A friend writes to draw our attention the venerable Larry Moran at Sandwalk, allowing us to know that it’s a shame that some scientists don’t seem to think that most DNA is junk any more:
I just found this video that was posted to YouTube on May 2019. It’s produced by the University of California and it features three researchers discussing the question, “Is Most of Your DNA Junk!” …
They also propose that excess DNA might be present in order to ensure diversity and prepare for future evolution. All three seem to be comfortable with the idea that excess DNA may be protecting the rest of the functional genome.
This is a good example of what we are up against when we try to convince scientists that most of our genome is junk.
Larry Moran, “Three scientists discuss junk DNA ” at Sandwalk
Well, Larry, eventually people feel allowed to ask questions and develop new ideas. Anyway, you used to comment here. Come and help us wait out COVID crazy.
Here’s the vid:
University of California Television (UCTV) (Visit: http://www.uctv.tv/) Alysson Muotri and top geneticists Rusty Gage and Miles Wilkinson explore the fact that ninety-nine percent of human DNA doesn’t code for anything used by the human body. Series: “The Stem Cell Channel” [5/2019] [Show ID: 33492]
Alexa rankings
EN……. 221,666
TO……. 447,175
UD……..587,622
SW…….763,618
PT…… 2,616,518
PS…… 4,753,129
TSZ….5,415,144
So they have to convince scientist that most of your dna is junk
It’s a very telling thing
Junk DNA is a shining example of the unfalsifiable, pseudoscientific, nature of Darwinian evolution.
The prediction of Junk DNA was not just some common sense prediction that followed somewhat directly from the premises of RM and NS, (random mutation and natural selection), of Darwinian evolution, but is a prediction that was born out of the mathematics of population genetics itself.
As Robert Carter states, “Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done.”
Here is a short history of the Junk DNA argument of Darwinists,
Richard Sternberg traces how the junk DNA argument developed through the mid 1970’s to the early 80’s and beyond in the following article:
Dr. Wells also gives some historical background as to why many Darwinists did everything they could to try to discredit the ENCODE findings of pervasive functionality for the genome:
In 2003, John S. Mattick stated that the prediction of Junk DNA by Darwinists, “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
In other words, Neutral theory, and the entire concept of junk DNA, was not developed because of any compelling empirical observation, but was actually developed because it was forced upon Darwinists by the mathematics of population genetics. In plain English, neutral theory, and the concept of junk DNA, is actually the result of a theoretical failure of Darwinian evolution, specifically the failure of natural selection, within the mathematics of population genetics!
Because the prediction of Junk DNA is based in the mathematics population genetics, that is the primary reason why Dan Graur stated, after the results of ENCODE came out, (results that showed pervasive functionality across the entire genome), that “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.”
In the following article Larry Moran quotes Austin Hughes who states, ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’
Thus, with Natural selection being tossed by the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and by empirical evidence), as the supposed explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from population genetics as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing that the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in pervasively throughout life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.
To call such a move on the part of Darwinists disingenuous would be an understatement.
In fact, because of the mathematics of population genetics, Dan Graur and Larry Moran insist that not only is some negligible amount of the genome to be considered junk but that upwards to 90% of DNA must be junk:
I hold Moran’s 10% estimate for deleterious mutations, that he used in his calculation in the preceding paper, to be far too conservative, and thus the percentage of junk DNA, according to his own calculation, should actually be much higher than his 90% estimate,,, As Michael Behe stated in the following paper,, we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent
Moreover, as John Sanford showed in his book Genetic Entropy and the following paper, the unselectable ‘near neutral’ mutations, which Dr Moran classified as perfectly neutral in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as slightly deleterious mutations that will build up over time instead of being classified as perfectly neutral.,,,
Thus, even though Larry Moran used unrealistic estimates for deleterious mutations in his calculation, Moran was still only able to calculate that 10% of the genome may be functional. The fact of the matter is that if realistic estimates are used in the calculations, and if Darwinian evolution is assumed to be true in the calculations, then ALL, i.e. 100%, of the genome should be functionless junk, instead of just 90%.
Moreover, these leading Darwinists insisted that most of the genome must be junk in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary from ENCODE, and from other sources
Thus in conclusion, although the prediction of junk DNA followed directly from the mathematics of population genetics, and although ENCODE. and many other sources, empirically falsified that prediction of Darwinian evolution, Evolutionists in general, and Dan Graur and Larry Moran in particular, did not accept those empirical finding from ENCODE. In short, Evolutionists in general, and Dan Graur and Larry Moran, refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory.
Yet, if your theory does not have a criteria for potential falsification via empirical testing, then it is not science
To repeat, Junk DNA “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
Verse:
Fascinating how some scientists cling to their reductionist principles. Assuming that anything not coding for a protein or enzyme must be “junk” is so naively arrogant. Especially when recent research has revealed multiple purposes of much of that 99%, to cling to the “junk DNA” myth is just stupid. Here is an analogy that looks at possible additional purposes for the rest of the genome:
https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-junk-dna-functionality-analogy.html
Alexa rankings
EN……. 221,666……….. 220,796
TO……. 447,175………… 459,635
UD……..587,622……….. 543,442
SW…….763,618………… 763,932
PT…… 2,616,518………..1,908,454
PS…… 4,753,129……….4,753,952
TSZ….5,415,144……….. 5,416,611
Apparently the CoViD-19 lockdown “stay-at-home” has brought visitors to some websites in the Alexa ranking list:
Dr Moran’s SandWalk has done remarkably well since last March 15.
Now Peaceful Science has come back from the bottom (actually at some point they were out of the list)
Perhaps more folks have found spare time to look at these websites lately? Dunno.
TSZ still crawls down there at the bottom of the list. Any idea why?
Hi Denyse,
It’s true that I used to comment on this blog and try to answer legitimate scientific questions in order to inform your readers.
It was a waste of time.
@9 Larry Moran
Hi distinguished Dr. Moran.
Could it be possible that you did not succeed here because what you were trying to teach was garbage instead of science?
@Larry A few times I’ve tried to at least point them to some introductory textbooks. No luck yet.
How about some graduate texts on evolutionary biology which state they have no explanation for macro evolution (Please no discussion over the definition of macro evolution. Everybody knows what the term refers to). And the retort by an evolutionary biologist in a debate that his belief was based on his faith in deep time.
I never saw a text book on evolutionary biology that could prove their models worked. I’ve read a lot of them. Do you have one? That would really help the debate along.
Hmm, Moran would like teach us some things, Well, let’s see what Larry Moran’s own students say about him:
You get the idea.
Don’t be too discouraged Moran, you can always teach by being the bad example that other teachers will know to avoid.
Bornagain77 @ 13
And what does any of that have to do with his competence on the issue of “junk” DNA?
Seversky, “what does any of that have to do with his competence on the issue of “junk” DNA?”
Let’s take a guess Seversky, perhaps being an arrogant, egotistical. know it all who refuses to listen to others might just hamper his ability to humbly admit when he was wrong on Junk DNA?
But hey, I am guessing here, others can add their two cents as to why they think Moran is so out of step on the issue of Junk DNA.
@13 Bornagain77:
Haha. And the most important part: he was wrong.
BA77
I couldn’t have said it better. Oh, wait, you weren’t referring to yourself? My mistake.
.
circa 2011
Larry, back in 2011 you were told that, indeed, the information recorded in the gene operated exactly like other forms of encoded information — a fact that has been carefully and repeatedly documented in the physics literature for more than half a century.
Your response in 2011 was to simply punt walk away from the conversation. Walking away from the presentation of documented physical evidence is a rather surprising choice for an otherwise confrontational and opinionated professor of biochemistry, don’t you think Larry?
And (as I hope you would have already been aware) everything that I was presenting to you in 2011 was all famously predicted to be the case by none other than John Von Neumann. Isn’t that right? When Von Neumann laid out the organizational structure of autonomous open-ended self-replication (requiring a quiescent encoded description, a set of interpretive constraints, and a semantically closed coordination) was he “playing word games instead of addressing real science”? Was John Von Neumann one of those IDiots you speak of? Of course not. Far from being a situation where esteemed scientists (such as Turing or von Neumann) are misunderstood or misinterpreted, or that the microscopic physical descriptions of the gene system (such as that recorded by Pattee or Barbieri, for instance) are just plain wrong; the real problem here is you yourself, isn’t that right Larry?
Larry Moran, as a scientist and an educator, why do you run from documented physical evidence? Why do you ignore the history of science? It is a question that answers itself, does it not?
Ed George, my comment as to Moran’s overbearing and egotistical personality was taken directly from the evaluations of Moran’s students themselves on Moran’s teaching ability. I merely observed that such a prideful, egotistical, personality, if true, would go a very long way towards explaining why Moran refuses to admit when he is wrong on Junk DNA.
But anyways Ed George, after you accusing me of being what Moran’s students observed Moran to be, namely of being prideful to the point of refusing to admit when I may be wrong, you also directly implied that I was wrong on Junk DNA and that Moran was right.
So, since you apparently agree with Moran, to the empirical evidence we will go.
Moran believes that upwards of 90% DNA is junk?
Yet, via empirical evidence, I hold that Moran’s 10% estimate for deleterious mutations, that he used in his own calculation in the preceding paper, to be far too conservative, and thus the percentage of junk DNA, according to his own calculation, should actually be much higher than his 90% estimate. Indeed it should be, when taking into account a far more realistic picture of ‘slightly deleterious’ mutations, for all practicle purposes, 100% junk DNA.
As should be needless to say, for the mathematics of population genetics to predict that there should be 100% Junk DNA presents a rather insurmountable problem for Darwinists.
As Michael Behe stated in the following paper, “we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent”
Moreover, as John Sanford showed in his book Genetic Entropy and the following paper, the unselectable ‘near neutral’ mutations, which Dr Moran apparently classified as being perfectly neutral, i.e. non-deleterious, in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as slightly deleterious mutations that will build up over time instead of being classified as perfectly neutral.,,,
On top of that, even though Larry Moran used unrealistic estimates for deleterious mutations in his calculation, Moran was still, to repeat myself, only able to calculate that 10% of the genome may be functional and that 90% must be junk.
That claim is simply ludicrous. The engineering parameters of DNA, just in terms information storage capacity and the efficiency of DNA translation, is enough. in and of itself, to show just how far detached from reality that claim is.
Pray tell Ed George, how in blue blazes is a process that is incapable of removing the 90% of the genome that Moran holds to be junk, somehow able to build an astonishingly sophisticated information storage device, in the midst of all that junk, that puts to shame anything man has ever engineered in terms of information storage capacity and efficiency?
Moreover, on top of the sheer ludicrousness of that proposition, Moran (and Graur) also insisted that most of the genome must be junk in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary that came from ENCODE, and from many other sources.
In other words, in direct contradiction to how science is suppose to work, Moran (and Graur) ignored the results of empirical science itself when it conflicted with his preferred hypothesis of 90% junk DNA.
Yet, empirical science itself could care less what Moran wants to believe beforehand.
As Richard Feynman stated, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Moreover, although the prediction of massive ammounts of junk DNA followed directly from the mathematics of population genetics, and although ENCODE, and many other sources, empirically falsified that prediction of Darwinian evolution, Dan Graur and Larry Moran, to repeat myself, did not accept those empirical findings from ENCODE. In short, Dan Graur and Larry Moran refuse to accept empirical falsification as a criteria for their theory.
In other words, since they refuse to adhere to the criteria of falsification, whatever Moran and Graur may be doing, they are certainly NOT doing science.
To repeat what I quoted earlier in the thread, Junk DNA “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
Verse:
BA77
Nope. I didn’t imply any such thing. I was simply implying that “… perhaps being an arrogant, egotistical. know it all who refuses to listen to others might just hamper his ability to humbly admit when he was wrong..”. might describe you.
Or are you honestly suggesting that comments written on ‘Rate My Teacher’ should be taken as gospel? Which, by the way, might explain the things that you do take as gospel.
So Ed George, as usual, does not want to debate the empirical evidence.
Telling and sad.
My comments speak for themselves and I am more than happy to let unbiased readers judge for themselves who has been forthright with the evidence and who has not.