Can someone please tell them, the Titanic has sunk — its seaworthiness is no longer an issue?:
With the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA, a shift occurred in how biologists investigated questions surrounding cellular processes, such as protein synthesis. Instead of viewing biological activity through the lens of chemical reactions, this new field used biological information to gain a new profound view of how biological systems work. Molecular biologists asked new types of questions that would have been inconceivable to the older generation of researchers, such as how cellular machineries convert inherited biological information into functional molecules like proteins. This new focus on biological information also gave molecular biologists a way to link their findings to concepts developed by genetics and the modern synthesis. However, by the late 1960s this all changed. Elevated rates of mutation, unsustainable genetic loads, and high levels of variation in populations, challenged Darwinian evolution, a central tenant of the modern synthesis, where adaptation was the main driver of evolutionary change. Building on these findings, Motoo Kimura advanced the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which advocates that selection in multicellular eukaryotes is weak and that most genomic changes are neutral and due to random drift. This was further elaborated by Jack King and Thomas Jukes, in their paper “Non-Darwinian Evolution”, where they pointed out that the observed changes seen in proteins and the types of polymorphisms observed in populations only become understandable when we take into account biochemistry and Kimura’s new theory. Fifty years later, most molecular biologists remain unaware of these fundamental advances. Their adaptionist viewpoint fails to explain data collected from new powerful technologies which can detect exceedingly rare biochemical events. For example, high throughput sequencing routinely detects RNA transcripts being produced from almost the entire genome yet are present less than one copy per thousand cells and appear to lack any function. Molecular biologists must now reincorporate ideas from classical biochemistry and absorb modern concepts from molecular evolution, to craft a new lens through which they can evaluate the functionality of transcriptional units, and make sense of our messy, intricate, and complicated genome.Alexander F. Palazzo* and Nevraj S. Kejiou, Non-Darwinian Molecular Biology, Front. Genet., 16 February 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.831068
The paper is open access.
Tim Standish writes to say,
I’m intrigued by people who want to argue stuff like this, as if what they personally believe must be reflected in reality rather than the other way around. The argument that I make is that the assumption of meaning, function and purpose has proven to be productive, while the assumption that everything is most likely meaningless, functionless and lacks purpose is a science killing, depressing and often demonstrably wrong exhibition of prejudice. Does that mean that function for everything has been proven? Of course not, but logic that goes, “I don’t know what this does, therefore it does nothing,” is arrogance, not knowledge. Anyone who embraces it should be embarrassed.
You may also wish to read:
New use for “junk DNA”: Controlling fear Okay, why, until recently, did researchers think that “the majority of our genes were made up of junk DNA, which essentially didn’t do anything”? Because that vast sunken library of dead information (sheer randomness and waste) was a slam dunk for Darwinism, as politically powerful theistic evolutionist Francis Collins was quick to point out in The Language of God. (2007). If that’s not true, an argument for Darwinism is disconfirmed.
Ah, a real-world term for former “junk DNA.” And the winner is “genomic dark matter”: “Most DNA in the human genome still has unknown functions and is referred to as “genomic dark matter.”
19 Replies to “Someone out there is actually defending junk DNA”
Reports of the death of junk DNA are greatly exaggerated
Some non-coding DNA has function. That we definitely know.
Whether it’s closer to zero or 100% should not be an issue. I realize some people made a big deal of it some years ago. But isn’t that time past?
I know some punctuated equilibrium advocates expect much of the non-coding DNA to be useless. It is here that new systems/proteins develop until they become functional. They claim this is how Darwinian evolution works.
Dawkins about junk DNA
Well…to think that the bricks build by themselves(gene that code for proteins) a hotel without the architects, builders , electricians ,etc..( “junk” DNA) reveals the biologists have no clue about how a cell works. They really thought that the bricks(amino-acids) will arrange themselves into a hotel, cathedral, or whatever.
For entertainment purpose only. Dawkins about origin of life: 😆
When I want to laugh I read few pages from Dawkins books.
PS: I didn’t hear Dawkins or any other scientist to say publicly :I’m sorry I said stupid thing . Now I know I was wrong and I misled many people. Nope. They double down. Always. 😆
“At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident.”
How scientific. What a genius.
The Remarkable Molecule Did It Or Something Sometime
The Remarkable Molecule didn’t even do it. Accident did it.
LCD, It’s enough to make you cry!
Larry Moran finally got something right. It is just that genetics or population genetics has nothing to do with Evolution.
Somebody tell Larry.
I believe my comment above is consistent with this. Except for Moran’s comment about evolution.
The fact that there may be large amounts of Junk DNA has nothing to do with Evolution one way or the other. It’s all about genetics. So all he is saying is consistent with ID.
Do you want to know the true irony here? Seversky doesn’t know that junk DNA has nothing to do with Evolution and ID is compatible with it.
Apparently, Francis Collins, one of the most successful scientists of our day and prominent Christian spokesperson, is IDer’s new favorite whipping boy. Jealousy and envy are ugly things and likely to get one barred from the gates of heaven….
True words. But they don’t apply here. I don’t think IDists are jealous for fame and fortune. If they were, there are a lot better ways to try to get those things than by fighting the Darwinian empire. Dr. Collins actually supports ID in his belief that human beings have an irreducible immortal soul and free will that cannot be explained by evolution and which were created directly by God.
I’ve seen him receive respect from IDists for those views. So, not a whipping boy as you call it.
Don’t worry Seversky , evolution is obviously false but you will find other “theory” to prove the materialist phylosophy as an justification for your choices in this life.
Non-coding DNA is critical to survival in mammals
Noncoding DNA determines genitals in mice
Noncoding DNA helps regulate our body clock
Genome’s non-coding ‘dark matter’ plays role in cancer development
Junk DNA may affect cancer risk
Exactly. He’s in a warfare against God and he can’t afford to surrender anything. How that guy became a celebrity and best-seller is truly amazing to me. He strikes me as a clown and yes, I have laughed at the ridiculous things he has said. Like those quotes you posted.
He can’t even understand how to model materialist claims (thus his absurd Weasel project).
Ok, origin of life is like a football pool. But in this case, we know the winning team already (life). We don’t need millions of years to guess the winner. We know it’s life, and we have the substances that created it (supposedly) the chemicals and environment. So, the “lucky accident” is irrelevant. Just make life in the lab from the materials we know we had.
No response follows from this. “We’re getting closer”. Or maybe farther away.
Collins, to my knowledge, has never endorsed ID and, in fact, has been highly critical of ID.
If you have time, do this. Go to the Evolution News and Science Reviews and/or Discovery Institute websites and search under “Francis Collins” or “BioLogos.” Or find a copy of “Theistic Evolution” by the leading lights of the ID movement, especially pages 46-49. You can review those pages at Amazon.
You might be surprised at the IDer’s attitude towards Collins and his colleagues at BioLogos…..
Collins is a theistic evolutionists. He and ID are on different planets in terms of good science. ID stands for good science. Collins doesn’t.
See comment this morning by Viola Lee.
ChuckDarwin will figure out some time that ID=truth; anti ID equals a willingness to abandon truth for expediency.
ID has no thoughts on theology other than there is a creator and atheism is a non starter.
That looks like a worthwhile book, thanks. I haven’t really studied TE that extensively so I don’t fully understand what they’re trying to say. I know there’s a significant conflict between ID and TE. I know the ID side of the debate, but the TE side is not clear. For example:
The TE position is indistinguishable from materialist-Darwinism except that God is the author of the process. Francis Collins is a theistic-evolutionist and is also a Christian. He is on record saying that he believes that God infused (or in some way “put”) an immortal soul into human beings and that humans have free will. Also, as a Christian, I imagine he believes many Christian doctrines involving the supernatural.
So, how does Dr. Collins reconcile his anti-ID, pro-Darwin view with the 80+ miracles listed in the New Testament? How does he reconcile his anti-ID Darwinian view with his belief in the immortal soul of humans and of free will?
For ID, Christian miracles, an irreducible, immortal soul and free will are all evidences of intelligent design in nature. For standard-Darwinism, all of these things are rejected as incompatible with evolution. So, how does Dr. Collins reconcile them?
He could say, for example, that none of the miracles really occurred. Or, as some people do, that the miracles are just stories about natural phenomena. Or something else?
He could say that mutations created the immortal soul, but I’m sure he has not done that.
Are you familiar with his view on this?
Collins believes that God directly created and infused an immortal soul into human beings, and that it is not a product of mindless evolution. To me, that’s evidence of ID right there. But all I have seen from Collins is that he dances around it. Maybe he says it’s just “faith”.
The TE’s I know say “there’s no evidence of intelligent design in nature” – zero. Of course, if they said there was evidence, then they’d be IDists.
But how can Collins be a Christian and believe the dozens of miracles recorded in the New Testament, for example? Those cannot be reduced to blind, materialistic forces – and therefore conflict with Darwinist explanations.
Agreed. There are no good anti-ID arguments.
ID has nothing to do with religion other than supporting some religious beliefs. So anytime someone brings up ID and religion in the same thought, they are conflating two completely separate things.
Anyone who believes there is a creator of the universe supports one aspect of ID. But their image of ID has been perverted by people who also say they advocate ID but turn around and advocate bad science. So the first group disavows ID because they don’t want to be associated with the second group.
Again read Viola Lee’s post linked to above.
Many of the commenters here fail to come to terms with just what ID is. Many if not most bring their extraneous beliefs and then conflate them with ID. Essentially they really want to talk about religion and by doing so make ID into something it isn’t.
So any time anyone mentions ID and a religious belief they are not really talking about ID.
Aside: We are a long way from junk DNA, the topic of the OP.
I don’t know how Collins harmonizes his science and faith other than what he presents in his book, The Language of God. On miracles, this is the best I can do from an interview with Scientific American:
I’m more interested in the war that DI, the de facto spokesperson for ID, keeps waging against Collins and BioLogos. Like I said, somewhat tongue and cheek, I think professional jealousy plays a role. Also, I think it is emblematic of a much larger war that evangelical/fundamentalist Christians are waging against other flavors of Christianity. It reminds me of a great quote from Nietzsche:
Collins doesn’t understand the theological consequences of believing into (neo)darwinian evolution.
Death entered the world after the sin of Adam and Eve. Evolution imply death existed from the start , God would be unjust for allowing that.
God created from the start animals after their kind . Evolution declare (something much MORE COMPLEX than God did ) 😆 that all animals evolved from one ..thing nobody saw it whatever fairytale says. Imagine a submarine to evolve into a lorry and lorry to evolve into a plane while in function. Insanity .
Think for a sec :
1)God(super intelligence) created animals directly with all components in place because life is irreducible .
2)Evolution (random ,chance ,non-intelligence) emerged something more “impressive”(complex) than what God did. Darwinist declare that life is reducible to its chemicals components .They have no clue how matter(non-intelligence) can create upstream coded functional information(complex cybernetic system with purpose ). We know why they have no clue . 😆
Life is organised from top (intelligence ) to bottom (molecules) and not the other way around.
Thanks for retrieving that interview with Collins:
Weird to hear a Christian say that. Miracles are only at moments of great significance and when God is making a message for mankind? What about answers to prayer? In any case, miracles are evidence for ID – so he affirms it right here. To then go on and denounce ID which he does later, is a contradiction.
Collins was an atheist, so this is an apologetical strategy that works for him (and I’ll agree with it) but I think he may be covering up his own uncertainty about miracles, ID and science. As above, he accepts that there’s evidence of intelligent design in nature (which miracles are), so he can’t turn around and denounce ID for saying the same thing that he believes.
I think you’re making more of it than needed, although I realize you have a great dislike for the DI, for reasons of your own, and there’s nothing wrong with that per se. I just don’t think the warfare is one-sided as if ID guys are attacking unprovoked. But more importantly, matters like I just pointed out do not get answered by TE. “You affirm God’s actions as visible, observable events outside of Darwinism, outside of materialism and outside of what science can show. This is ID. So, you’re being inconsistent for condemning ID for stating that there is the very evidence that you accept for intelligent design”. That kind of argument Never gets answered by the TE guys. They just avoid it.
You may be right about some evangelical groups, but I don’t think it’s fair to claim ID as an evangelical project. It might have been when it started but it’s much more diverse now, not only internationally but with adherents from different religions (or none). Klinghoffer is a Jew. Berlinski is an agnostic/atheist. I think Neil Thomas is an agnostic. There’s a large group of pro-ID Muslims and Hindus that I’m aware of.
But the main thing is that ID is not controlled by the DI. It’s got a lot of voices and even various disputes within the ranks.