Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We Is Junk

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The quote below is taken from this week’s Nature magazine.

Since joining the blogosphere over two years ago, when challenged, I’ve invoked a scenario pretty much like the one the paper summary is making. I suspect Dave Scot has been making this argument for a longer period than that.

While still preliminary, I have to say that when Nature magazine starts running articles saying that “gene regulation— not the creation of new genes — has moulded the traits that make us unique”, then all that can be said is (a la Allen MacNeil): “Darwinism is dead. Long live evo-devo.” Is the war over?

Anyone who has ever put together self-assembly
furniture knows that having the right parts
is important, but what you do with them can
make or break the project. The same seems
to be true of the vast amounts of DNA in an
organism’s genome that used to be labelled as
junk. Studies now indicate that this DNA may
be responsible for the signals that were crucial
for human evolution, directing the various
components of our genome to work differently
from the way they do in other organisms.

The findings seem to bolster a 30-year-old
hypothesis that gene regulation — not the creation
of new genes — has moulded the traits that
make us unique.

While there’s not many particulars in what I’ve quoted, it strikes me as provocative enough to invite comments. Any takers?

Comments
[…] MacNeill, Allen. comment on “We is Junk” article by PaV at Uncommon Descent, […]No debate about macroevolution? Surely you’re joking, Professor Coyne! | Uncommon Descent
October 10, 2015
October
10
Oct
10
10
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
[…] with fundamentally different mechanisms,” as Cornell evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill puts it. Who is […]The Inanities of an Aspiring Horseman | Uncommon Descent
August 23, 2015
August
08
Aug
23
23
2015
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
[...] MacNeill, Allen, in a comment on “We is Junk” article by PaV at Uncommon Descent, November 10, [...]God's iPod - Uncommon Descent - Intelligent Design
February 27, 2013
February
02
Feb
27
27
2013
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
[...] MacNeill, Allen, in a comment on “We is Junk” article by PaV at Uncommon Descent, November 10, [...]Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details | Uncommon Descent
February 27, 2013
February
02
Feb
27
27
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Awe darn. The charateristically wrong peanut gallery at ATBC including the recently banned Zachriel are taking exception to my saying that there was a British Empire but no Scottish Empire arguing that Britain includes Scotland. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. Scotland and England were not united until 1707 and the British Empire (technically the English Empire) at that point was already well on its way. Putting Scotland under the thumb of the English parliament in London was simply part of England's expansion; another notch on the British belt. Adding insult to injury, there WAS an attempt by Scotland prior to 1707 to establish a Scottish Empire and it failed miserably.
Scottish role There were several pre-union attempts at creating a Scottish overseas empire, with various Scottish settlements in North and South America. Nova Scotia was perhaps Scotland's greatest opportunity at establishing a permanent presence in the Americas, but its most infamous was the ill fated Darién scheme which attempted to establish a settlement colony and trading post in Panama to foster trade between Scotland and the Far East.
Further reading: The Complete Guide To The Scottish Empire DaveScot
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
A Rose by any other name... I wonder if the experiments Dr. MacNeill point to with roses allow for rehybridization to go full circle. Much like Sunflowers? It appears Allen is out for the week. And I will not get an answer. Some conclusions he has reached should make Creationist very happy.Michaels7
November 15, 2006
November
11
Nov
15
15
2006
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
A zen buddhist, quaker, fencing enthusiast, libertarian, and last but not least a true Scotsman. And where does he choose to live... New York State, the most heavily taxed, socialistic, gun-grabbing, entitlement giving, big government state in the union. Chosen home of the Clintonistas for just those reasons. Non sequitur. The motto on my family coat of arms is Non mihi sed patriae. Translated: Not for myself, but for my country. It's British. Allen's attitude handily explains why there was a British Empire but no Scottish Empire, eh? :razz:DaveScot
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
I think I know where his arrogance comes from! "a direct lineal descendant of Niall of the Nine Hostages, first high king of Ireland." From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/macneill1.htmltb
November 14, 2006
November
11
Nov
14
14
2006
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Allen, Has the old paradigm really been superseded as effectively as you claim? You may talk about "ID strawmen" and then discuss the ideas of yourself, Will Provine, Lynn Margulis, etc. as if they have become the majority but both Lynn and Will seemed to have received a lukewarm response at the fairly recent World Summit on Evolution. Has opinion swayed that much since that time or should you be more careful about what positions you label as strawmen? I'm curious to know the group consensus at this point...or does anyone know? You also seemed to have missed my earlier question:
Alan, would you lend your name to support finding funding for additional ID research? I’m sure you believe that line of research will likely turn up fruitless in the end but I think you’d agree it’s at least worth the time to investigate with seriously funded research.
Dave:
One more thing of note, I couldn’t find a single noble prize award for any discoveries in evolutionary biology.
The work of Ilya Prigogine could arguably be considered in support of evolutionary biology. Prigogine received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1977 for his theory of dissipative structures. Although it has more to do with the origins of life...Patrick
November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
DaveScott, Thanks for the follow up in rebuttal to Allen. But my real point was to issue a strawman to his strawman. He accuses others of the same argumentative jabs he makes. Nobel Prize, Patents, truth is different people with differen world views will win and make inventions. I just wanted to show how silly it was to throw out such an argument. As to the majority of beliefs during one era in time, it changes. It may start to change back again. Of course, the committee itself would need to possibly be replaced. They do nothing but make the most extreme political statements. Notice he has refused to answer my other questions related to EvoDevo, Modern Synthesis and Cornerstone of Evolution, Four Gene Types. He mentioned "this is the way he will teach it now". Professor Macneill, can you answer my original questions with regards to the inconsistency within Evolution? Is Modern Synthesis truly superceeded? I pointed to PZ in order to show you that I see inconsistency within your own field. I find it interesting what children are learning today and what is actually being understood at the highest levels. It appears to me what you have is a sequential list of failing hypothesis, one right after another. I'm just asking to have a clear opinion from you.Michaels7
November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill (Nov 12th 2006 at 9:40 pm): "Indeed, as the following quote indicates, Darwin was uncomfortable with the whole idea of speculating on the origin of life:
But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant “appeared” by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.
From a letter to J. D. Hooker, dated April 17, 1863." and Allen_MacNeill (Nov 12th 2006 at 9:44 pm): "...as the later quotation I provided above indicates, he regretted ever having done so at all, and believed that the subject was as far beyond the reach of science as speculation about the origin of matter itself." You're confused, Dr. MacNeill. The quote you provided was from 1863. By 1871, when he speculated about the "warm little pond", he had obviously changed his opinion. Indeed, in Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, his son Francis (the volume's editor) used the 1871 quote to properly offset the 1863 quote, presumably lest anyone get the wrong ideas about what his father thought about OOL). I find it amusing that you tried to use a quote from an unpublished (during his lifetime) letter against my use of a quote from an unpublished (during his lifetime) letter. BTW, thanks, Jason.j
November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
Allen P.S. Academics at Cornell are so “messed up” that I have twice been nominated for the Clark Award for outstanding teaching to undergraduates (nominated by my students, I might add). Maybe they know something you don’t, eh? Oh yes, 20 year-olds are famous for their discriminatory powers. After all, they've experienced so much of life by that age, naive infatuations are something they just don't fall for anymore, having left such things behind in their teens. :razz: Here's the link to the Darwin quote. I have no idea why it wouldn't post for you except to think there was some blacklisted word that got it marked as spam included with the link. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.3&viewtype=text&pageseq=30 I note you are leaving us to prepare a lecture on evolution. Funny, I'd have thought you already would have had a lecture on that topic prepared by now. Oh hold it, it's probably been a week since you last delivered a lecture on evolution and because it's a narrati... er, I mean a theory in a constant state of flux you have to update it for last week's ad hoc deletions and insertions. The evolution kludge du jour. I understand now. By the way Cornell is a great school. I grew up nearby. At some point I plan on moving back to the area. I was thinking about buying a small town nearby to rename in my honor and also start my own Christian ministry, focused of course on the study of why ID is a superior explanation for the origin and diversity of life and also why atheists lead intrinsically amoral lives. I'd let cash-strapped college students have a free place to live in my town in exchange for working part time in the ministry and evangelizing our precepts on campus. The best part is it's all tax exempt. Hovind had the right idea but the wrong accountants. Good plan, eh?DaveScot
November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
#88 Jason I can understand but I cannot agree with your position. Although it is true that many NDE supporters are very rough against ID and are used to adopt rough"ad hominem" attacks I strongly think that: 1. Actually this behavior shows how they are worrying that ID ideas could eventually modify the status of science as a mere materialistic state of affairs. 2. The best thing to do is to be calm, to ask the "right questions" and to pretend answers for them.kairos
November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
#49, 50
“…no engines of that sort are a plausible explication of life.” That’s true: the mechanism that Darwin proposed in 1859 (i.e. natural selection) was not proposed as an explanation of the origin of life. Indeed, Darwin did not propose any mechanism for the origin of life, nor did he speculate about it (beyond a single sentence fragment in the Origin of Species). As Daniel Dennett has shown, Darwin “started in the middle” by proposing a testable mechanism for descent with modification among organisms that already existed, and abjured speculation on the origin of life.
Al, I wrote "explication of life" not "origin of life", so meaning the whole path to reach the past and actual life complexity. This requires obviously origin of life from inrganic matter but not only that, In this sense is perfectly worth ask if RM+NS could really do what NDEers claim. Up to now you have only supported tis claim with a typical (and useless) circular reasoning.
Personally, I pay very little attention to the “origin of life” problem, as I believe that it is almost impossible to obtain evidence either way. Answering that question also should have little or no effect on answering the question, “once life exists and has a reliable mechanism for information coding and transfer, what happens?” The answer is, it evolves into what we see around us today.
This is pretty wishful thinking which is done by presetting as possible just what it should be scientifically proved (Al, is this science?). Anyway I wonder how you can reasonably "pay very little attention to the origin of life problem" when this is the necessary step to allow furthr speculations about the mechanisms of evolution. Please excuse me but at least Francis Crick had a far more thoughtful approach to the problem.kairos
November 13, 2006
November
11
Nov
13
13
2006
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
Also. My point, Al, was that you were 1. dishonest, and 2. basically called J a liar then refused to apologize when you were proven wrong with your assertion. Shall I remind everyone how you called OLeary abd Dembski immoral cretins who lack any moral fiber whatsoever in that post a few months ago? Or maybe I can paste your comment where you attacked ALL of us who post to this site in support of ID? You're a disgrace as a teacher and a so-called gentleman, so please don't worry. I'd rather not have anything to do with you, let alone engage you on any issue.JasonTheGreek
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Yes. Al. Don't engage me, because I point out your incivility and your refusal to be totally honest. I do so apologize. Btw... Wow. (I say "wow", because if you follow politics, you probably know Rockwell is considered far far out there by most.) If you google Al's name, this is on the first page. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/macneill1.html The point of posting this? It fits the pattern of political worldviews and ID and related ideas. Liberal-minded folk seem to hate ID more often than that...and conservatives are most often friendly to the idea. Rockwell, by the way, is almost surely out of his mind if you follow politics he's a guy that will come up every now and again. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems liberals so often are disgusted by the very thought of allowing ID a seat at ANY table. Weird considering liberal-minded people should be all about letting all voices be heard. I wonder if this topic has been written about before. The apparent link to political worldviews and the refusal to even LISTEN to ID arguments?JasonTheGreek
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Have a grand week, folks - au revoir!Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Who cares what Darwin said? Try this Allen: If living organisms did NOT arise from non-living matter via stochastic mechansims there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity arose solely via those types of processes. IOW the origins of living organisms directly impacts any subsequent evolution.Joseph
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
P.S. Academics at Cornell are so "messed up" that I have twice been nominated for the Clark Award for outstanding teaching to undergraduates (nominated by my students, I might add). Maybe they know something you don't, eh?Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Touché, et parry et riposte, non?Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Here, at least, is the quote: "But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. Down, Friday night [April 17, 1863].Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Perhaps it's because it contains a weblink to the quotation, which is to be found at John Whye's website, "The Collected Works of Charles Darwin." The quotation is in a letter Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker in April of 1863. You can probably find it yourself using the search box at Whye's website.Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Interesting: twice now I have posted a quotation from Darwin clearly indicating that he regretted ever speculating on the origin of life, and twice it has disappeared.Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Jason, I refuse to engage with you further, on any subject.Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Good. Now, I know how it works. I can make any statement, no matter how false. Then just come back and say I ammend my false statement to add a caveat to it and all is fine and well. Darwin's thoughts on the origin of life shouldn't be taken into consideration, because they weren't published, and because he, at a later date, decided it probably wasn't a good idea to speculate on the subject. Wow. I knew academia in the US was pretty messed up, but who knew it got this absurd?JasonTheGreek
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
And now gentlemen, if you will excuse me, I have a lecture on evolution to prepare for tomorrow. It's been grand!Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
I speculate on a lot of things, sometimes in letters, sometimes in conversations, and often when thinking to myself, but none of those speculations amount to much if I don't publish them. And, even then, they don't amount to anything unless I (or someone else) attempts to verify if such speculations are, in fact, supported by empirical evidence. So, I amend my earlier assertion thusly: Darwin did not speculate on the subject of the origin of life in any publication during his lifetime, and as the later quotation I provided above indicates, he regretted ever having done so at all, and believed that the subject was as far beyond the reach of science as speculation about the origin of matter itself. And I agree with him.Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Indeed, as the following quote indicates, Darwin was uncomfortable with the whole idea of speculating on the origin of life: "But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant "appeared" by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." From a letter to J. D. Hooker, dated April 17, 1863. See: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.3&viewtype=side&pageseq=30Allen_MacNeill
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
http://humbugonline.blogspot.com/2005/01/moving-goalposts.htmlJasonTheGreek
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
By the way. J NEVER claimed that the quote from Darwin was in published print form when he was alive. He simply stated that Darwin DID propose an idea on the origins of life, which you said he did not.JasonTheGreek
November 12, 2006
November
11
Nov
12
12
2006
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply