Larry Moran’s Revisionist History Debunked (Again)

_{Barry Arrington
November 10, 2015

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

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:

Comments

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.Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PST}

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.Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST}

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.Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PST}

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.Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PST}

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.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PST}

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.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST}

@ 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.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PST}

@ 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.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST}

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/releases/2015/11/151109140252.htm
bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PST}

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.Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PST}

Lutsuite Have you no Shame?Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PST}

@ 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?lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PST}

@ 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.lutesuite_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PST}

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/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
bornagain_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PST}

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!Andre_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PST}

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?soundburger_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PST}

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.
goodusername_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PST}

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.Mapou_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PST}

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.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PST}

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.Robert Byers_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PST}

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.es58_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PST}

Well, Barry, you rather obviously claimed that Charles Darwin himself predicted the existence of junk DNA, whether or not you care to admit it.Mung_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PST}

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.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PST}

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?Gordon Davisson_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PST}

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.Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PST}

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.Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PST}

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.Gordon Davisson_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PST}

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.com/2015/09/yockey-and-calculator-versus.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/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_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
bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PST}

I honestly think Larry should be allowed his rewrite of history, as long as it's not taught in the science classroom.Mung_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next