this if you had any reading comprehension skills because you would have noticed that the two investigations were completely different studies. The first was done with mice, whereas the second was done with human heart tissue in normal and failing hearts. I have already talked about this in another comment.
    This is a perfect example of why this site is a joke. You guys have no idea what you are talking about.
    No need to reply, you’ve demonstrated your scientific illiteracy aplenty.

  46. 46
    PaV says:

    AVS:

    As I said, looking at lnRNAs simply did not fall within the scope of the first study.

    Yes, you said that. Why didn’t they include them? That is, why didn’t the lncRNAs fall within the scope of the first study. That’s what is at issue here.

    We don’t need you to pontificate. Explanations are preferred.

    They did not “do it twice” and you would realize this if you had any reading comprehension skills because you would have noticed that the two investigations were completely different studies. The first was done with mice, whereas the second was done with human heart tissue in normal and failing hearts.

    People who live in ‘glass houses’ shouldn’t throw stones.

    Reading comprehension? Let’s see:

    Here’s AVS: “ . . . the two investigations were completely different studies.

    And here is one of the authors of the study: “In fact, the field is evolving so rapidly that when we did a slightly earlier, similar investigation in mice . . . “

    Which of the two of us is correct here? Would you like to say?

    If you choose to continue to insist on the fact that they used mice the first time, and human heart tissue the second time, well . . .

    Aren’t mice used as a proxy for humans in the lab? And isn’t this usually because of ethical issues related to obtaining human tissue for experimentation?

    Well, if you read closely enough, you’ll see that the human tissue became available to them the second time around, and so they used it. Otherwise we could presume that they would have used mouse tissue again.

    So, we’re dealing with two differences between the earlier and later studies: the types of RNA they were searching out were different, and the type tissue being used was different. The tissue being used was different simply because it had become available the second time around. Did you read anywhere in the paper where they suggested that the lncRNAs had anything to do with using the “mouse tissue” the first time, and “human tissue” the second time? I didn’t.

    Thus, the fundamental difference has to do with the RNA sequences that they searched for and included in their second study. And what was that RNA? Well, it was “junk RNA,” lncRNA to be exact. And they found that the lncRNA allowed them to distinguish the cause of heart failure better than any of the other RNA sequences they searched for.

    And so why is it an “unbiased” approach? Because “junk DNA” was included. IOW, we don’t care what kind of RNA transcript we’re looking at this time around, we’re going to look for them all.

    Bottom line, however you slice it, the “bias” was that of excluding so-called “junk DNA=lncRNA” the first time around because of the constraints imposed by sequencing costs.

    If IDists had been doing the experiment, the emphasis of what RNA to be looking for, or not looking for, would have been different; and, based on the results, we would have been ahead of the curve. And that’s the whole point here.

    Now, run along.

  47. 47
    AVS says:

    Either way you slice it, they didn’t just “do the study twice” as you originally thought. They were two different studies, as I said.

    lnRNAs were not included in the scope of the first study simply because of the need to generate an analysis system for lnRNAs and because of the huge amount of data that would need to be analyzed.
    You are losing it over nothing.

    “If IDists had been doing the experiment…”
    Heh that’s a good one.

  48. 48
    PaV says:

    AVS:

    Either way you slice it, they didn’t just “do the study twice” as you originally thought.

    Did I say that they had to “repeat” the study? No.
    Did I suggest that? No.

    I said that they had to do it “twice,” meaning that if they had included lncRNA the first time around, even in mouse tissue, they would have found a connection and been that much ahead of the game.

    There are trade-offs in everything in life, even the science lab. But the entire point here is that the perceived view of lncRNA as “junk” meant that this is what would be left out due to constraints—you say because of all the data they would have had to sort through, but we’re really talking about computer time, which is expensive, and is part of sequencing cost.

    Yes, there is a technical meaning to “unbiased,” however, their “surprise” would not have been an IDist’s “surprise.”

    That’s the carry-away message here.

  49. 49
    AVS says:

    Ah yes, so doing something twice, isn’t the same as repeating something? Are you going to redefine every word in the english language now?
    You don’t have to tell me about the science lab. And no, it’s not as simple as just computer time.
    The sequences eventually need to be sifted through for their relevance at a level that the computer simply cannot do. Just take a look at the number of author’s in the paper, versus the number of authors on the first study. A lot more work had to go into the second study in the form of man-power, not computer power.

    If you IDists are so much better at science, then why don’t we see your work popping up all over the place?
    Oh that’s right, because you guys don’t do science.
    =)

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    AVS as to your claim:

    “you guys don’t do science”

    Actually, it might surprise you to know that Darwinian evolution is not even a proper science in the first place, but is more properly thought of a as a pseudo-science. The reason this is so is primarily because Darwinian evolution has no mathematical demarcation criteria so as to potentially falsify it.

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: (Gregory) Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    In fact each piece of the framework which undergirds Darwinian evolution falls completely apart upon scrutiny:

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science – Part II
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

    Darwinian evolution’s ‘scientific’ attempt to explain ‘Intelligence/Consciousness’ provides even more insight into the absurdity that is Darwinian evolution and also provides a clear example of what demarcates ID from the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution:

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
    http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/pro.....9919758.do

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (the Hard Problem) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

    ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist

    “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    ID certainly does not suffer the embarrassment, as Darwinian evolution does, of having no mathematical demarcation criteria so as to separate it from pseudo-science:.

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    Moreover, Intelligent Design can easily be falsified by empirical evidence, whereas, in my honest opinion, no amount of evidence can ever falsify Darwinism:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    – Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

  51. 51
    AVS says:

    Yes thank you BA.
    “evolution is not science because a bunch of creationists said so and here’s some copy/paste BS about consciousness”
    Great comment.
    Tell me BA, why does the vast majority of the scientific world have no problem with the theory of evolution?
    Oh, that’s right, it’s all a giant conspiracy! Duh.
    What a joke.
    I’ve about had enough, it’s just not funny anymore, it’s quite sad actually.
    Toodaloo.

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    Actually I should amend my statement from

    “no amount of evidence can ever falsify Darwinism”

    to

    “no amount of evidence, that a typical Darwinists will ever accept, can ever falsify Darwinism”

    Because, as far as science itself is concerned, Darwinian evolution has been falsified both empirically by the finding of non-local quantum entanglement in DNA and proteins, and mathematically by numerous angles: Dembski, Sanford, Axe, Wistar, etc.. etc..

  53. 53
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    Tell me BA, why does the vast majority of the scientific world have no problem with the theory of evolution?

    Why can’t that alleged vast majority figure out how to model unguided evolution? Why can’t that alleged vast majority figure out how to test the claims of unguided evolution?

    Why is AVS so ignorant of science?

  54. 54
    Barb says:

    AVS: “why does the vast majority of the scientific world have no problem with the theory of evolution?”

    Scientific truth is not determined by how many people believe it.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    Barb and Joe, you guys may like this:

    A Mono-Theism Theorem: Gödelian Consistency in the Hierarchy of Inference – Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II – June 2014
    Abstract: Logic is foundational in the assessment of philosophy and the validation of theology. In 1931 Kurt Gödel derailed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica by showing logically that any set of consistent axioms will eventually yield unknowable propositions. Gödel did so by showing that, otherwise, the formal system would be inconsistent. Turing, in the first celebrated application of Gödelian ideas, demonstrated the impossibility of writing a computer program capable of examining another arbitrary program and announcing whether or not that program would halt or run forever. He did so by showing that the existence of a halting program can lead to self-refuting propositions. We propose that, through application of Gödelian reasoning, there can be, at most, one being in the universe omniscient over all other beings. This Supreme Being must by necessity exist or have existed outside of time and space. The conclusion results simply from the requirement of a logical consistency of one being having the ability to answer questions about another. The existence of any question that generates a selfrefuting response is assumed to invalidate the ability of a being to be all-knowing about the being who was the subject of the question.
    http://robertmarks.org/REPRINT.....heorem.pdf

  56. 56
    kairosfocus says:

    AVS:

    Perhaps — apart from reflecting on what “paradigm shift” and “scientific revolution” as well as “inescapable limitations of inductive reasoning” imply about prevailing consensuses across time [whether or not dressed in a lab coat] — you need to pause and actually ponder the implications of this, from Lewontin reviewing Sagan’s last book in Jan 1997, in NYRB:

    the problem is to get them [hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [And, if you think this is quote mined or idiosyncratic, kindly read the fuller cite and notes then follow on down and notice esp. what the US NAS and NSTA say.]

    There is such a thing as an evolutionary materialist reigning orthodoxy in origins science (one that is trying to entrench itself by redefining “science” and its methods conveniently but question-beggingly).

    Seminal ID thinker Philip Johnson’s retort in November that year, was dead on target:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    With all due respect, maybe, just maybe . . . you need to open your mind a tad and do some rethinking from a fresh vantage point.

    KF

  57. 57
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77: Muy interesante. KF

    PS: Where do you keep on finding these things? Maybe you should set up a news nuggets blog?

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Cretans are liars should not be confused with they lie with every statement. As the Kantian CI shows, no community like that can exist. Just, they are prone to fibbing. The lie every time is interesting but cannot be factual.

  59. 59
    Barb says:

    BA: Thank you, I’ll be checking that out at lunch time.

Leave a Reply