Intelligent Design

Let’s Put This One To Rest Please

Spread the love

Elizabeth Liddle from a prior post: “Darwinian hypotheses make testable predictions and ID hypotheses (so far) don’t.”

This statement is breathtakingly false. Let us take just one example. For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.

Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.

EL, you are entitled to your own private opinion. You are not entitled to your own private facts. And when you make it up as you go like this, be sure you will be called out.

47 Replies to “Let’s Put This One To Rest Please

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinian response:

    “But, but, but, the falsification of junk DNA just gave us more insight into how Darwinism actually works!”

    Trouble is for Darwinists is that it gives far more insight into how Darwinism actually works than atheists realize! 🙂

  2. 2
    Kantian Naturalist says:

    From our friends at Wikipedia:

    “Junk DNA” is a term that was introduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno,[25] who noted that the mutational load from deleterious mutations placed an upper limit on the number of functional loci that could be expected given a typical mutation rate. Ohno predicted that mammal genomes could not have more than 30,000 loci under selection before the “cost” from the mutational load would cause an inescapable decline in fitness, and eventually extinction. This prediction remains robust, with the human genome containing approximately 20,000 genes. Another source for Ohno’s theory was the observation that even closely related species can have widely (orders-of-magnitude) different genome sizes, which had been dubbed the C value paradox in 1971. (emphasis added)

    For those who, like me, enjoy reading about science but cannot take it raw, this old Scientific American article, “What is junk DNA, and what is it worth?” looks interesting and readable.

    I’m particularly interested in reading about which design theorists made specific contributions to the study of noncoding DNA.

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    “our friends at Wikipedia” Indeed they are KN. Indeed they are.

    “I’m particularly interested in reading about which design theorists made specific contributions to the study of noncoding DNA.”

    Trying to change the subject? I don’t blame you.

  4. 4
    Jerad says:

    This statement is breathtakingly false. Let us take just one example. For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.

    Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.

    As you know, many biologists disagree with the ENCODE team’s definition of ‘function’. At the very least, it seems prudent to wait and see how the scientific consensus ends up seeing the issue.

  5. 5
    Kantian Naturalist says:

    Barry, in the OP you said, “ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.”

    OK — which ID proponents said this? What functions? What evidence did they find, and how did they look for it?

    ID proponents frequently complain that Darwinism doesn’t yield any predictions, but only offers post hoc explanations of what’s been discovered. Well, if ID is going to fare any better, one will have to show that ID isn’t doing the same thing. I mean, one can’t just go around, taking the discoveries of other scientists and saying, “oh, that’s exactly what we’ve been predicting all along!” (Especially since that’s what ID proponents seem to accuse Darwinists of doing.) One has to offer up predictions and then see if they are correct or not.

    So, did design theorists contribute to the study of non-coding DNA, or not? If so, how?

  6. 6
    Mark Frank says:

    There is a difference between what ID followers predict and what ID theory predicts. ID followers may make predictions that are not related to ID or that they wrongly believe follows from ID.

    So what predictions can be correctly deduced from ID theory? This is somewhat complicated by the fact that there are different interpretations of ID around. But, as I understand it, most ID theorists would say that it makes no assumptions about the motives or powers of the designer. So there is no reason to assume the designer is particularly efficient or indeed that he/she/it might not rather enjoy adding DNA which does nothing. So you cannot correctly predict that there will be no junk DNA.

    Of course you might hold to a version of ID which assumes the designer is concerned to maximise the organisms fitness and is capable of doing it with great efficiency. In this case you could indeed predict no junk DNA. This means that every apparent inefficiency in the construction of an organism is an argument against ID. Of course apparent inefficiencies may turn out not to be inefficiencies in the long run. Are you willing to abandon ID if it turns out that some DNA is truly junk i.e. it can be removed from the organism and it has no effect on its fitness?

    As an aside one of the biggest pieces of evidence for large amounts of non-coding DNA having a function is that it is conserved over large amounts of time. This of course assumes a Darwinian model of evolution. Without it the evidence that significant amounts of non-coding DNA has a function is very weak.

  7. 7
    mk says:

    Kantian Naturalist daid;

    “Well, if ID is going to fare any better, one will have to show that ID isn’t doing the same thing.”

    great. id predict that we will find systems that can evolve step wise. and we do find. for example: a minimal motion system need a minimum 2-3 parts for minimal function (we know this from the fact that even an intellegent human cant make a motions system base on 1 part) . so it cant explain by evolution theory, and the evolution not predict this.

  8. 8
    Kantian Naturalist says:

    great. id predict that we will find systems that can evolve step wise. and we do find. for example: a minimal motion system need a minimum 2-3 parts for minimal function (we know this from the fact that even an intellegent human cant make a motions system base on 1 part) . so it cant explain by evolution theory, and the evolution not predict this.

    So is the claim that evolutionary theory didn’t predict irreducible complexity, or that it can’t explain it?

    I don’t see how design theory could have predicted irreducible complexity, since the observation of irreducible complexity is what motivates the abductive leap to design in the first place.

    That is, the design hypothesis, as I understand it, goes as follows:

    It is surprising that we observe irreducible complexity in biochemical systems. But, if biochemical systems were brought into existence through the actions of an intelligent designer, then the irreducible complexity of those systems would be a matter of course.

    But if that’s the right way of framing the design hypothesis, then the sheer fact of irreducible complexity in biochemical systems cannot be appealed to as confirming the design hypothesis (without falling into circular reasoning).

    Then the question becomes, which theory explains irreducible complexity better — and to determine that, one would have to generate different predictions from the two theories, and then test those different predictions to see which ones are confirmed by available evidence.

    Alternatively, perhaps, one could argue that if there were no intelligent designer, then the irreducible complexity of biochemical systems cannot be explained at all. And that seems to be how most ID proponents want to argue. But I really don’t see how we could know this.

  9. 9
    Upright BiPed says:

    It is an inherent prediction of design that DNA is a semiotic system. In order to function, a semiotic system requires physicochemically arbitrary relationships to be instantiated within a physical system. It cannot function otherwise. The system requires these relationships as a means to translate information and produce material effects which are not locally derivable from physical law. Yet even today, materialist partisans in knee-jerk reaction to the concept vehemently insist that DNA is not semiotic but “just chemistry”.

    DNA is semiotic. Prediction fulfilled. Obfuscation follows.

  10. 10
    jerry says:

    Of course you might hold to a version of ID which assumes the designer is concerned to maximise the organisms fitness and is capable of doing it with great efficiency. In this case you could indeed predict no junk DNA.

    This does not follow. It implies that you or someone else knows what is efficient or the intentions of the designer and how the designer implemented the design. Maybe most or all of the junk DNA is efficient while some of it may never have a function. In the United States, we would call it the bullpen which is ready to relieve the current pitcher whenever he gets in trouble.

    For example, if the designer implemented a system so that organisms could adapt and this process created new parts of the genome that were not being used either temporarily or ever, then that could be part of the efficiency. The extra DNA may be there in reserve for some future contingency but some may never be used but rarely is the entire bullpen ever used.

    In fact such a system exists and is used by those who espouse natural evolution as a means for organisms to change and adapt over time. It is called Darwinian evolution. It just may be that Darwinian processes are designed to help organisms adapt over time. But this adaptation is limited.

    The mistake made by those who espouse this process and was Darwin’s big mistake was to assume that this process could explain everything. But it appears limited and maybe that is because of design. Otherwise some organisms would start to dominate the ecology and ruin it eventually. What is efficient for an organism over time may be a limiting of the organism’s ability to change. That is exactly what we see.

    The world of success is based on both the concept of competition and cooperation. A business’ success is based on competition but internally it is based very much on cooperation. Similar a successful ecology has both competition and cooperation.

  11. 11
    Barry Arrington says:

    KN @ 5: “OK — which ID proponents said this?”

    Really? You’re going to lead with your chin? You’re going to lob a slow fat one right up the pipe? (OK, enough with the sports metaphors).

    Yes, ID proponents were right in their predictions and the Darwinists could not have been more wrong. Go here for the details:

    http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Jun.....1936599007

  12. 12
    mk says:

    hi Kantian Naturalist

    first i mean “id predict that we will find systems that can’t evolve step wise”

    this is because we know that even intellegent designer cant do this.

    “So is the claim that evolutionary theory didn’t predict irreducible complexity, or that it can’t explain it?”-

    those two.even darwin predicr that if we will find one of such system- the theory will falsified.

    another argument that id is a scientific is that it can be prooven. how?

    we know that a self replicat watch with dna need a designer because of its complexity. we know that nature is more complex then this kind of watch- then natur need a designer.

  13. 13
    Andre says:

    Barry

    You know by now that Jonothan Wells is not a real scientist, How can he be if he believes in God.

  14. 14
    Mark Frank says:

    #10 Jerry

    You make a good point. Really it is almost impossible to make any predictions about what a designer might produce with making even more detailed assumptions about the nature of the designer.

  15. 15
    Mark Frank says:

    #9 UB

    It is an inherent prediction of design that DNA is a semiotic system

    Why? Suppose the designer did not want to use semiotic systems? Or you making assumptions about his/her/its methods?

  16. 16
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mark,

    The alternative to matter being directed by some method is what? That baby birds miraculously appear in their nests looking just like their parents?

  17. 17
    Mapou says:

    Judging from what we know about intelligent design as performed by humans, we can predict that living organisms can be classified within a non-nested hierarchy (genetic tree of life). The hierarchy will be mostly nested but will have many instances of lateral inheritance. An example of such lateral gene reuse can be seen the shared genetic code for echolocation used by bats and certain whale species. This prediction has already been confirmed.

    What makes this interesting is that Darwinists have for a long time insisted that the tree of life must be strictly nested on account of common descent. Now that their prediction has been squarely falsified, they have changed their tune by positing all sorts of cockamamie mechanisms to explain lateral gene transfers between distant species.

  18. 18
    Mark Frank says:

    #16 UB – are you saying that it is not possible to direct matter without creating a semiotic system? Pray where is the semiotic system in the Mona Lisa?

  19. 19
    Mark Frank says:

    Just noticed a typo in my #14 – it should read:

    #10 Jerry

    You make a good point. Really it is almost impossible to make any predictions about what a designer might produce without making even more detailed assumptions about the nature of the designer.

  20. 20
    Axel says:

    This getting more and more hilarious.

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    You make a good point. Really it is almost impossible to make any predictions about what a designer might produce with making even more detailed assumptions about the nature of the designer.

    Perhaps somethings are hard to get at but the designer often leaves forensic evidence that something was designed. Motive for the particular design or what the design is supposed to accomplish may be much harder to get at than the actual workings of a specific design.

    Right now we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the workings of the universe and in our corner of the universe, the workings of the genome and the epigenetics of a cell as to their function. It would be hard to know the full intent of the designer at this primitive stage of understanding. We can only marvel at how complex the design was and how smoothly it runs.

  22. 22
    Axel says:

    Everything Elizabeth says, particularly when said bombastically, needs to studied. I think she may have spent to long studying Scotsmen’s kilts. I’m not saying anything more than that.

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    Indeed, checking, attesting to, and insisting on their credentials!

  24. 24
    equate65 says:

    Excerpt: ” the argument of a largely non-functional genome is invoked by some evolutionary theorists in the debate against the proposition of intelligent design of life on earth, particularly with respect to the origin of humanity. In essence, the argument posits that the presence of non-protein-coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises 90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, and argues against intelligent design. Finally, we suggest that resistance to these (ENCODE) findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design.”

    http://www.thehugojournal.com/.....66-7-2.pdf

  25. 25
    TheisticEvolutionist says:

    What happened to Jonathan Wells? He has not published anything since 2011. Does he have any plans for a new book?

  26. 26
    Mapou says:

    Mark Frank @19:

    You make a good point. Really it is almost impossible to make any predictions about what a designer might produce without making even more detailed assumptions about the nature of the designer.

    The only inference we need to make about the intelligent designer(s) of life on earth is that they were intelligent and had the ability to do complex genetic design and engineering. We have a pretty good working definition of intelligence. We, humans, don’t like to reinvent the wheel over and over. We go to great lengths to use existing designs whenever we can. It’s the intelligent thing to do. We can expect the same of life’s intelligent designers. Indeed, this is what we observe in the design of living organisms. Design reuse is the reason that lifeforms are organized hierarchically.

  27. 27
    Upright BiPed says:

    are you saying that it is not possible to direct matter without creating a semiotic system?

    You asked me to suppose a designer did not want to use a semiotic system in organizing life. Okay, if there is no semiosis, then there is no translated information to created effects beyond chance/physical law alone. That basically leaves you with baby birds miraculously appearing in their nests looking just like their parents.

    Pray where is the semiotic system in the Mona Lisa?

    The most relevant answer to an irrelevant question: In the vision and sensory/motor system of the artist Leonardo da Vinci

  28. 28
    Mark Frank says:

    #26 Mapou

    It’s the intelligent thing to do. We can expect the same of life’s intelligent designers.

    And suppose the designer rather likes reinventing the wheel and repeating things? Then it would be intelligent to include redundant and non-functional items would it not? Or are you about to make some assumptions about the designer’s motives?

  29. 29
    Mark Frank says:

    UB #27

    You were talking about ID predicting that DNA would be semiotic i.e. that there would be something semiotic in what the designer creates not in the designer itself. There are countless examples of designed objects which do not include semiotic systems (the Mona Lisa being one). Therefore the hypothesis life was designed does not predict that there will be a semiotic system in the thing being designed – life.

    (I also disagree that design requires a semiotic system at any stage – but that is a different issue)

  30. 30
    Upright BiPed says:

    There are countless examples of designed objects which do not include semiotic systems (the Mona Lisa being one). Therefore the hypothesis life was designed does not predict that there will be a semiotic system in the thing being designed – life.

    Life must organize matter in order to reproduce itself. Paintings don’t.

  31. 31
    Mapou says:

    Mark Frank @28:

    And suppose the designer rather likes reinventing the wheel and repeating things? Then it would be intelligent to include redundant and non-functional items would it not? Or are you about to make some assumptions about the designer’s motives?

    You are mistaken. What you are calling an assumption is actually the hypothesis. And ID theory can postulate that the designers were intelligent and did not like to reinvent the wheel. From this postulate, the theory predicts that design reuse will be observed in nature in the form of a hierarchical organization. The theory further predicts that design reuse will also result in lateral design transfers between distant species. This is what is observed.

  32. 32
    Mark Frank says:

    #30 UB

    Life must organize matter in order to reproduce itself. Paintings don’t.

    If that is true then semiotic systems are a prediction arising from the fact life reproduces itself – not from it being designed.

  33. 33
    Mark Frank says:

    #31 Mapou

    So for you the design hypothesis is something on the lines:

    Life was designed by a designer who wanted organisms to flourish and disliked reinventing the wheel. This is different from the common statement that ID makes no assumptions about the motives or powers of the designer. It does indeed lead to predictions but would also be falsified if we can find examples of life which appear to reinvent the wheel – agreed?

  34. 34
    Mapou says:

    Mark Frank:

    So for you the design hypothesis is something on the lines:

    Life was designed by a designer who wanted organisms to flourish and disliked reinventing the wheel. This is different from the common statement that ID makes no assumptions about the motives or powers of the designer.

    I believe that the ID camp is wrong about this. We can extend the design hypothesis to include the intelligent reuse of existing designs. But you are mistaken that the ID hypothesis makes no assumptions about the designers. The hypothesis postulates that the designers are intelligent and had the means to perform genetic engineering. This is what the I stands for in ID.

    It does indeed lead to predictions but would also be falsified if we can find examples of life which appear to reinvent the wheel – agreed?

    Not at all. If an exhaustive genomic search of all lifeforms failed to uncover instances of design reuse (including lateral inheritance), then the hypothesis would be falsified. The hypothesis would not be scientific if such a search could not be conducted but we now have the means to do it. It is always possible that there are a few cases of reinvention, especially if there were many designers but that would not falsify the hypothesis.

  35. 35
    Upright BiPed says:

    If that is true then semiotic systems are a prediction arising from the fact life reproduces itself – not from it being designed.

    The fact that life replicates itself was rather obvious to everyone, yet, ID predicted the underlying reality and materialism resisted it … good call Mark.

    Materialists have been skating the semiotic reality of genetic translation for decades, and like you, they continue to do so to this very day. This stems from the physical requirements of a semiotic system, and their prior commitment that those requirements – which include a relationship which cannot be locally derivable from physical law – must somehow become established by physical law alone.

  36. 36

    Barry: I presume me mean me (it’s Liddle, not Little).

    You write:

    Let us take just one example. For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.

    Sorry Barry that that example simply does not work.

    Darwinian theory would only predict unused sequences of DNA were it to be the case that unused sequences had no metabolic or other cost.

    It could certainly account for it – were we to see it, it would be evidence that unused DNA has little metabolic or other cost, and would be hard to explain (but not impossible) under an ID hypothesis.

    But it it’s not something that Darwinian evolution would set out to predict.

    On the other hand what Darwinian theory would probably predict is that we would see homologous DNA sequences in organisms that were closely related as determined by morphological characters, and be able to trace knockouts (the GULO knockout in primates being a famous example) down the same inferred lineages.

    Whereas ID could account for anything, because the proposed ID is unconstrained.

    You can’t say that ID predicts “no unused DNA” – why should it? It might be there waiting to be activate for some future need, as in the front-loading hypothesis. Or, for that matter, it may contain a coded message from the designer (cf Craig Venter) that we simply haven’t decoded yet.

    And that is my point. Until ID makes a specific positive hypothesis, it can’t go head to head with any non-design positive hypothesis.

    But lest you think I am claiming that science shows that ID is false, I am not.

    I am claiming that so far ID has not produced a falsifiable hypothesis, whereas they are produced all the time by evolutionary biologists. It’s the stock in trade of the scientific method.

    And many are falsified. Famously, the prediction that genetic phylogenies would map near-perfectly on to morphological phylogenies was falsified, and instead, a complex map of genetic transfer between lineages was revealed, contrary to any prediction made under Common Descent.

    This meant a whole new hypothesis had to be developed to account for this “horizontal gene transfer”.

    And tested.

    And was.

    I will certainly not “make up [my] own facts”. And I will be first in line to cite Darwinian hypotheses that have been falsified. But not the “junk DNA” hypothesis.

    Nor will I accept that “no junk DNA” was a positive prediction of ID. It is neither positive, nor is it a prediction. Were it to be established (per impossibile) that a section of DNA had no function, it still would not falsify ID.

    It would be child’s play to think of a reason why an ID might have inserted unused DNA into the genome.

    It’s a lot harder to figure out why an ID might have disabled a vitamin C gene in a specific lineage, including our own. Yet harder if we also postulate separate creation for humans. And consider the human suffering that has resulted from it.

  37. 37

    One of the things I teach is quantitative methods.

    One of the first exercises I give students, is to to derive a testable hypothesis from their theory, and draw a diagram of what their data will (probably) look like if their hypothesis is true, and what it will (probably) look like if their hypothesis is not true.

    I would like someone from the ID camp to construct such a diagram for an ID hypothesis.

  38. 38
    wd400 says:

    A few qeustions.

    How do you get from ID to the prediction of no junk. Would a junky genome lower the probability that ID it true?

    How (on earth…) would you get from “Darwinism” being true to the prediction of much junk DNA? As Elizabet says, the accumulation of nearly neutral junky sequences if very un-Darwinian.

    Finally, why do you think genomes aren’t full of junk. (The best available evidence suggest they are)

  39. 39

    Just to be clear: “junk” doesn’t mean “non-coding”. Plenty of DNA sequences do not code for proteins, but for RNA sequences with regulatory or enzyme roles.

    The reason some DNA sequences are inferred to be non-functional is that they are not highly conserved – large variations are seen without apparent phenotypic consequences. This was why Ohno coined the term “junk”.

    So if it is an ID prediction that there will be no non-functional DNA, I would like to see both the rationale for that prediction and the test for it.

  40. 40
    jerry says:

    to be clear: “junk” doesn’t mean “non-coding”

    From Wikipedia

    In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism’s DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional noncoding RNA molecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs), while others are not transcribed or give rise to RNA transcripts of unknown function. The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA, while only about 2% of a typical bacterial genome is noncoding DNA.

    Initially, a large proportion of noncoding DNA had no known biological function and was therefore sometimes referred to as “junk DNA”, particularly in the lay press. Some sequences may have no biological function for the organism, such as endogenous retroviruses. However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have important biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions. (This is inferred from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but, nonetheless, appear to be under heavy selective pressure.)

    The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the human genome “serves some purpose, biochemically speaking”. This conclusion however is strongly criticized by other scientists.

    There is more if you want to read about it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

  41. 41

    Much non functional DNA is non-coding (but not all) but not all non-coding DNA is non-functional, as was known long before Ohno introduced the word “junk”, and indeed referred to in Ohno’s paper. And his paper did not put forward the “junk” as a prediction but as a conclusion, from the fact that given mutation rates, mutations of useful genes are much lower than would be expected. Indeed he actually proposed that the remainder of the DNA may serve the “useful but negative function” of spacing out the actual useful genes, and thus reducing linkage between genes.

    Clearly by no stretch of the imagination would an “Darwinian” theory predict that all DNA must code for proteins.

    And I’m still waiting to see any citation from any scientific paper that put forward non-functional DNA as a “prediction” from Darwinian theory.

    Darwinian theory would explain it handily, but not predict it, except in the sense that it would predict that functional sequences not needed in the current environment would cases to be conserved as Ohno suggested (“fossil remains” of “extinct genes” in the genome. And indeed this is confirmed.

  42. 42
    Mark Frank says:

    #34 Mapou

    I believe that the ID camp is wrong about this. We can extend the design hypothesis to include the intelligent reuse of existing designs.

    As I said – there are lots of versions of ID around. If you make some assumptions about the motive and methods of the designer then indeed it becomes falsifiable. In your case it seems to rest on the amount of reuse versus reinvention. Perhaps it would be fair to say that examples of reinvention count against design whereas examples of reuse count for it?

  43. 43
    Mark Frank says:

    #35 UB

    The fact that life replicates itself was rather obvious to everyone, yet, ID predicted the underlying reality and materialism resisted it … good call Mark.

    I am confused by your argument.

    You claim ID predicts the existence of semiotic systems in life.

    Presumably you agree that in general design does not predict the presence of semiotic systems in the thing that is designed – given the numerous counterexamples.

    So there is something special about life that means ID predicts semiotic systems whereas non-design theories do not predict semiotic systems.

    The only thing you have offered is that replication requires semiotic systems. If replication always required semiotic systems then semiotic systems would be predicted by any theory of life that accepted life replicates. So it is hardly a prediction of ID. So presumably you are arguing that replication requires semiotic systems if it is designed but does not require semiotic systems if it is not designed? Is that your point? It seems rather an odd claim.

  44. 44

    oops “would cease to be conserved” not would “cases to be conserved” in my 41 above.

  45. 45
    equate65 says:

    @ 41

    I believe what ID was arguing against, is the assertion by some defenders of Darwinism, that Junk DNA is to be expected and used this as an argument against ID.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46611.html

    Moran:

    Excerpt: “This one is more contentious. There are many scientists who think that much of what we currently call “junk DNA” actually has a function. Even though they might be atheists, their prediction is the same as the creationists.

    I’m convinced that most of our genome is truly junk. I predict that the creationist prediction will turn out to be wrong. I wonder if it means that intelligent design creationism will be falsified?”

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....onism.html

    Excerpt: “But what I found astonishing was why it’s so hard for people to accept that much of DNA must indeed be junk. Even to someone like me who is not an expert, the existence of junk DNA appeared perfectly normal. I think that junk DNA shouldn’t shock us at all if we accept the standard evolutionary picture.

    The standard evolutionary picture tells us that evolution is messy, incomplete and inefficient”

    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....-junk-dna/

  46. 46
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mark Frank,

    I am confused by your argument.

    There’s no reason to be confused, Mark. It’s all rather simple.

    Here is how it goes:

    – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ID Proponent of yore: Protein synthesis is semiotic.

    ID Critic of yore: No it’s not. It’s purely chemical. You’re lying for Jesus in an effort to install a theocracy to control the world.

    ID Proponent of yore: No really, it’s semiotic.

    ID Critic of yore: Stupid creationist crank, when we say “information in the genome”, it’s just a metaphor. Idiot.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ID Proponent today: Protein synthesis is semiotic.

    ID Critic today: No it’s not, it purely chemical. You liars have been saying this same crap for 50 years (HT: Mike Elzinga).

    ID Proponent today: No really, I can use completely accepted observations within biology to demonstrate it. Not only that, but logical analysis demonstrates that information-based replication can actually work no other way. And not only that, but there are certain observable physical features of protein synthesis that not only link it universally to pre-existing organization, but also to higher intelligence.

    Mark Frank: Well if it’s a logical necessity, then it’s certainly not a prediction of design proponents, it’s a prediction of self-replication. And I don’t believe it anyway.

  47. 47
    equate65 says:

    @ UB

    LOL!

Leave a Reply