Intelligent Design

Larry Moran’s Revisionist History Debunked (Again)

Spread the love

As we have seen, Larry Moran channeled Ace Ventura when he falsely claimed I do not understand Darwinism and then, when challenged to back up his claim, came up with exactly bupkis.

In the course of demonstrating his own incompetence, Larry gave us this gem of revisionist history:

But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists. Junk DNA confers no fitness advantage on the individual. It’s certainly detrimental at some level because it uses up resources for no benefit. If Darwinists were presented with the possibility of junk DNA back in 1970 then they would almost certainly have rejected it because it doesn’t make sense in a strictly Darwinian world. In fact, most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis DID reject junk DNA back then and they still do even today.

I and several other posters here at UD debunked Larry’s revisionism.

Now, over at ENV, Casey Luskin does a body slam on post-ENCODE revisionism such as Larry put on display above with his Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions.   Luskin leaves Larry nowhere to hide.

In the space of just a couple of days Professor of Biochemistry Larry Moran has been taken down not once but twice by mere lawyers.  Ouch and double ouch.  I’m reminded of Tommy Boy:

50118417

 

 

 

134 Replies to “Larry Moran’s Revisionist History Debunked (Again)

  1. 1
    bornagain says:

    Luskin is a research dynamo!

    Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won’t Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions – Casey Luskin – November 10, 2015 (Part 4)
    Excerpt: Just Kidding — We Anticipated Function!
    When ENCODE’s findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place new ones alongside the old.,,,
    Thus, while it’s true that, (through the years leading up to ENCODE), some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00771.html

  2. 2
    J-Mac says:

    Barry,

    I understand your frustration with LM but you can’t allow yourself to be lowered to his level. If you do, there is no difference.

    My analysis has indicated that LM is a very disturbed individual; for reasons he and us may never know. I know one thing though, that a boy raised in a household without the real father, with the one he only can call by “the man with the last name as mine” gives one clue as to what his childhood was like. He may very well need sympathy rather than rejection.

    I personally find the movie ” God is not dead” very…. revealing… it made me think why some or many people can or are capable of doing if they are angry at gods.

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    J-Mac:

    Barry,

    I understand your frustration with LM but you can’t allow yourself to be lowered to his level. If you do, there is no difference.

    This is nonsense, IMO. Barry is doing exactly what he’s supposed to do: hit the enemy where it hurts the most. And with extreme prejudice if necessary. 😀

  4. 4
    lutesuite says:

    Hello. I’m one of the regulars on Sandwalk.

    Your claim should be quite simple to confirm by providing a quote from a Darwinist, dating to prior to the discovery of junk DNA in 1970, that predicted its existence. Could you provide that? Many thanks.

    UD Editors: Welcome to UD lutesuit. You misunderstand the claim. As Vincent Torley has already pointed out, the Darwinists “predicted” junk DNA AFTER it was “discovered.” This tactic is often called a “post-diction.” It goes like this. After something is discovered, the Darwinist howls in triumph about how this was exactly what the theory “predicts.” Never mind that no one actually predicted it. In the case of junk DNA there were numerous post-dictions all the way up until ENCODE debunked the concept. Then the Darwinists (including some of the very same ones who said the theory predicted junk DNA) howled about how they knew all along that junk DNA was not a real thing, exactly as the theory predicts.

  5. 5
    News says:

    J-Mac, greetings, and with respect: UD can sometimes be a arena, but please, Lordy, Lordy, may it never be a psych ward.

    Moran’s a compatriot of mine, as it happens.

    Whatever his unreasoning attachment to that ol’ Brit toff Darwin, he isn’t really a patient on the couch around here.

    Now, youse guys is winners, so, suit up and PLAY!!

  6. 6
    soundburger says:

    Larry’s quote, above, contains the words “If Darwinists were presented with the possibility of junk DNA back in 1970 then they would almost certainly have rejected it…”
    He not only makes this statement, he uses it to argue that Barry Arrington doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    The EN&V article, contrarily, refers to articles going back as far back as ’68 and ’69, indicating that Darwinists certainly WERE presented with the possibility of junk DNA back in 1970. I would never use one simple statement to accuse Larry Moran of not knowing what he’s talking about -although that is exactly what HE has done regarding Mr. Arrington.
    I would, however, point out the obvious, i.e., that he needs to either admit his error or clarify his statement.

  7. 7
    goodusername says:

    But, as most Sandwalk readers know, nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists.

    I think to disprove that assertion you’d need to find someone claiming that non-functional DNA would be found before it was thought that such a thing was found.

    I have never seen anyone contemplating the existence of non-functional DNA prior to scientists finding (or believing to have found) such DNA.

    Five year old ad-hoc explanations from Darwinists for the existence of junk dna are not “predictions” of junk dna (although, admittedly, some quotes – such as the one the Coyne in the other thread – use that term. They are ad-hoc explanations – albeit ones that I believe make much sense.)

  8. 8
    Barry Arrington says:

    GUN, see our response to lutesuite at 4

  9. 9
    goodusername says:

    Barry,

    Umm, ok, so you agree with Larry that Darwinists didn’t predict junk dna? Ok, I did indeed then misunderstand the claim. But I have no idea what “revisionism” he’s guilty of then.

    BTW, regarding the ENCODE results – every statement I can find from the researchers themselves suggests that even they believe that most – and probably the vast majority – of DNA is non-functional.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-503449

  10. 10
    Lophotroch says:

    Then the Darwinists (including some of the very same ones who said the theory predicted junk DNA) howled about how they knew all along that junk DNA was not a real thing, exactly as the theory predicts.

    What? Are there any examples of this you point to? Dawkins said something vaguely along these lines, but that’s the only one I can think of. Most evolutionary biologists do not claim “junk DNA is not a real thing”, on the contrary it’s likely most of the genome is junk, even after ENCODE.

  11. 11
    Lophotroch says:

    Sounberger,

    One of the articles linked to by the ENV article is precisely Darwinists (scientific sense) reacting to the possibility of junk DNA:

    http://www.genomicron.evolverz.....-1973-and/

    As you’ll read, they did not accept it!

  12. 12
    lutesuite says:

    Thanks for the quick response, Barry. However, that doesn’t really clarify things, I’m afraid.

    If it is true that Darwinists never predicted the existence of junk DNA, then how is Larry Moran engaging in “revisionism” when he says they didn’t predict the existence of junk DNA? Like goodusername (Comment #9), I think further explanation is needed.

  13. 13
    lutesuite says:

    There’s also a rather odd passage in Casey Luskin’s EN&V article that requires clarification:

    Many of Gregory’s quotes don’t really support his case. They simply show biologists finding experimental evidence of function for noncoding “junk” — just like ENCODE did — not predicting it before the fact on the basis of a scientific model (as intelligent design proponents did).

    But if biologists had already demonstrated the existence of function for noncoding “junk”, then how could it be said that ID proponents “predicted” this? According to Luskin, this was already known. For ID proponents to have “predicted” the existence of function for non-coding DNA after this had already been shown would be like me, today, “predicting” that the Kansas City Royals will win the 2015 World Series.

    The arguments being made here just don’t seem to be hanging together, if I may say so.

  14. 14
    Jack Jones says:

    Mr Arrington, You have toasted, roasted, scrambled and fried Professor Moran. Poor Professor Moran is a sucker for punishment.

  15. 15
    Mung says:

    I honestly think Larry should be allowed his rewrite of history, as long as it’s not taught in the science classroom.

  16. 16
    bornagain says:

    As to Darwinian evolution predicting functionality in the genome, Darwinian evolution cannot even explain the origin of a single functional gene and/or protein, much less a genome that is, in terms of integrated complexity, far, far, more functionally complex than any programming language man has ever devised in his computers.

    Yockey and a Calculator Versus Evolutionists – Cornelius Hunter PhD – September 25, 2015
    Excerpt: In a 1977 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Hubert Yockey used information theory to evaluate the likelihood of the evolution of a relatively simple protein.,,,
    Yockey found that the probability of evolution finding the cytochrome c protein sequence is about one in 10^64. That is a one followed by 64 zeros—an astronomically large number. He concluded in the peer-reviewed paper that the belief that proteins appeared spontaneously “is based on faith.”
    Indeed, Yockey’s early findings are in line with, though a bit more conservative than, later findings. A 1990 study of a small, simple protein found that 10^63 attempts would be required for evolution to find the protein.
    A 2004 study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and a 2006 study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required.
    These requirements dwarf the resources evolution has at its disposal. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70.
    Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ersus.html

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi-dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].
    38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142.
    39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432.
    40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654.
    41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997.
    42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816.
    43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Regardless of whatever Darwinists imagine their theory predicts, the fact of the matter is that the scientific evidence itself does not predict that unguided material processes can create even a single protein of that astonishing integrated complexity.

    In fact, as Michael Behe and John Sanford have both pointed out, the scientific evidence itself indicates that unguided material processes will consistently degrade preexistent function and will never create any new function.

    Thus how is it possible for a theory without ANY empirical evidence that it can create even a single protein and/or gene of functional complexity/information to ever predict that the vast majority of the genome will be literally mind blowing in terms of its integrated functional complexity?

    Such a prediction for undirected material processes to create extensive integrated functionality simply does not follow in the least from the evidence we now have in hand:

    Of related note:

    ENCODE: Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3V2thsJ1Wc

    Quote from preceding video:
    “It’s very hard to get over the density of information (in the genome),,, The data says it’s like a jungle of stuff out there. There are things we thought we understood and yet it is much, much, more complex. And then (there are) places of the genome we thought were completely silent and (yet) they’re (now found to be) teeming with life, teeming with things going on. We still really don’t understand that.”
    Ewan Birney – senior scientist – ENCODE

    Scientists go deeper into DNA (Video report) (Junk No More) – Sept. 2012
    http://bcove.me/26vjjl5a

    Quote from preceding video:
    “It’s just been an incredible surprise for me. You say, ‘I bet it’s going to be complicated’, and then you are faced with it and you are like ‘My God, that is mind blowing.’”
    Ewan Birney – senior scientist – ENCODE 2012

  17. 17
    Gordon Davisson says:

    UD Editors: Welcome to UD lutesuit. You misunderstand the claim. As Vincent Torley has already pointed out, the Darwinists “predicted” junk DNA AFTER it was “discovered.” This tactic is often called a “post-diction.”

    Post-dictions do nothing to refute Larry’s claim that nobody nobody predicted junk DNA. In order to make that case, you’d have to argue that Larry was using the term in the sloppy sense that includes post-diction.

    Soundberger @6 wrote:

    The EN&V article, contrarily, refers to articles going back as far back as ’68 and ’69, indicating that Darwinists certainly WERE presented with the possibility of junk DNA back in 1970.

    Presented with the possibility, yes. Predicted? No. Regarded as consistent with Darwinism? Doesn’t look that way.

    Let me give you the opening paragraphs from the 1969 article Casey cited. Hint: the title is “Non-Darwinian Evolution” (by Jack Lester King and Thomas Jukes, Science, 164:788-798, May 16, 1969). It’s available from sciencemag.org (subscription required), or blackwellpublishers.co.uk (scanned PDF). I’ll highlight some particularly relevant bits.

    Darwinism is so well established that it is difficult to think of evolution except in terms of selection for desirable characteristics and advantageous genes. New technical developments and new knowledge, such as the sequential analysis of proteins and the deciphering of the genetic code, have made a much closer examination of evolutionary processes possible, and therefore necessary. Patterns of evolutionary change that have been observed at the phenotypic level do not necessarily apply at the genotypic and molecular levels. We need new rules to understand the patterns and dynamics of molecular evolution.

    Evolutionary change at the morphological, functional, and behavioral levels results from the process of natural selection, operating through adaptive changes in DNA. It does not necessarily follow that all, or most, evolutionary change in DNA is due to the action of Darwinian natural selection. There appears to be considerable latitude at the molecular level for random genetic changes that have no effect upon the fitness of the organism. Selectively neutral mutations, if they occur, become passively fixed as evolutionary changes through the action of random genetic drift.

    The idea of selectively neutral change at the molecular level has not been readily accepted by many classical evolutionists, perhaps because of the pervasiveness of Darwinian thought. Change in DNA and protein, when it is thought of at all, is thought to be limited to a response to activities at a higher level. For example, Simpson (1) quotes Weiss (2) as stating that there is a cellular control of molecular activities, and Simpson adds that there is also an organismal control of cellular activities and a population control of organismal activities, and concludes (1):

    The consensus is that completely neutral genes or alleles must be very rare if they exist at all. To an evolutionary biologist, it therefore seems highly improbable that proteins, supposedly fully determined by genes, should have nonfunctional parts, that dormant genes should exist over periods of generations, or that molecules should change in a regular but nonadaptive way … [natural selection] is the composer of the genetic message, and DNA, RNA, enzymes, and other molecules in the system are successively its messengers.

    (BTW, later in the article King and Jukes make essentially the current arguments for junk DNA, although they don’t use the term.)

    So, adding that to the article Lophotroch pointed out, it looks like Larry was completely right about the history.

  18. 18
    Andre says:

    It seems to me that people have comprehension issues. It’s not about any predictions. It’s about the fact when it was discovered instead of it opposing the previously held view it became part of the narrative. We see this with anything that is contrary Darwinian everytime. Whatever it is it gets incorporated as a supposed part of it.

  19. 19
    Barry Arrington says:

    Andre @ 18:

    It seems to me that people have comprehension issues. It’s not about any predictions. It’s about the fact when it was discovered instead of it opposing the previously held view it became part of the narrative.

    Exactly. It is hard to believe they don’t understand this. It is not that hard.

  20. 20
    Gordon Davisson says:

    Andre, since the argument between Barry and Larry centers on prediction, I’d have to say that is what it’s about. However, let me digress a bit into the question of whether junk DNA has been incorporated into the “Darwinist” narrative (although I’d prefer to call it evolutionary biology). I’d certainly agree that it has. Is there something wrong with that? Because that’s pretty much the norm in science — old theories are modified to include new information as it becomes available.

    When scientists discovered that atoms were made of smaller particles, and could be split apart (note: “atom” means “indivisible”), did it overthrow the atomic theory? Not at all, it was incorporated into the, um, narrative.

    When scientists discovered that the planets don’t orbit a stationary sun, but rather the solar system’s barycenter (around which the sun wobbles), they didn’t abandon the heliocentric theory, they just modified it a bit. And then modified it again when they found the barycenter isn’t stationary either, it orbits the center of the galaxy.

    When scientists learned that Newton’s theory of gravity was wrong, they didn’t throw out the idea of gravity, they just modified it a bit based on general relativity. Initially, the theory of gravity didn’t predict the wobbles of Mercury’s orbit; after the change, it did (well, post-dicted anyway).

    This is the way science works. Scientific theories are not dogmas, they are flexible bodies of understanding that are constantly tested, modified, adjusted, etc. Evolutionary theory is no different. Why should it be?

  21. 21
    Barry Arrington says:

    Gordon Davisson @ 20:

    Preach it brother Gordon, preach it. Your faith is very strong, so strong that it allows you to grit your teeth and disbelieve the obvious.

  22. 22
    Mung says:

    Well, Barry, you rather obviously claimed that Charles Darwin himself predicted the existence of junk DNA, whether or not you care to admit it.

  23. 23
    es58 says:

    BA@21 to Gordon Davisson: This would be a great opportunity, for the sake of the other readers, to spell out what you mean there. Thank you.

  24. 24
    Robert Byers says:

    Everybody gets mad but everybody thinks they are right.
    Modrern evolution is a complicated thing. I have seen many thinking evolutionists say creationists get details wrong. We have not kept up with the recent decades ub wevolutionary thought. They convince themselves by our conversation.
    We need a better answer.
    I think the answer is that evolutionism has not changed in its claims for operation. So we are still rightly attacking the essence. The new details or emphasise does not change this. Its still old Chuck. They still praise Chuck and give him the patent. he hasn’t been replaced by a Einstein like he did with Newton.
    Its probably true creationists make mistakes in stressing mechanisms of evolution relative to the recent ideas.
    Yet we got it right enough that our conversation is on target. Watch details.

    J-MAC. I’m the last to complain about the contact sport of origin descussions but as a Evangelical Christian I found your post stupid offensive and a bitter stupid comment. Below the belt. I have no authority but please get lost.

  25. 25
    Barry Arrington says:

    es58 @ 23:

    Darwinism is fundamentally different from the hard sciences Davisson lists. Yet his religious commitments prevent him from recognizing this obvious fact. That is what I mean.

    See here for an expanded discussion.

  26. 26
    Mapou says:

    Davisson,

    You are completely out to lunch on this one. When an existing scientific theory is falsified, new knowledge is not incorporated into it and the old theory remains. On the contrary, the old theory is discarded and replaced by the new one. This is why GR is not called Newtonian gravity. Something else will come along and replace GR because, as we all know, it has its problems, not the least of which is that it does mesh with quantum mechanics.

    Darwinian evolution is the only allegedly “scientific” theory that has succeeded in bucking this time honored tradition. You know why? It’s obviously because it is not a scientific theory at all. It’s just a lame deception tool used by a cult of reactionaries who are fighting for supremacy above the world’s great organized religions.

  27. 27
    goodusername says:

    I think Larry Moran would actually agree with most of #26

    I am not a Darwinist, just as most of my colleagues in the Department of Physics are not Newtonists, and most of my friends who study genetics are not Mendelists. All three of these terms refer to the ideas of famous men (Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel) who made enormous contributions to science. But in all three cases, the modern sciences have advanced well beyond anything envisaged by their founders.

  28. 28
    soundburger says:

    Gordon, if what you are saying in #20 is true, then it would seem that two of evolution theories most famous individuals and most successful popularizers, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, should, rather than being protected by their colleagues, be ostracized by them and considered passe.

    They are hanging onto a hypothesis, natural selection, that has been replaced, with the same tenacity as Newton might have held on to his theories when confronted with their limitations. Is this good for the theory of evolution? Why should challenging them be any less vehement that challenging Shapiro or ID proponents, for example?

  29. 29
    Andre says:

    I see the comprehension issue persists, lets try and make it easier.

    Dawkins 2009 – Junk is exactly what we would expect if evolution is true.

    Dawkins 2012 – Functional is exactly what we would expect if evolution is true.

    WTF?

    So whatever happens in evolution its true!

  30. 30
    bornagain says:

    GD claims:

    “This is the way science works. Scientific theories are not dogmas, they are flexible bodies of understanding that are constantly tested, modified, adjusted, etc. Evolutionary theory is no different. Why should it be?”

    MMMM, for one thing Darwin’s theory never truly was a ‘scientific’ theory in the first place but was, and is, a pseudo-science, even a religion, masquerading as a science.

    For another thing, Design was the default assumption in science prior to Darwinian evolution and it was that assumption of Design that Darwinian evolution sought to replace, (in fact, all of modern science was born out of the Judeo-Christian presupposition of Design).

    In other words, Darwin’s theory sought to replace the apparent design in life by saying that that apparent design in life was only an illusory ‘appearance of design’.

    It is precisely in that endeavor of trying to say the apparent design in life was only an illusion that Darwinism has failed spectacularly.

    In fact, the apparent design of life has only grown far, far, stronger as our resolution of the inner workings of the cell has increased.

    Moreover, I hold that the apparent design of life has now become so strong that for someone to now publicly deny that apparent design of life has, IMHO, become equivalent to that person declaring that they are stark raving mad.

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,,
    Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling… and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained.
    The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
    “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)”,,,
    And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

    Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – Sept. 2014
    Excerpt: a common line of thought (among molecular biologists) runs this way: “Yes, there is an appearance of mindfulness in all organisms, but this is a mere appearance, or an illusion. And the explanation for the illusion is natural selection”. The idea is that variation plus selection results in adaptation, and adapted behavior possesses a functional effectiveness that looks as if it were mindfully guided.
    Not all those who say such things would be willing to describe their own minds and intentions as illusions. But, in any case, we are left to wonder how an organism’s apparently purposeful activity is explained by similar activity in previous generations. Selection, after all, requires organisms that grow, develop, compete, prepare an inheritance, produce offspring, and otherwise pursue their seemingly intentional and well-directed lives, judiciously improvising all the way. These are the very activities that raise the question of mindfulness. So how does weaving the lives of many such organisms into the infinitely complex narratives of natural selection explain this mindfulness?
    Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.,,,
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

  31. 31
    lutesuite says:

    @ Andre (#29)

    You’re taking Dawkins’ statement out of context.

    That some non-coding DNA will have a function is not inconsistent with the claim that most DNA is junk. Dawkins was responding to claims from ID proponents and creationists that the finding that some percentage of non-coding DNA served a function refuted evolution. Those claims are clearly false.

  32. 32
    lutesuite says:

    @ Mapou (#26)

    When an existing scientific theory is falsified, new knowledge is not incorporated into it and the old theory remains. On the contrary, the old theory is discarded and replaced by the new one.

    I’m sorry, but which theory do you think has been “falsified” here? How has it been falsified?

  33. 33
    Andre says:

    Lutsuite

    Have you no Shame?

  34. 34
    Andre says:

    Lutsuite

    Dawkins 2009 – “It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us… Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.”

    Dawkins 2012 – “Whereas we thought that only a minority of the genome was actually doing something – namely, the minority that actually codes for protein – now we find that actually the majority of it is doing something. What it’s doing i calling into action the protein-coding genes.”

    Please provide where I’m being out of “context”, you’re not on Sandwalk where its custom for a bunch of sheep like yourself to praise praise and back slap each other for being ignorant.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    LS: A clue, if an explanatory framework, in the course of several years, predicts both A and NOT-A . . . then it is a bit of a wax nose and is contradictory or unfalsifiable [so, untestable] or possibly both. Already — and this keeps getting studiously ignored — a priori evolutionary materialist scientism is irretrievably self referentially incoherent and thus is self-falsifying. KF

  36. 36
    bornagain says:

    semi related:

    Complex grammar of the genomic language – November 9, 2015
    Excerpt: The ‘grammar’ of the human genetic code is more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world. The findings explain why the human genome is so difficult to decipher –,,,
    ,,, in their recent study in Nature, the Taipale team examines the binding preferences of pairs of transcription factors, and systematically maps the compound DNA words they bind to.
    Their analysis reveals that the grammar of the genetic code is much more complex than that of even the most complex human languages. Instead of simply joining two words together by deleting a space, the individual words that are joined together in compound DNA words are altered, leading to a large number of completely new words.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....140252.htm

  37. 37
    lutesuite says:

    @ Andre (#34)

    Please provide where I’m being out of “context”, you’re not on Sandwalk where its custom for a bunch of sheep like yourself to praise praise and back slap each other for being ignorant.

    There seems to be some confusion on your part. The paraphrases you wrote in Comment #29 do not accurately reflect the quotes you provide in #34. Dawkins says nothing about what Darwinian theory would predict in either quote. In fact, in the 2009 quote, Dawkins explicitly says he is talking about the predictions of ID, not of Darwinism.

    There’s also the unfortunate fact that Dawkins is incorrect in the 2012 statement, in that the majority of the genome has not been demonstrated to be “calling into action the protein-coding genes”. But that’s irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

  38. 38
    lutesuite says:

    @ Andre (#33)

    Lutsuite

    Have you no Shame

    I’m not sure what you think I should be ashamed about. It’s a legitimate question: Exactly how does the existence of junk DNA falsify the theory of evolution? Can you answer? Please be specific.

  39. 39
    lutesuite says:

    There are a number of different topics being discussed in parallel here, so I don’t want to lose track of the main point.

    Barry Arrington’s article claimed that Larry Moran was engaging in historical revisionism when he stated “nobody predicted junk DNA, certainly not Darwinists.” It has been confirmed by several people here, including ID proponents, that it is in fact true that no Darwinsts predicted the existence of junk DNA. Therefore, the accusation against Moran has been demonstrated to be false.

    I wonder when we can expect a retraction from Barry Arrington.

  40. 40
    lutesuite says:

    LS: A clue, if an explanatory framework, in the course of several years, predicts both A and NOT-A . . . then it is a bit of a wax nose and is contradictory or unfalsifiable [so, untestable] or possibly both.

    Only if “A” and “Not-A” are mutually incompatible. But there is no contradiction in some parts of non-coding DNA serving a function, and other parts of it not.

    You are also repeating the confusion between “Darwinism” and “evolutionary theory” that so confounds many ID proponents. If “Darwinism” is falsified by the existence of junk DNA, then it has been falsified. That says nothing about the theory of evolution itself.

  41. 41
    Andre says:

    Lutesuite.

    Only in your mind is this excusable. It does not matter if Dawkins is right or wrong. It’s not about what he predicted. It is about him buttering his bread on both sides. Just like you are right now.

  42. 42
    Andre says:

    Lutesuite

    Again comprehension is absent from you. It is not about the prediction or wether it’s true or false it’s about the fact that whatever we find an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins will fit it into the narrative as Darwinian as he has done in my cited examples. They are not out of context. They are not misunderstood they are just dishonest like you are now.

    Shame in you.

  43. 43
    Andre says:

    Lutesuite

    We keep asking you guys please link us to this evolutionary theory. Can we have it? Can we test it? Where is your results for it? Are we talking about horizontal evolution? Vertical evolution? Darwinian evolution? Lamarckian evolution? Guided evolution? Punk eek? Drift? Neutral evolution?

    Please be clear when you speak about the theory of evolution so we know which one you are talking about.

  44. 44
    Andre says:

    Lutesuite

    So are you saying that Dawkins is not a Darwinist and when he speaks of evolution he actually means guided evolution not Darwinian evolution?

    Shame on you again.

  45. 45
    Andre says:

    Barry

    It is very clear people are either willful liars or they are morons. What do you think?

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    LS,

    there are ever so many contexts in which darwinist evolutionary theorising (broad sense including the 47 engines of non-foresighted variation since you insist on word games) is both unfalsifiable within the system and as it is rooted in the a priori imposition of evolutionary materialist scientism, is also inherently self-refuting.

    Further to this, you forget we were there too. As I recall and as cites already in hand support, the actual context is that only 8 or so years back, the rage was to talk about the overwhelming presence of “junk” in the genome, numbers north of 90% then being commonly touted.

    Post ENCODE etc, the direct evidence moved regulatory stuff to about 25%, with indicators of 80% being functional, maybe more.

    Just at 25%, a contradiction across only 5 years obtains, so the point is material.

    But in fact that is actually tangential.

    The foundational issues are that:

    1: imposition of a priori materialist scientism on science subverts it from an observational evidence led pursuit of the truth about our world, turning it into an ideological captive to and propaganda mouthpiece for atheism.

    2: this means science is going intellectually and morally bankrupt due to the atheist takeover, which cannot be intellectually defeated due to the rigged rules and ideological domineering.

    3: Collapse is the only way that is going to end, as a part of the much broader collapse of our civilisation due to the same forces.

    4: at the same time, the imposed evolutionary materialist scientism is inherently self-refuting by undermining responsible rational freedom, reason, warrant, knowledge and moral government.

    5: this too points to the collapse of the life of the mind into ideological domineering of institutions that then become rotten and crumble from within.

    6: In that context, the domineering bully boy mentality that is oh so familiar from the new atheists and fellow travellers is symptomatic of a much broader rot.

    7: Civilisations fall from within, aided and abetted by marches of folly led by those with reprobate, debased minds and captivated by base and vile passions and affections who usurp institutional power and demand then enforce going along with or enabling folly, evil and corruption of the worst sort. (For cases in point look, really look, all around you.)

    8: The debates over design inferences are against that backdrop.

    9: The pivotal point at stake is quite simple, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is real, and is present all around us, including in the world of life — including the foundations of cellular replication, thus reproduction.

    10: thus, to be accounted for at OOL, and at origin of body plans to our own.

    11: where, there is precisely one empirically observed, reliable cause of such FSCO/I, intelligently directed configuration, and blind chance and mechanical necessity are not plausible sources of such on the gamut of the sol system or the observed cosmos.

    12: thus, inference to design is warranted as the only vera causa plausible, observed, analytically grounded explanation, hence of the world of life.

    That is utterly unacceptable to the lab coat clad materialist magisterium, and they will fight to the bitter end to block it even as the civilisation collapses around them.

    Utter folly.

    KF

  47. 47

    The randomness in evolution theory predicts junk dna (duh). Selection on it’s own cannot really clean up any junk DNA elements because the cost of junk is so small. It does not cost much energy to make a copy of the junk in every cell.

    But if there was some specialized mechanism that could clean up all junk DNA, then maybe all added up it would be a benefit with some significance.

    But if you then go theorizing about what sort of mechanism that would be that could clear out all junk DNA, then the most obvious candidate would be intelligent design. Intelligent design could do the job of evaluating the DNA, keep the functional and throw out the junk.

    Darwinists are looking at the forming of organisms in the wrong way, with their ass backwards looking towards the past. In stead Darwinists should look forwards towards the future, and regard natural selection as an anticipatory law of nature which is used by intelligent design to choose organisms as a whole.

    Natural selection is a sorting mechanism, in principle it operates in a forced way. The initial variables determine the end result. That means the smallest is always going to sort out as being the smallest, the highest as the highest, and the fittest as the fittest.

    What this means is that within natural selection as a law of nature the reproductive / survival future of an organism is set, and therefore knowable. Intelligent design can therefore use the law of natural selection to see into the future and see which forms of organisms are fit to survive and reproduce.

  48. 48
    lutesuite says:

    So are you saying that Dawkins is not a Darwinist and when he speaks of evolution he actually means guided evolution not Darwinian evolution?

    No, that is not what I am saying. It frankly astounds me that you would think Dawkins is a proponent of “guided evolution.” Do you know anything at all about Dawkins’ views on evolution?

    Again, to help you out: In the 2009 passage you quote, Dawkins writes (my emphasis): “It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene…” When he uses the word “their”, to whom do you think he is referring? Darwinists? Are the Darwinists the ones who are constantly evoking “an intelligent designer?”

    Then, later, he writes: “…it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there…” You seem to interpret this as his saying the existence of junk DNA was a prediction of Darwinism. That’s a rather strange interpretation of that passage, I must say.

  49. 49
    Andre says:

    Lutesuite

    Are you daft?

    I did not say he predicted it I said he said it was junk in 2009 and then in 2012 he said it was not junk. Nobody here said Dawkins predicted it just that he affirmed it as a Darwinist in 2009 and them denied it in as a Darwinist in 2012.

  50. 50

    @kairosfocus “2: this means science is going intellectually and morally bankrupt due to the atheist takeover, which cannot be intellectually defeated due to the rigged rules and ideological domineering.”

    This cannot be explained in terms of a specific ideology like atheism, due to the openness of science. It can only be explained in terms of a general human weakness, the commonly human head vs heart struggle. Competing fact against opinion, resulting in the destruction of opinion, and asserting what is good and evil as fact.

    People have this temptation to make good and evil into a fact (original sin). Such fallen people are naturally attracted to science because of it’s focus on facts. Because making an opinion operates in a free way, they therefore also destroy all facts about anything behaving in a free way, like intelligent design or creationism. So that is how science became to be dominated by thinking of everything in terms of it being forced, rejecting creationism.

  51. 51
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY, the dominance in key power positions in science and education institutions is often 80 – 90+%. (As opposed to the proportions at the level of working stiffs; but with entrenched ideologues backed by media dominance, 5 – 10% is often more than enough to utterly dominate as the history of totalitarian regimes shows.) I often speak of evolutionary materialist scientism and fellow travellers. But here, I am speaking to the hard core. KF

    PS: I do not at all deny general human weaknesses, indeed that is how ideologues dominate. But we must remember that things are not always in decline and decay or intellectual and moral bankruptcy such as now obtains. That decay needs its specific explanation on key factors. And the case of science and society in our time is glaring.

  52. 52
    Zachriel says:

    mohammadnursyamsu: The randomness in evolution theory predicts junk dna (duh).

    Darwinian theory encompassed vestigiality, but the first-order presumption would be that most vestiges would eventually degrade and disappear. However, that depends on resource cost and population size.

    mohammadnursyamsu: But if you then go theorizing about what sort of mechanism that would be that could clear out all junk DNA, then the most obvious candidate would be intelligent design.

    Or large populations and strong selection for replication efficiency.

  53. 53
    lutesuite says:

    I did not say he predicted it I said he said it was junk in 2009 and then in 2012 he said it was not junk. Nobody here said Dawkins predicted it just that he affirmed it as a Darwinist in 2009 and them denied it in as a Darwinist in 2012.

    Well, sure. In 2012 be believed that ENCODE, whose findings were not available in 2009, had shown most non-coding DNA served regulatory functions. He was incorrect in his interpretation of the data and that does not look good on him, no doubt. But I’m not sure why you disagree with someone changing their opinion as new data arises.

    Are you under the impression that, in 2012, he is saying that pseudogenes have a function?

    That aside, thanks for further affirming that Darwinists did not predict junk DNA, and that Larry Moran was not engaging in “revisionist history” when he said they did not. No doubt Barry Arrington’s retraction will soon be forthcoming.

  54. 54
    Axel says:

    ‘”We keep asking you guys please link us to this evolutionary theory. Can we have it? Can we test it? Where is your results for it? Are we talking about horizontal evolution? Vertical evolution? Darwinian evolution? Lamarckian evolution? Guided evolution? Punk eek? Drift? Neutral evolution?”

    Please be clear when you speak about the theory of evolution so we know which one you are talking about.’

    —————–
    Still no answers from you, lutesuite, to these very basic questions posed by Andre in #43, concerning evolutionary theory, as viewed by your good self.

    If you do not respond, then this dispute is meaningless; if you cannot, without making an ass of yourself, you lose ! Painfully. If I were you I’d just continue to ignore it and leave it an open questions as to whether you cannot or will not.

    Anyone can answer questions of their own choosing, which no one has asked, while ignoring those that are put to you. But does it make sense even to you to continue to do so ?

  55. 55
    Barry Arrington says:

    Andre @ 45:

    It is very clear people are either willful liars or they are morons. What do you think?

    A question I have asked myself many times over the years. But, of course, there is a third option. II Cor. 4:4

  56. 56
    kairosfocus says:

    Axel, it is now obvious that the root is we are dealing with a domineering parasitical ideology in the course of destroying its host; through its inherent undermining of responsible rational freedom, the foundation of a sound life of the mind. Immediately, science, science education, the media and policy are being eaten out from within. Longer term, our civilisation now in terminal decline — absent a miracle such as when Nebuchadnezzar came to his senses. I am not holding my breath. KF

  57. 57
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, my bet is all three in varying proportions, but ever to the same individually and collectively predictable, suicidal end. March of willful folly. KF

  58. 58
    Andre says:

    Lutesuite

    You have now established that you are in fact a moron. In 2009 he was certain that it was junk just as he expected if Darwinian evolutionary theory is true. In 2012 it was functional just as he expected if Darwinian evolutionary theory is true.

    I’ll say it again you are a moron. Got it?

    Good!

  59. 59
    lutesuite says:

    Lutesuite

    We keep asking you guys please link us to this evolutionary theory. Can we have it? Can we test it? Where is your results for it? Are we talking about horizontal evolution? Vertical evolution? Darwinian evolution? Lamarckian evolution? Guided evolution? Punk eek? Drift? Neutral evolution?

    I can only speak for myself. When I speak of “evolution”, I am referring to the scientific theory that all life forms currently in existence of earth are descended from a common ancestor, and that this occurred thru a process of genetic changes over the course of many generations. This would include several of the specific subtypes you list above, but would not include a process that required the direct intervention of a god or other “intelligent designer.”

    Hope that helps.

    Does the existence of junk DNA falsify evolution as described by that definition?

  60. 60
    lutesuite says:

    @ Andre:

    In 2009 (Dawkins) was certain that it was junk just as he expected if Darwinian evolutionary theory is true.

    Where does he state in that quote that Darwinian evolution would have led him to expect junk DNA to exist? I don’t see it. Could you quote the precise phrase where he mentions “Darwinian evolutionary theory” by name?

    If anything, the phrase “it is a remarkable fact that…” suggests that this finding was decidedly unexpected.

  61. 61
    lutesuite says:

    I’m glad you are still participating in this discussion, Barry Arrington. Could you let us know when and where you will be issuing the retraction of your inaccurate claim that Larry Moran engaged in “revisionist history”?

  62. 62
    Andre says:

    Luitsuite

    Seriously moron, get your mind and thoughts in order……

    Richard Dawkins quote

    “It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us…

    Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.”

    Now tell me if he’s denying design ion this quote what exactly is he talking about? A unknown theory that we have never heard of? No as Darwin’s 20th century bulldog you and I both know he is talking about Darwinian evolution.

    I don’t care if you are a liar to others but being a liar about the meaning of things to yourself is truly shameful.

  63. 63

    @Zachriel “Or large populations and strong selection for replication efficiency.”

    That is nonsense. The junk DNA would be all over the place in the DNA. So then it would have to be removed piece by singular piece. That is the selection benefit of very much less than a useless single hair. It is in the area of 0.000000000000000000001 selection benefit.

    On darwinian terms the only credible theory is that there are specialized mechanisms in the cell for getting rid of all junk DNA, because all together maybe the junk DNA approaches a selectable difference. Then selection can select for that mechanism.

    But as said, that mechanism for evaluating DNA in terms of junk and functional DNA would most obviously be intelligent design.

  64. 64
    Andre says:

    Moron

    Aah so you have your own version of the many theories of evolution. So tell me is it a guided process or an unguided process?

    Because if you say it is in fact unguided then I’m going to insist that you model it for us.

    Lastly what is this obsession you morons have with gods?

  65. 65
    lutesuite says:

    Aah so you have your own version of the many theories of evolution.

    No, it’s a pretty standard definition. It subsumes several subtheories regarding the details of the process, but I don’t see why that should be a problem. Physicists may disagree on whether the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohmian mechanics, many worlds, etc best describes quantum mechanics, but that doesn’t mean they disagree over QM itself.

    So tell me is it a guided process or an unguided process?

    I’m not sure what you mean by “unguided”. But if you mean does the process require anything other than known biological processes like reproduction, mutation, recombination, genetic drift, natural selection, etc, then I’d have to say those factors are all adequate to explain the observations we make and, therefore, the process is “unguided.”

    Because if you say it is in fact unguided then I’m going to insist that you model it for us.

    There are computer models that mimic the evolutionary process, but I won’t pretend to understand them, never mind to be able to demonstrate them here. But I don’t see why we need that, when the evolutionary process has been demonstrated and observed directly in controlled laboratory conditions:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    BTW, has anyone yet “modeled” the process by which the “intelligent designer” created the bacterial flagellum?

    Lastly what is this obsession you morons have with gods?

    Odd comment to make, given that Barry Arrington was citing the Bible just a few posts earlier.

  66. 66
    Andre says:

    Moron

    Remarkable also means miraculous. Is Dawkins appealing to Gods created junk DNA? See just like morons we can also pick and choose meanings as we see fit and totally disregard the context which is a charge I level against you.

  67. 67
    lutesuite says:

    Remarkable also means miraculous. Is Dawkins appealing to Gods created junk DNA?

    No, he isn’t. HTH.

    Still looking for the part where he specifically mentions “Darwinian theory”?

  68. 68
    lutesuite says:

    Remarkable also means miraculous. Is Dawkins appealing to Gods created junk DNA?

    No, he isn’t. HTH.

    Still looking for the part where he specifically mentions “Darwinian theory”?

  69. 69
    Andre says:

    Moron

    Can any human being be any more moronic than you? When Dawkins speaks about this does he invoke it as the result of God? Guided evolution or Darwinian evolution? What say ye?

  70. 70
    lutesuite says:

    Can any human being be any more moronic than you?

    A cursory reading of the comments here should be sufficient to answer that question. I’ll say no more.

    When Dawkins speaks about this does he invoke it as the result of God? Guided evolution or Darwinian evolution? What say ye?

    You haven’t exhausted the options. Keep going.

  71. 71
    Zachriel says:

    mohammadnursyamsu: The junk DNA would be all over the place in the DNA.

    The basic principles of population genetics implies that in large populations under strong selection for replication efficiency should have low amounts of junk, and that is what we observe.

    mohammadnursyamsu: That is the selection benefit of very much less than a useless single hair. It is in the area of 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001 selection benefit.

    You’re off by a few orders of magnitude. Replication in bacteria consumes 2% of their energy budget, there are additional costs for transcription and translation, and larger genomes slow replication.

    mohammadnursyamsu: On darwinian terms the only credible theory is that there are specialized mechanisms in the cell for getting rid of all junk DNA, because all together maybe the junk DNA approaches a selectable difference.

    Kuo & Ochman, The extinction dynamics of bacterial pseudogenes, PLoS Genetics 2010: “If pseudogenes are deleterious due either to the energetic costs of transcription and translation or to the dominant-negative effects of anomalous proteins, the high efficacy of selection in bacterial genomes is likely to have a role in their removal. This is consistent with our finding that those Salmonella genomes with the lowest genome-wide Ka/Ks ratios denoting a relatively high efficacy of selection harbor the lowest numbers of pseudogenes.”

  72. 72
    Jack Jones says:

    “But I don’t see why we need that, when the evolutionary process has been demonstrated and observed directly in controlled laboratory conditions:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    What is observed is that, No matter how many generations they go through, Ecoli remain Ecoli.

    “BTW, has anyone yet “modeled” the process by which the “intelligent designer” created the bacterial flagellum?”

    Has anyone witnessed a flagellum evolve from a bacterium that had no flagellum?

    If you want to argue against design then you have to start with the origin of life, because if a mechanism was discovered for common descent then the potential would have already existed within the machinery/DNA of the living organism.

    The law of biogenesis shows that life cannot originate spontaneously in nature. Therefore the best inference is that the source of life was from a source that is not governed by natural law.

    “No, it’s a pretty standard definition. It subsumes several subtheories”

    When Jerry coyne says the modern theory of evolution is neo darwinism then he is not calling it a sub theory.

    There is no agreement among evolutionists just to what the theory is, You can be sure that when Coyne talks about what the theory is then he is not talking about the same thing as those that say neo darwinism has failed.

    “Still looking for the part where he specifically mentions “Darwinian theory”?”

    Why would Andre have to show where Dawkins says that?

    Dawkins is a Darwinian evolutionist. If he has since recanted then it would be interesting to see.

    Seems that all you have is the fallacy of quibbling because you cannot refute what Andre Posted.

  73. 73
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: What is observed is that, No matter how many generations they go through, Ecoli remain Ecoli.

    Actually, some of the strains do not pass the standard test for E. coli.
    http://www.microbelibrary.org/.....trate-test

  74. 74
    Andre says:

    Moron

    Then let us quote Dawkins some more

    1976

    “A large fraction of DNA is never translated into protein… Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true “purpose” of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger.”

    The Selfish Gene, page 45
    Oxford University Press

    1998

    ” Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2%?—?considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it… The true information content is what’s left when the redundancy has been compressed out of the message, by the theoretical equivalent of Stuffit.”

    The Information Challenge

  75. 75
    bornagain says:

    as to Lenski’s LTEE. All I have to say is that if this is what Darwinists think experimentally makes their case that unguided material processes can create brains that are far, far, more complex than the entire internet combined, then they need to demand their money back from the college they went to. They were definitely hoodwinked if they think they got a proper science education~! 🙂
    Perhaps they can use that money to go to a good technical college where they can learn some good old fashioned applied science that relates to the real world? 🙂

    Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011
    Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.
    (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51051.html

    Evolution of an Irreducibly Complex System? – Lenski’s E. Coli – Feb. 2015
    Conclusion:
    When viewed objectively, without the blinders of materialistic philosophy, Lenski’s experiments are strong evidence for, and a powerful vindication of, Behe’s arguments in particular, and the skeptics of Darwinism in general.
    At the end of the day, Lenski’s E. coli are just another in a long line of Darwinian claims that, upon closer inspection, fail to live up to their hype: from moth coloration to finch beaks to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In each case, when these examples are carefully studied, instead of supporting the grander claims of the evolutionary creation story, they inadvertently demonstrate the pathetic impotence of Darwinian mechanisms and underscore the need for an alternative source of innovation in the history of life.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-551158

    Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting – Michael Behe – November 21, 2013
    Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture — a cumulative total of trillions of cells — has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that’s equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski’s project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,,
    ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

    Genetic Entropy Confirmed (in Lenski’s e-coli) – June 2011
    Excerpt: No increases in adaptation or fitness were observed, and no explanation was offered for how neo-Darwinism could overcome the downward trend in fitness.
    http://crev.info/content/11060....._confirmed

    As to the much ballyhooed citrate digestion (which was present before in anoxic conditions)

    Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos – Michael Behe – November 13, 2012
    Excerpt: In my own view, in retrospect, the most surprising aspect of the oxygen-tolerant citT mutation was that it proved so difficult to achieve. If, before Lenski’s work was done, someone had sketched for me a cartoon of the original duplication that produced the metabolic change, I would have assumed that would be sufficient — that a single step could achieve it. The fact that it was considerably more difficult than that goes to show that even skeptics like myself overestimate the power of the Darwinian mechanism.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66361.html

    Bacterial ‘Evolution’ Is Actually Design in Action by Brian Thomas, M.S. – Dec. 2012
    Excerpt: At that time, the mechanism underlying the citrate-eating phenotype was unknown. Behe wrote, “If the [Cit+] phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT [Functional Coded elemenT] mutation.”2
    So, the big question is: Did E. coli evolve into a Cit+ strain by natural selection? Or did mutations construct new and functional coded elements to its DNA? If so, it would be the first in recorded biological history. If not, then it would be just another loss or modification of a pre-existing piece.
    In Lenski’s experiment, the bacteria (both Cit+ and wild-type) already possessed a gene named citT. It encodes a protein that transports a range of citrate-like chemicals. The recent results showed that the bacteria made extra copies of citT and a neighboring sequence—a process called gene amplification.
    More copies of the gene should translate to higher amounts of the transporter protein that it encodes. With enough transporters, the bacteria could access enough citrate. But oxygen deactivates citT, and having many copies of a gene that is turned off is not very useful!
    But the bacteria solved this problem when the amplification event also moved the gene sequence to a different place in the bacterial chromosome, where a different but pre-existing promoter could regulate it. Unlike the original one, it appears that the new promoter does not have an “oxygen off” switching mode. Instead, it allowed expression of citT in the presence of oxygen so that the bacteria successfully imported enough citrate to grow.
    The study authors wrote, “The structure of the cit amplification led us to propose that the Cit+ trait arose from an amplification-mediated promoter capture.”1 Further investigation confirmed the proposal.
    So, the bacteria solved the problem of accessing an alternative food source by generating extra copies of the critical gene and by placing those copies under the control of an appropriate promoter. Does any of this resemble natural, undirected Darwinian evolution? Not at all. This amazing mechanism invented no new functional coded elements. It merely modified pre-existing elements.
    Therefore, not only did the Cit+ bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3
    http://www.icr.org/article/bac.....ly-design/

    So at the end of the day we see the loss of, among other things, the bacterial flagellum, and a modification of a preexistent citrate function.

    In what should be needless to say, this is not the evidence that Darwinists need to try to make their case that unguided material processes can create brains that are far, far, more complex than the entire internet combined.

  76. 76
    bornagain says:

    Oh goody, Zach cites a citrate test to determine if the e-coli are a different ‘species’ of bacteria.

    Bet I can use anoxic conditions in order to activate the e-coli’s citrate digestion ability and then make both colors match in the supposed ‘species’ test.

    I guess that would mean, using their logic, that they are both the same species in anoxic conditions but different species in the presence of oxygen? 🙂

    OOPS Zachy, big failure in logic 101

    Forget technical school Zach. I’m afraid even applied science is beyond you

  77. 77
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain: I can use anoxic conditions in order to activate the e-coli’s citrate digestion ability and then make both colors match in the supposed ‘species’ test.

    That’s not the standard test, which is in aerobic conditions.

  78. 78
    Mung says:

    Axel:

    Anyone can answer questions of their own choosing, which no one has asked, while ignoring those that are put to you. But does it make sense even to you to continue to do so ?

    Look you. I am trying to make a career out of doing just that. And I love to learn from the best. So zip it!

  79. 79
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain: “Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.

    That’s how evolution is posited to work, by modification of existing functions.

    bornagain: “No increases in adaptation or fitness were observed, and no explanation was offered for how neo-Darwinism could overcome the downward trend in fitness.

    They were more fit for the given environment. That’s how evolution is posited to work.

  80. 80
    bornagain says:

    Whatever, since the environment itself can be adjusted in the test to give an indication that both species are the same, then by definition, their own tests fails to establish that the bacteria are actually two different species.

    Only someone who was inherently dishonest would even cite such an experiment as proof of macro-evolution.

    And right on time, in walks Zach to cite the experiment as proof of macro-evolution.

    Thus the only thing that the test actually proves is that Darwinists are inherently dishonest in regards to experimental evidence.

    In fact, I think I will keep this experiment in my notes as a prime example of the dishonesty inherent in ‘Darwinian’ experiments purporting to prove macro-evolution is true.

  81. 81
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain: since the environment itself can be adjusted to give an indication that both species are the same, then by definition, their own tests fails to establish that the bacteria are actually two different species.

    The standard test is to determine whether the organism metabolizes citrate in an aerobic environment. It’s not as difficult as you make it out to be.

  82. 82
    bornagain says:

    Whatever Zach, I’m satisfied that the unbiased reader can now clearly see to dishonest shell game you are trying to play with your claim for macro-evolution.

    I’ll respond to your antics no more on this thread.

    The last word to try to wipe some of the egg off your face is all yours.

  83. 83
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain: I’m satisfied that the unbiased reader can now clearly see to dishonest shell game you are trying to play with your claim for macro-evolution.

    The simplest way is to rebut that is to simply review the original comment.

    Jack Jones: What is observed is that, No matter how many generations they go through, Ecoli remain Ecoli.

    Zachriel: Actually, some of the strains do not pass the standard test for E. coli.
    http://www.microbelibrary.org/.....trate-test

  84. 84
    Jack Jones says:

    “The standard test is to determine whether the organism metabolizes citrate in an aerobic environment. It’s not as difficult as you make it out to be.”

    That has never been a marker for evolution ie one type of life form to a new type.

    That’s adaptation and does not support common descent, You have people that can metabolize lactose and those that cannot, those that can metabolize lactose are not considered as becoming a new life form.

    You are doing the old evolutionist equivocation game.

  85. 85
    Axel says:

    Your #78

    Tee hee. Very good, Mung. Indeed, the very best ! And we’ve seen some corkers on here, haven’t we ?

  86. 86
    drc466 says:

    lutesuite:

    You can’t find the revisionist history because you are apparently only able to read one sentence at a time. Shall we move on to the rest of the LM quote?

    …In fact, most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis DID reject junk DNA back then and they still do even today.

    Allow me to break this down for you:
    1) “supporters of Neo-Darwinism…and Modern Synthesis” – Darwinists
    2) “back then” – clear reference to prior sentence’s 1970 timeframe.
    3) “reject junk DNA” – clear statement that Darwinists (see 1 above) did not accept junk DNA (according to LM)
    4) “still” – indicates continuance, as in “ever since 1970”
    5) “even today” – clear statement that Darwinists (see 1, 3) continue not to accept junk DNA (according to LM)

    So – from the 5 points above, LM is providing a revisionist history indicating that Darwinists of the Neo-Darwin/Modern Synthesis viewpoint never accepted junk DNA, let alone tried to use it as a bludgeon against ID and Creationism. Which Arrington, Luskin, et. al. have shown to be egregiously false.

    Claim: Larry Moran is engaged in revisionist history
    Verdict: TRUE

  87. 87

    @zachriel

    That 2 percent was higher than I expected, even for a bacteria, and even if it included all reproduction costs of the entire cell, and not only the cost of copying the DNA.

    But still we are talking about piece by piece removal, which would still be an infinitesimal.

    I think you are not properly separating the model from the reality. You cannot just say Darwinism predicts it because you find it. The model does not predict it.

    It could more likely be intelligent design using natural selection in an anticipatory way.

  88. 88
    drc466 says:

    Zachriel @79,

    bornagain: “Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT. ”

    That’s how evolution is posited to work, by modification of existing functions.

    True or False: One can reach the moon by running far enough, or digging a deep enough hole.
    True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function.

    While I appreciate your stubbornness in the face of contrary evidence, you’re never going to get anyone who isn’t already a committed evolutionist to admit that a degenerate version of e. coli that can do what its parent version can…also do, but to a lesser extent under slightly different external conditions, constitutes evidence that random mutation can generate novel functionality in a lifeform.

  89. 89
    lutesuite says:

    @ drc466 (comment #86)

    You failed to address one term in your breakdown:

    “…In fact, most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis DID reject junk DNA back then and they still do even today.”

    The term “most” does not mean “all”.

    Also, do you think Larry is saying “most” supporters of Neo-Darwinism support “the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis”? Helpful hint: He isn’t.

    With those corrections in mind, try re-running your close-reading analysis….

  90. 90
    vjtorley says:

    Hi Barry,

    I have to say that Casey Luskin’s takedown is one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo!

  91. 91
    drc466 says:

    lute,

    Semantic games, how…disappointing. However, since you have gone there:

    1) from the quote: “most supporters of Neo-Darwinsm and the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis”. I won’t expand on the word meaning of the conjunction “and” – hopefully you can see where it is relevant to your “Helpful hint”. You conflate the two camps – not I, I merely quoted LM. A bit of your own revisionist history, perhaps?

    2) “most” – ah, the weaseling of semantics. Obviously, short of performing a statistical analysis of the publicly stated stances of every person self-identifying as an “evolutionist” during the time period in question, it is difficult to quantify whether “most” accepted junk DNA. Which is as much a strike against LM as against Arrington/Luskin. This is why, in their takedown of LM, A/L quote the major representatives of evolutionary thought at the time – if “most” had disagreed with them, perhaps they should have said so at the time. Silence gives assent, and all that. As there was no significant pushback against Dawkins, Crick, Orgel, etc. when they were claiming most DNA as “junk”, it becomes LM’s burden to show some evidence that “most” were silent objectors to such pre-eminent Darwinist spokesperson’s claims. Merely taking the weasel path that you have and claiming there exists some anonymous “most” who never spoke up on the subject (in which case, how would LM know most never accepted junk DNA?) is pretty weak counter-argument.

    If, however, you would like to rest your case on the ground of the anonymous “most”, feel free to do so. Your call.

  92. 92
    Barry Arrington says:

    VJ @ 90. Indeed.

  93. 93
    LarTanner says:

    Neutral observers see very well what’s going on here: Larry showed that Barry doesn’t understand modern evolutionary theory, and now Barry’s off on the usual windbaggery. Barry’s declared himself the victor in a made-up competition, never seeing that he’s completely missed the point and now comes across as a blowhard and bully.

    Then, more of the same: the IDers focus on ridiculous points of language in mean-spirited and obtuse ravings. The more educated IDers stay silent. And those who know modern evolutionary theory and see little merit in ID try valiantly to discuss substance with the horde.

    No one is fooled, Barry. No one is fooled, UD. Everyone sees how dishonestly and nastily you are conducting these discussions.

    Just stop already. Isn’t it time to pause and see what you are really accomplishing? Seriously, Barry and UD: give it a rest.

  94. 94
    Jack Jones says:

    @LarTanner 93 “Larry showed that Barry doesn’t understand modern evolutionary theory,”

    Evolutionists do not agree on what the theory is, Your own comment shows your own lack of understanding.

    When you do not know what you are talking about then you really have no grounds to judge others.

  95. 95
    Barry Arrington says:

    Really Lar,

    Where did Larry show I do not understand Darwinism? I missed it. Help me out.

  96. 96
    lutesuite says:

    @ vjtorely (#90)

    I have to say that Casey Luskin’s takedown is one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Bravo!

    Hmm. Could you kindly point out the part where he quotes a prediction (by which I mean “prediction”, not “postdiction” or “retrodiction”) made by anyone regarding the existence of junk DNA before junk DNA was experimentally demonstrated. Because that’s kinda the whole point he’s trying to make with that article, and I can’t find it.

    He does mention that one of the earlier teams of investigators to demonstrate the high proportion of repetitive elements in the genome said that they found “repugnant” the idea that these could serve no function. Which is kind of interesting in the context of the current discussion, isn’t it?

    The really odd part of that article is that Luskin proceeds as if the existence of junk DNA has been disproven. Which, given that the present discusion is primarily about whether ID proponents understand the scientific evidence in support of evolution, is actually quite amusing.

  97. 97
    lutesuite says:

    Actually there’s an even bigger problem with Casey’s article: I made the mistake of assuming he accurately represented the studies he quoted. But, in fact, many of them say exactly the opposite of what Casey says they did:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-587465

    Oops! Own goal.

  98. 98
    Mung says:

    LarTanner:

    Neutral observers see very well what’s going on here…

    We neutral observers are just drifting, so really we could go either way.

  99. 99
    Andre says:

    Moron

    So the theory of evolution is some standard definition? Really why then so many different views on said standard? Clearly it’s all true then?

  100. 100
    soundburger says:

    First of all, Andre, why not stop with the insults? It doesn’t make anyone here look good. Yes, Larry’s site is filled with people who behave like ninnies, but lutesuite has never been among them.

    Second, it is true, from both sides, that people are merely parsing words at this point. And verb tenses. Larry and his cadre are doing so over at Sandwalk, and people here are guilty as well.
    As an alternative, if I may be so bold, what it seems that Barry is most eager to point out, as are others here, is that the ‘theory of evolution’ is hardly served by proponents who spin on a dime when new evidence shows up.
    Thus, if someone says, ” the beauty of natural selection is that it streamlines beasts with great precision, so they are suited to their environment, whittling away anything that doesn’t confer an advantage, resulting in a world that looks designed for both predator and prey”…

    when faced with the possibility of junk DNA, says, ” the beauty of natural selections is that it contains its own history, behaving as no designer ever would, keeping records of earlier phases through genetic sequences that no longer serve any purpose, huge stocks of ‘junk’ etc.”

    ..something smells fishy. If a theory is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate itself to any input, it fails the sniff test. And, if sophisticated evolutionists recognize this, they should be hollering for natural selection to be no longer taught, rather than applauding the bestselling, religion bashing, books of its hold-out proponents.

  101. 101
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N 2: It is worth cross-posting the following clip to deal with what was already emerging a decade past:

    [Aarron T. Willingham 1 and Thomas R. Gingeras,
    Cell 125, June 30, 2006 ©2006 Elsevier Inc., p 1215ff:]

    ESSAY

    TUF Love for “Junk” DNA

    >>Over the past five years, research –
    ers working with various organisms
    and using multiple technologies to
    explore genomewide gene expres-
    sion have converged on the same
    surprising conclusion: transcription is
    widespread throughout the genome
    and many-fold higher than existing
    genome annotations would predict.
    The burgeoning number of these
    transcripts of unknown function, or
    TUFs (Cheng et al., 2005), highlights
    a remarkably complex transcriptional
    architecture that includes alternative
    splice isoforms for almost all protein-
    coding genes, widespread transcrip-
    tion of antisense RNAs, and abun-
    dant noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs)
    with important biological functions.
    By some estimates, TUFs could rival
    protein-coding transcripts in number
    (Cawley et al., 2004). Such transcrip-
    tional diversity may explain how the
    relatively similar numbers of protein-
    coding genes estimated for fruit fly
    (13,985; BDGP release 4), nematode
    worm (21,009; Wormbase release
    150), and human (23,341; NCBI
    release 36) result in the remarkable
    phenotypic differences observed
    among these species.>>

    KF

    PS: Also note the clip from Sternberg in the parallel thread at 115. I commented:

    . . . two pivotal papers c 1980 — Nature of course being the no 1 general journal of the natural sciences, rendered plausible on prevailing evolutionary explanatory frameworks, the then known observations.

    This is HYP-X accounts for existing observations, o1, o2 . . . Oj. In short, prediction in the sense of inference to best current acceptable explanation, per existing evidence seen as hard to handle otherwise. Retrodiction.

    While that was so, the rhetorical pattern of triumphalistically hitting “Creationists” and “IDiots” with junk DNA set in and became a stock talking point.

    Then came ENCODE etc, and there was obviously another vestigial organs argument in hand.

    We are seeing revisionising in the teeth of the facts of the timeline, and damage control backed up by well you dummies and ignoramuses just don’t understand.

  102. 102
    bornagain says:

    With ENCODE Results, Evolutionary Biologists Are Forced to Wait in Perplexity – Casey Luskin – November 11, 2015
    As we recently saw, some evolutionary scientists have responded to ENCODE by attempting to rewrite history and claim that evolutionary science predicted function for non-coding DNA all along. Other evolutionists handle ENCODE’s results in a more candid manner. Instead of rewriting history, they acknowledge the evidence now supports mass functionality in the genome, and even concede that evolutionary models didn’t anticipate this result. They are compelled to live with ambiguity until evolutionary models come along to explain ENCODE’s data.
    For example, lead ENCODE researcher John Stamatoyannopoulos admits that “new models of evolutionary conservation are needed”1 to explain why so much human DNA is functional. Similarly, in a Nature article titled “Celebrate the Unknowns,” Philip Ball reflects upon ENCODE’s implications:
    “[T]he current picture of how and where evolution operates, and how this shapes genomes, is something of a mess. … But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative ‘age of the genome’ with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.”2
    Aside from Ball’s admission that ENCODE leaves evolutionary genomics in “a mess,” don’t miss his last two sentences. In referring to “detractors” who make “demolitions” of “simplistic portrayals of evolution,” he’s referring to proponents of intelligent design, who point out that ENCODE refutes evolutionary models predicting a junk-filled genome. Now that those predictions have failed, the best way to save evolution from ENCODE is to disavow those models by calling them “simplistic” or “straw men.”
    Ball is being honest when he says that ENCODE’s data wreak havoc upon old evolutionary models, and that evolutionists cannot, presently, explain those results. What he doesn’t tell readers is that those old models that predicted junky genomes were not “straw men” or fringe hypotheses. The were well-accepted proposals and direct consequences of evolution-based population genetics math.
    References:
    [1.] John Stamatoyannopoulos, “What does our genome encode?” Genome Research, 22:1602-1611 (2012).
    [2.] Philip Ball, “Celebrate the Unknowns,” Nature, 496:419-420 (April 25, 2013).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00821.html

  103. 103
    Evolve says:

    Well done, lutesuite!

  104. 104
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: That has never been a marker for evolution ie one type of life form to a new type.

    That’s the whole point, of course, life is all one big family. Humans are deuterostomes with appendages for stuffing food into one end.

    mohammadnursyamsu: But still we are talking about piece by piece removal, which would still be an infinitesimal.

    Don’t think you are using the word “infinitesimal” correctly. There’s also the additional time involved in replication.

    mohammadnursyamsu: You cannot just say Darwinism predicts it because you find it. The model does not predict it.

    The basic principles of population genetics implies that large populations under strong selection for replication efficiency should have low amounts of junk. The quantification, though, is dependent on many factors.

    drc466: True or False: One can reach the moon by running far enough, or digging a deep enough hole.

    Walking won’t work. A hole through the Earth might, though. You would have to add energy on the way through. Probably false as a practical matter. A moon tram might be easier to build.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram

    drc466: True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function.

    Randomly? Cars don’t reproduce, and car parts tend not to be sticky and recombine in many interesting way, like molecules, so false. However, organisms do reproduce, molecules do tend to be sticky and interact in many different ways, populations can and do evolve, and we have evidence of billions of years of adaptive evolution.

  105. 105
    Jack Jones says:

    Zach said “That’s the whole point, of course, life is all one big family”

    Well you do not believe there is any line of demarcation between rats and humans, Yet you would probably not have a problem with rats being poisoned but if that were the case, if there is no line of demarcation separating rats from Humans, then you wouldn’t have any problem with Humans being poisoned too.

  106. 106
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: Well you do not believe there is any line of demarcation between rats and humans …

    Vive la différence !

    Jack Jones: Yet you would probably not have a problem with rats being poisoned but if that were the case, if there is no line of demarcation separating rats from Humans, then you wouldn’t have any problem with Humans being poisoned too.

    Actually, we’re rather fond of the humans.

  107. 107
    beau says:

    Lutesuite has,without a doubt, proven chivalry still exists. Leaving the safety of the sandwalk and venturing into the cold wet streets of uncommon descent, laying his coat across each puddle his leader blindly stumbles upon! Kudos!

  108. 108
    asauber says:

    “Actually, we’re rather fond of the humans.”

    Why, Zachie?

    Andrew

  109. 109
    Mung says:

    Some of my best friends are humans.

  110. 110
    Jack Jones says:

    Pz Myers believes himself to be a fish, Zach believes himself to be a rat. Any reasonable person will believe them to be loopy.

  111. 111
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: Why, Zachie?

    Consider it a peccadillo, if you like.

  112. 112
    kairosfocus says:

    Zachriel, 104:

    drc466: True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function.

    [Z:] Randomly? Cars don’t reproduce, and car parts tend not to be sticky and recombine in many interesting way, like molecules, so false. However, organisms do reproduce, molecules do tend to be sticky and interact in many different ways, populations can and do evolve, and we have evidence of billions of years of adaptive evolution.

    Nope, strawman caricature.

    At OOL, the first pivotal context, the origin of the FSCO/I involved in the code using, von Neumann self replicating system needs to be reasonably accounted for on observed adequate cause. The only relevant blind watchmaker forces there are those of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics in that pond, ocean vent, comet core or whatever.

    And, the only actually observed adequate and needle in haystack plausible cause of FSCO/I is design.

    Your life forms reproduce, magic of chance variation and happenstance of differential reproductive success magic wand fails at the root of the tree of life.

    Nor is this news.

    50 years before Darwin’s arguments, Paley not only wrote about stumbling on a stone vs finding a watch in a field in Ch 1 of Nat Theol. Nope, in that 1802 work, his second short chapter, only a couple of pages on, argued:

    Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to

    [–> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, “stickiness” of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]

    all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [–> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] — the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [–> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . .

    The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done — for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art

    [–> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic “supernatural”) vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]

    . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair — the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [–> i.e. design].

    . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch
    cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was.
    What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [–> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . .

    Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was.

    Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [–> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as
    they were before.

    Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. “Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]

    Once the actual FSCO/I rich nature of cell based life and the similar FSCO/I involved in self replication were understood, the force of this argument redoubled.

    No, trying to dismiss the world of technology as irrelevant to cell based life as such reproduces, fails.

    Indeed, such a dismissal becomes a strawman caricature.

    As has been repeatedly pointed out at UD, but just as often, studiously ignored by determined objectors.

    It is time to do better than this, Z.

    KF

  113. 113
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: Nope, strawman caricature.

    Add strawman to the things you don’t understand.

    We were presented an analogy, and explained why the analogy doesn’t hold. Cars don’t reproduce, and the parts don’t connect in ways similar to molecular interactions.

  114. 114
    Virgil Cain says:

    Earth to Zachriel:

    Biological reproduction is the very thing you need to explain and you cannot. That means you lose, again. Not that you would care or understand that.

  115. 115
    Jack Jones says:

    “Cars don’t reproduce, and the parts don’t connect in ways similar to molecular interactions.”

    A very strange objection, If a car that reproduced was discovered then I would want to know who the inventor of this car was, I wouldn’t assume it came about by chance.

    Chance evolutionists are strange, they say, give us an existing living organism, with complex functional machinery, give us DNA and its functions which is far more complex than any windows programme, give us the complex function of reproduction.

    Then they turn around and claim no designer is needed, very strange people indeed.

  116. 116
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: Chance evolutionists are strange, they say, give us an existing living organism, with complex functional machinery, give us DNA and its functions which is far more complex than any windows programme, give us the complex function of reproduction.

    It’s no different in that respect than any other theory with limited domain. Given the Sun and planets, Newton’s theory explains how they move.

  117. 117
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    It’s no different in that respect than any other theory with limited domain.

    Not having a theory is no different in that respect than any other theory with limited domain- really? Wow

  118. 118
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, strawman caricature again, you have misrepresented what I said and in so doing set up and knocked over a strawman then used that to push a talking point that I am a dumb ignoramus. As in ad hominem, well poisoning emphasis. I suggest you start with Paley, then understand on the issue of OOL involving von Neumann kinematic self replication [vNkSR] why the cars do not reproduce argument is 200 years out of date. As in, answered before Darwin composed his theory by a generation. And BTW the common praxis of representing Paley by Ch 1 then making an objection that does not reckon squarely with the immediately following Ch 2 self replicating watch is a strawman too. If you want me to spell it our more, for self replicating watch in ch 2 read self replicating car — and the claimed analogy collapses into a strawman caricature, especially post 1948 – 57 as both the genetic code and the vNkSR were put on the table. As in the matter was addressed on a design perspective by 1802; Darwin wrote in 1859. Lastly, the self replication facility is at the root of the tree of life, the oh it’s a limited theory ducks the pivotal issue, rather than addressing it fairly. Speaks volumes. KF

  119. 119
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: then understand on the issue of OOL

    We weren’t discussing the origin of life or the origin of cars, but the evolution of life, and the analogy to the random re-assortment of car parts.

  120. 120
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, OOL and particularly origin of vNkSR is material to the issue as you well know. One of the central organisation and information origins questions is origin of cell based life with encapsulation, smart gating, metabolic automaton and integral self replication that uses coded information . . . at the root of the tree of life in a context where appeal to the magic of chance variation and differential reproductive success fails as the origin of reproduction using vNkSR is precisely what is in question as a case of origin of FSCO/I. So this is experimentum crucis, or rather its cousin. Trying to suggest a disanalogy by saying cars don’t reproduce then when the FSCO/I origin question put on the table by Paley in 1802 is raised by way of the self replicating watch thought exercise, hopping over to but evo is after origin of reproduction is as clear a case of cherry picking to suit your agenda as I have seen. FYI, you put reproduction on the table when you thought it suited you. I took it up and highlighted what it brings up. Now you want to duck the FSCO/I origin question by ruling convenient datum lines, when all along you know that in both HS and College cases, OOL is routinely presented with the wider theory, often in such a way as to give a false impression of effective certainty or “no big problem.” Consider your bluff called and raised. KF

  121. 121
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    We weren’t discussing the origin of life or the origin of cars, but the evolution of life, and the analogy to the random re-assortment of car parts.

    How life originated, ie by design or by happenstance physicochemical processes, determines how it evolved, ie by design or by happenstance physicochemical processes.

    How cars originated, ie by design or happenstance physicochemical processes, determines how they operate, ie by design or by happenstance physicochemical processes.

  122. 122
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: OOL and particularly origin of vNkSR is material to the issue as you well know.

    No, it wasn’t. The analogy presupposed the existence of a working automobile.

  123. 123
    kairosfocus says:

    Z,

    Let’s roll the tape from 112:

    Zachriel, 104:

    drc466: True or False: One can create an airplane by randomly assembling parts of a car that retain their existing function or a broken version of their existing function.

    [Z:] Randomly? Cars don’t reproduce, and car parts tend not to be sticky and recombine in many interesting way, like molecules, so false. However, organisms do reproduce, molecules do tend to be sticky and interact in many different ways, populations can and do evolve, and we have evidence of billions of years of adaptive evolution.

    [KF:] Nope, strawman caricature.

    At OOL, the first pivotal context, the origin of the FSCO/I involved in the code using, von Neumann self replicating system needs to be reasonably accounted for on observed adequate cause. The only relevant blind watchmaker forces there are those of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics in that pond, ocean vent, comet core or whatever.

    And, the only actually observed adequate and needle in haystack plausible cause of FSCO/I is design.

    Your life forms reproduce, magic of chance variation and happenstance of differential reproductive success magic wand fails at the root of the tree of life.

    Nor is this news.

    50 years before Darwin’s arguments, Paley not only wrote about stumbling on a stone vs finding a watch in a field in Ch 1 of Nat Theol. Nope, in that 1802 work, his second short chapter . . .

    Do you see how the OOL context becomes immediately, directly relevant?

    Chemicals in Darwin’s warm little pond etc do not reproduce, but we are being expected to accept them as blindly stumbling on reproduction as they are “sticky.”

    OOL is relevant, builds directly on what is put in play and brings out the major adequate empirically grounded cause gap.

    And the consistent dodging around the point made by Paley in Ch 2 is also glaring.

    KF

  124. 124
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: Nope, strawman caricature.

    As noted above, you need to add strawman to things you do not understand.

  125. 125
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, you are doubling down, having been shown that if you appeal to cars as non reproducing entities and to “sticky” chemicals, it is then entirely in order for someone to respond by pointing to Darwin’s warm little pond of sticky molecules and the challenge to get to reproduction. Which just happens to be the root of the darwinist tree of life, OOL. That you have no cogent response reveals just how hollow your talking point was, especially when a 200 year old challenge is on the table. KF

  126. 126
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: having been shown that if you appeal to cars as non reproducing entities and to “sticky” chemicals, it is then entirely in order for someone to respond by pointing to Darwin’s warm little pond of sticky molecules and the challenge to get to reproduction.

    That wouldn’t make it a strawman. In any case, we didn’t appeal to cars. That was drc466, who drew an analogy of random re-assembly of car parts to evolution, not the origin of cars to the origin of life.

  127. 127
    Jack Jones says:

    Design Vs Chance when it comes to biology starts with the origin of life, If you want to argue against Design in biology then you have to deal with the origin of life, if you do not want to deal with the origin of life then you can’t argue against Design.

  128. 128
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: Design Vs Chance when it comes to biology starts with the origin of life, If you want to argue against Design in biology then you have to deal with the origin of life, if you do not want to deal with the origin of life then you can’t argue against Design.

    Angels are extraneous entities for explaining the motions of the planets, regardless of how the planets were formed. Similarly, a designer is an extraneous entity for explaining how life has diversified, regardless of how life began.

  129. 129
    Jack Jones says:

    @Zach “Similarly, a designer is an extraneous entity for explaining how life has diversified, regardless of how life began.”

    No, because if you believe that all life is related from one initial living organism and your position was true, then the potential would have already been contained in the machinery and DNA of a first living organism.

    When you argue against design then you are begging the question, because you are assuming that a first living organism came into being by chance.

    Instead of fallaciously begging the question, you need to demonstrate that life originated spontaneously in nature.

    If you want to argue against design in biology then you cannot beg the question and first assume a living organism came into being by chance, You have to demonstrate it. If you do not want to argue for the origin of life then you cannot argue against design .

  130. 130
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: No, because if you believe that all life is related from one initial living organism and your position was true, then the potential would have already been contained in the machinery and DNA of a first living organism.

    If you mean the ability to reproduce, perhaps; but that is all that is required as a precept; just as the existence of planets is all that is required as a precept to explain their motions.

    Jack Jones: When you argue against design then you are begging the question, because you are assuming that a first living organism came into being by chance.

    The argument is that design is an extraneous entity for explaining planetary motions, or for how life evolves.

  131. 131
    Jack Jones says:

    “The argument is that design is an extraneous entity for explaining planetary motions, or for how life evolves.”

    To say that design is an extraneous entity for “how life evolves” is to assume that the potential which would already reside in a first living organism (on your worldview), came about by chance.

    Furthermore, to believe life can originate spontaneously in nature from non living matter, is not consistent with how nature is known to operate.

    You can only call it extraneous if you first assume a first living organism came about by chance.

  132. 132
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: To say that design is an extraneous entity for “how life evolves” is to assume that the potential which would already reside in a first living organism (on your worldview), came about by chance.

    The potential is reproduction, and from that, evolution theory provides a scientific explanation for what happened afterwards — even if the first life was designed. A designer is extraneous to this explanation, just as angels are extraneous to explaining planetary motion. (You have ignored the argument twice now.)

    alter-Jack: To say that design is an extraneous entity for “how planets move” is to assume that the potential which would already reside in the planets, came about by chance.

  133. 133
    Jack Jones says:

    “The potential is reproduction, and from that, evolution theory provides a scientific explanation for what happened afterwards — even if the first life was designed.”

    There is no evidence that reproduction originated by chance. You are begging the question again and assuming that the ability came into being by chance.

    “evolution theory provides a scientific explanation”

    There is no “evolution theory” in some singular sense.

    Evolutionists can’t agree on what the theory is.

    “A designer is extraneous to this explanation”

    On the contrary, it is consistent with the law of Biogenesis.

    You are appealing to unknown extraneous chemistry when you believe chemistry operated differently in the past.

    “just as angels are extraneous to explaining planetary motion. (You have ignored the argument twice now.) ”

    No, Underlying scientific laws and the uniformity of nature are best explained by design and not by chance.

    The idea that the universe can be understood and that it has underlying laws that can be discovered is consistent with a design origin for the universe and inconsistent with one where ” stuff happens for no reason” provides no basis for science.

    “alter-Jack: To say that design is an extraneous entity for “how planets move” is to assume that the potential which would already reside in the planets, came about by chance.”

    No, that is a Strawman, Design best explains the lawful nature of the universe which explains things like Planetary Motion etc.

  134. 134
    Zachriel says:

    Jack Jones: No, Underlying scientific laws and the uniformity of nature are best explained by design and not by chance.

    Yet, the scientific theory of gravity has no design component, but is very successful at predicting the position of planets. Design is, therefore, extraneous.

Leave a Reply