Here, at Sandwalk: “A twofer” Here’s Jonathan M’s post: “Thoughts on the ‘C-Value Enigma’, the ‘Onion Test’ and ‘Junk DNA.’”
Comments
"Of course, ID doesn’t have any issue with transposon remnants, Nick. ID certainly doesn’t dispute that systems and machines get messed up, degrade, break down over time."
Then ID should stop carping about how junk DNA is a crock and how dumb/mean/ignorant/etc. Darwinists are on this topic.NickMatzke_UD
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
I would hardly call "IDiot" a witty name. I mean it's no better than the ultra-obvious: Larry Moron.MedsRex
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
I think I speak for many of the daily lurkers here in saying that I'd love to see said debate.
Unfortunately, knowing how Larry Moran operates, rather than debate you, he'll call you a really witty name before scurrying back to the safety of his desolate blog.
To Larry's credit, most people his age are in nursing homes. Forget debating; the fact that he even knows how to work a computer is enough of a victory for him.Jammer
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Isn't the onion test based upon the idea that heritable information exists in the genome? Or shall we equivocate?
Okay Larry, pull up a chair. Let's talk about that information.
Debate me right here right now.Upright BiPed
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Larry,
The argument against junk DNA is against drawing a conclusion from insufficient information. In most cases whether it has function is unknown. We don't know enough to make the next leap and say that it has no function. For all we do understand, we don't know enough about how living things function to declare whether certain DNA is necessary or not.
Perhaps it is all non-functional.
Perhaps some is.
Perhaps the excess DNA serves a known purpose less efficiently than in other cases.
Perhaps is serves an unknown purpose efficiently or inefficiently.
Perhaps we're comparing the genome size to the requirements of an onion but the excess DNA serves a purpose unrelated to onions.
The functions of both DNA and the organisms that use it are not yet such an open book that you or Ryan can confidently rule anything in or out.
The argument against junk DNA is an argument against drawing conclusions from insufficient information.ScottAndrews
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
The main point of my article was to demonstrate that Jonathan M doesn't understand "The Onion Test." That's not a big surprise because he is, after all, an IDiot.
Don't the rest of you IDiots want to defend Jonathan M by showing that his interpretation of the Onion Test was correct? You could score lots of points for the anti-science crowd by doing this, especially since the inventor of "The Onion Test" (Ryan Gregory) will be reading your comments.
Give it your best shot.
Larry Moran
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
rhampton7:
The Onion Test is a legitimate dilema for Intelligent Design Theory.
No, it isn't. Why would it be? You obviously have no clue about Intelligent Design.
Since computer programs are a useful analogy, please consider the following:
What is the probability that (an) intelligent designer(s) would create two programs, the far simpler of the two requiring five times as many lines of code?
Not even a useful analogy and not even required. ID does NOT exclude Darwinian processes from operating, duh.
1. There are multiple designers with a wide-range of proficiency at genetic programming.
ID is OK with multiple designers and Nick, I said so well before RBH.
2. It’s represents the genetic programming learning curve of the intelligent designer(s)
Nope, it could be redundancy or even the result of darwinian processes.
3. Some portion of the genetic programming is non-functional (as in commented-out functions or comments left by one designer intended for another).
Possible or perhaps some random error got inserted into the design and caused it to happen.Joseph
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
bbigej:
"And of course this evidence shouldn’t be considered in a vacuum. It must be viewed in light of the evidence for and against evolution, intelligent design and theism. So Darwinism would still fail even if the onion had a quintillion base pairs in its genome."
====
I found the first comment by 'Negative Epiphany' over at Larry "The Closet IDiot" Moran's Sandbox blog humorous.
'Negligent Entropy':
"Holy crap,
Two things I didn't know:
1. That the C-value paradox was the same as the onion test.
2. That onions were animals.
Wow, I learned something new. These IDiots might be on to something ... "
====
Time and again we hear that all lifeforms are cousins. Are not Onions our distant cousins ??? One has to wonder why such a mindless Vegy is so much more well endowed than a far superior human with all manner of intellectual superiority ???
The "Junk DNA" lable is nothing more than pseudo-intellects not willing to admit to anyone that there are vast numbers of things they are ignorant of when it comes to function, that and the fact that antique Evolutionary vestigial features are forensic evidence of evolution's past criminal activity. Now the responsible thing to do as opposed to investing in excuses to pimp and justify a worldview, would be to admit that we just don't know everything about the function of DNA, but we are going to keep on researching forever until we have better understanding and we'll keep everyone informed as we go along.
Unfortunately we don't live in a world that works that way. Hence we have the cowards way out of doing the responsible thing. This arrogant biligerant attitude has infected the thinking of other areas of science. Consider GMO Industrial Agriculture. Disrespecting the Laws of Nature with regards species barriers or boundaries(according to it's kinds) has brought about an irresponsible technology which is spreading genetic pollution clear across the globe. They don't know enough about DNA to make some of the disasterous decisions they have made in the pursuit of obscene wealth and power grabbing.
Take for example the documentary called "A Silent Forest" narrated by a Canadian Geneticist named David Suzuki who hosts a science documentary series called "The Nature of Things" ? He helped put together a documentary called "A Silent Forest". Below are some YouTube links which carries the entire documentary if you care to watch it. Give yourself some time, as it is about 46.16 mintutes in length.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIeJj3ooFmk&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voTXjhxmis8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6LVaQoFSHo&feature=related
When you listen to Geneticist David Suzuki explain it, it's clearly one of the most responsible admissions a scientist could ever make and ALL scientists should have this same attitude. It doesn't matter if their evolutionists, IDists or creationists - WHOEVER - this same responsible attitude should discipline and guide what science does. Once again, we unfortunately DON'T live in that kind of world. Hence when GMO scientists look at DNA as so much mindless junk for their freewilled right to manipulate, then as evidenced from the natural world today, we have catastrophic environmental ruin.
And ultimately, this is what this whole debate mess is all about, showing moral respect for Laws and Rules. It's not about the science. It's about lifestyle choices and pursuit of self-determination the way any human(individully or as part of a collective) sees fit.Eocene
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
Go do it then.Eugene S
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
And of course this evidence shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. It must be viewed in light of the evidence for and against evolution, intelligent design and theism. So Darwinism would still fail even if the onion had a quintillion base pairs in its genome.bbigej
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Honestly, this faffing around the comparisons between the onion and human non coding DNA. Perhaps a little thinking can help.
The onion is member of the Alium genus, which contains 260-860 distinct species, with most authorities estimating the number to 760. (At least according to Wikipedia) There is a spectacular morphological diversity in this group, which includes onions, shallots, chives, garlic, and plenty of ornamental species also. Although I am not aware of a full-test of cross breeding, this paper shows that a lot of these species can cross breed:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w725138223817k20/
Now having great morphological variety between species that can cross-breed indicate a compatible genome, where the emphasis is on various of the regulatory mechanisms. We know that at least some of the non-coding DNA has regulatory roles. As far as the morphology is concerned, the Alium genus seems to need a greater library of regulatory functions than humans.
So, my theory is that the potential for greater morphological variety needs more detailed regulation. Pure ID. From this, one can start to research a) if this theory is true or not, b) if so how does it work exactly.Alex73
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
Eric Andersson:
"Of course, ID doesn’t have any issue with transposon remnants, Nick. ID certainly doesn’t dispute that systems and machines get messed up, degrade, break down over time."
====
Especially when environments have degenerated and degraded as a result of human misuse and abuse of science. Indeed, it has been excellerated by human ignorance, stupidity, greed and selfishness. But then wallowing in eror and imperfection seems to be the purposeful patterned lifestyle of choice now days as many of the arguments bare out across the Net. If there was a an Intelligent Designer, he wouldn't have done such N such this way or that, therefore "Dice Theory" is true. You know how it works!
----
Eric Andersson:
"Petrushka, don’t mix age of the Earth in here. It is irrelevant and ID certainly doesn’t have any issue with the age of the Earth. I do like 5, though!"
====
They can't help themselves. They have a paasionate, strict need for an extreme Fundie take on the argument. Infact it's imperative. It's not so much that they need excuses, indeed they actually invest in them. Pimping I.D. as another Fundie invention allows them a chance of warding off a very real I.D. threat. Don't expect their strategy to intelligently "evolve" any time soon.
----Eocene
October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
Not sure if I understood the biology under whloe this stuff, but we IT dudes know that something "simpler" can be "bigger" then what is seemingly more complex and smaller.
It can be described as different software library reusage for particular tasks. Which means that your component have to carry out not only specific primary functionality, but libraries which your functionality relies upon.
So if the original library was created with human genome in mind, then it is optimised for particular human functionality. But if you have to reuse the same libraries for onions and that is very natural thing to do for Designer (so you don't reinvent the wheel) you take original library and reconfigure it for onion functionality. But this difference between original optimised library and non-human onion will emerge as additional code on the disk, where complexity may decrease.
Ony my 2 cents.
Other answer could be that Human Genome is designed very complex, optimised and loaded into system so it should be highly optimal. Where onion is just copy-paste chinese code simple as brick, without much optimisation as Designer does not care for onion wellbeeing as much as for human wellbeing.
See... we IDists can produce proofs out of thin air too.Shazard
October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
Well if I were the Designer I would have made onions pre-fried!!!! ;)MedsRex
October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
". . . far simpler of the two requiring five times as many lines of code."
Let's just be clear about one thing up front. This statement is an unsupported assertion.
Of course, ID doesn't have any issue with transposon remnants, Nick. ID certainly doesn't dispute that systems and machines get messed up, degrade, break down over time.
Petrushka, don't mix age of the Earth in here. It is irrelevant and ID certainly doesn't have any issue with the age of the Earth. I do like 5, though!Eric Anderson
October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
4. the Designer is a malicious prankster, possibly related to the one that planted all those fake fossils, or the one that planted false evidence for the age of the earth.
5. Onions are far more important to the Designer because they taste better.Petrushka
October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
RBH of Panda's Thumb will be pleased as you are supporting his theory.
Multiple Designer Theory
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/introduction-to.html
Or, it could just be transposon remnants. But that's just the dumb materialist Darwinist ideologues saying that.NickMatzke_UD
October 13, 2011
October
10
Oct
13
13
2011
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
The Onion Test is a legitimate dilema for Intelligent Design Theory. Since computer programs are a useful analogy, please consider the following:
What is the probability that (an) intelligent designer(s) would create two programs, the far simpler of the two requiring five times as many lines of code?
I'm not sure how to go about that calculation, but I can use the analogy to offer some possible explanations:
1. There are multiple designers with a wide-range of proficiency at genetic programming.
2. It's represents the genetic programming learning curve of the intelligent designer(s)
3. Some portion of the genetic programming is non-functional (as in commented-out functions or comments left by one designer intended for another).rhampton7