Intelligent Design

Steve Reuland and Junk Science

Spread the love

Panda’s Thumb Steve Reuland points to this junk science article The Origin of the Nucleus to highlight his ignorance of recent discoveries in experimental biology.

Elsewhere on PT Steve implied he was too good and wouldn’t waste his valuable time participating in the Nuclear Evolution Debate. His inability to spot the junk science in the first paragraph of the article he hypes speaks to contrary reasons why he declined the invitation.

Prokaryotes are devoid of organelles (including the nucleus, mitochondria, the endoplasmic reticulum), and their cytoskeletal systems are quite simple. These critters’ genes do not have introns (aka junk DNA) and their genome does not undergo much recombination.

Goodness gracious, doesn’t everyone know by now that introns and transcription editing is how the human genome with some 25,000 coding genes makes some 90,000 proteins (gene products). This is accomplished via introns and transcription editing. Perhaps Santa should give Steve a subscription to Scientific American for Christmas – a magazine I’ve been reading cover to cover every month for 30 years – so he wouldn’t have missed The Alternative Genome and then he’d know that introns aren’t junk DNA.

I have to immediately suspect the knowledge of anyone who says introns are junk DNA and Steve is just as ignorant by implication.

Next the author says that prokaryotes lack organelles? BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. The correct response is “What are magnetosomes? If he at least said membrane-bound organelles then I wouldn’t be able to add pili, ribosomes, and even flagella to the list of prokaryote organelles.

With 2 glaring errors in the first paragraph what’s the rest of the article worth? Zilch.

3 Replies to “Steve Reuland and Junk Science

  1. 1
    Michaels7 says:

    Dave, thought you might appreciate the following quote,
    “Eventually, if the volume of troublesome information
    becomes unsustainable, the orthodoxy must collapse.”

    The author of that line, JS Mattick published for review in PubMed and SciAm the issues so clearly unacceptable by many it seems and on his site shared a little graphic for emphasis.

    http://www.noncodingdna.com/sciam.htm

    I found it thru PubMed originally looking for info on nylon, plasmids, etc. just by happenstance.

    There are multiple articles on PubMed re: same subject by multiple groups of scientist and institutions. This is not some individual by himself on a crusade.

    There are more interesting articles on the main site.

  2. 2
    Michaels7 says:

    Now I know why Rice Crispies snap, crackle and pop! They really are talking on my level.

    “For example, using the protein-coding gene number as a basis for evaluating biological complexity would make urochordates and insects less complex than nematodes, and humans less complex than rice.”

    Taft, R.J. NoncodingDNA.com:Exploring the noncoding portion of the genome. http://www.noncodingDNA.com.

  3. 3
    Red Reader says:

    I love this stuff. (“Stuff” being, for me, a technical term.)
    Thanks, guys!

Leave a Reply