'Junk DNA' Stirring the pot (tentative thoughts/explorations)

Harveys

Spread the love

After my recent exchanges with Larry Moran, I read some of the comments on his blog posts. I wont be doing that again. It was generally just depressing; hatred (I really don’t understand why they waste their lives responding to us if they have such a low opinion) – not much edifying or thoughtful. In amongst those there was one in particular who berated for hypothesising something and ‘being too lazy’ to test it. He had a point in a way. But the reason I suggested the hypothesis was to make the point that intelligent design yields scientific leads that Darwinists don’t think of (clearly he thought it was idiotic); it was just ‘brainstorming’ ideas out and I don’t know how to do phylogenetic analysis for myself (or not yet). Fortunately, however, someone has gone ahead and done some phylogenetic analysis relevant to my hypothesis, and with some favourable results.

– – –

First some background. In our genome there are things that look like viruses. Some of them are also in the chimp genome in about the same place. Darwinists think this can only mean that these are viral infection-scars, and that humans and chimps are related by actual physical ancestry.

But many of us have long thought that the differences between human and chimp are too great for this, and that the similarities that we see are common designs by a common designer, with a hierarchically- organised proliferation of designs such as one would find for human-designed devices, with taxonomic groups like ‘portable electronics’ (with ‘tablets’ being subtaxon) and ‘engines’. In that case however, where there is common design, these shared virus-like things must have some rationale to them.

Perhaps, I speculated, these things – let us call them harveys – after ERVs – are not old viruses but are instead harveys are the original thing from which viruses evolved? Perhaps they were machines that moved DNA from cell to cell, but some of these got out of control, reproduced like crazy analogous to cancer, and the first virus was born.

The following article suggests that viruses have indeed been created from harvey-like genomic material, at least once and probably many times. Win! At least that’s part of what I was looking for.

What the Smallest Infectious Agents Reveal About Evolution

Additional brainstorming hypothesis: What if the first virus thus created got into other cells and organisms and messed up other kinds of harvey?

10 Replies to “Harveys

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    Score 1 for physicist Andy Jones! Congratulations, and thank you for your persistence in debating those guys.

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    It is awful trying to reason with people who’s minds are made up. I am constantly ridiculed and belittled but that does not matter much because strange as it sounds the wisest of all once said

    “Always remember they hated me first”

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    The breakdown of civility reflecting deep seated polarisation and multiplied by unwillingness to engage in what would bring things back to the same table — e.g. serious worldviews dialogue [note, I did not say “debate”] — is always a worrying sign for a civilisation, reflecting “a house divided.” KF

  4. 4
    Alan Fox says:

    It is awful trying to reason with people who’s minds are made up.

    Pointless, even. Perhaps that is why so little reason is currently expended on promoting “Intelligent Design” here. 🙂

  5. 5
    RexTugwell says:

    It is awful trying to reason with people who’s minds are made up. I am constantly ridiculed and belittled …

    We’ve got to understand how truly horrifying it must be for our Darwinist friends to slowly realize that the evidence for the correct worldview and scientific paradigm is turning away from them and toward the very people they’ve ridiculed and belittled all this time.

    For example, when the initial results of ENCODE we’re released, I suggested that Larry Moran be put on suicide watch.

  6. 6
    Joe says:

    It is awful trying to reason with Alan Fox who’s mind is already made up. Made up of what is the question… 😛

  7. 7
    DonaldM says:

    Alan Fox in #4: “Pointless, even. Perhaps that is why so little reason is currently expended on promoting “Intelligent Design” here.”

    Actually, logic and reason are way more on the side of ID than Darwinian evolution. Further, it needs to be noted that Darwinian evolution can not in any way accommodate any aspect of ID. Darwinian evolution relies completely on the notion that all living things are the result of undirected natural causes. ID, on the other hand, can, and does, accommodate a whole lot of evolution. Even common ancestry, within some limits, is acceptable within ID as a scientific project. That is a fundamental difference between ID and Darwinian evolution that can not be overlooked and is one reason why the rancor on the side of Darwinians is seemingly so rabid at times.

  8. 8
    Barb says:

    This would probably be a good time to discuss some logical fallacies. Interestingly enough, logic and reasoning are mentioned in the Bible. “LET no man deceive you with empty words.” This advice was given nearly 2,000 years ago and still rings as true as ever. Often this is because people fail to distinguish truth from fallacy.

    Students of logic use the word “fallacy” to describe any departure from the path of sound reasoning. Simply stated, a fallacy is a misleading or unsound argument, one in which the conclusion does not follow from preceding statements, or premises. Fallacies may, nevertheless, be powerfully persuasive because they often make a strong appeal to the emotions—not to reason.

    1. Attacking the Person: This type of fallacy attempts to disprove or discredit a perfectly valid argument or statement by making an irrelevant attack on the person presenting it.

    Consider an example from the Bible. Jesus Christ once endeavored to enlighten others regarding his coming death and resurrection. These were new and difficult concepts for his listeners. But rather than weigh the merits of Jesus’ teachings, some attacked Jesus himself, saying: “He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to him?”—John 10:20; compare Acts 26:24, 25.

    How easy it is to label someone “stupid,” “crazy,” or “uninformed” when he or she says something we don’t want to hear. A similar tactic is to attack the person with a subtle dose of innuendo. Typical examples of this are: “If you really understood the matter, you wouldn’t have that point of view” or, “You only believe that because you’re told to believe it.”

    2. Appealing to Authority: This form of verbal intimidation is accomplished by invoking the testimonials of so-called experts or famous people. Of course, for advice it is only natural to look to people who know more about something than we do. But not all appeals to authority are based on sound reasoning.

    Another example of an intimidating appeal to authority is described at John 7:32-49. There we learn that police officers were sent to arrest Jesus Christ. They were so impressed by his teaching, however, that rather than arrest him, they told their superiors: “Never has another man spoken like this.” In reply, Jesus’ enemies said: “You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he?”

    Note that no attempt was made to refute Jesus’ teaching. Rather, the Jewish leaders appealed to their own authority as “experts” in the Law of Moses as the reason to disregard whatever Jesus said.

    3. Join the Crowd: Here the appeal is to popular emotions, prejudices, and beliefs. People generally like to conform. We tend to shrink at the thought of speaking out against prevailing opinions. This tendency to view the majority opinion as automatically correct is used with potent effect in the ‘join-the-crowd’ fallacy. The fact is, everybody doesn’t do those things. And even if they did, that would be no reason for you to do so. The advice given at Exodus 23:2 thus serves as a good general rule of conduct: “You must not follow after the crowd for evil ends.”

    4. Either/Or Reasoning: This fallacy reduces what may be a wide range of options to only two. The weakness of this line of reasoning? It excludes other valid possibilities. So when presented with either/or reasoning, ask yourself, ‘Are there really only two possible choices? Might there be others?’

    5. Oversimplification: Here a statement or argument ignores relevant considerations, oversimplifying what may be a complex issue.

    Granted, there is nothing wrong in simplifying a complicated subject—good teachers do it all the time. But sometimes a matter is simplified to the point of distorting truth. For example, you may read: ‘Rapid population growth is the cause of poverty in developing countries.’ There’s an element of truth in that, but it ignores other important considerations, such as political mismanagement, commercial exploitation, and weather patterns. Check all the facts, or as the Bible puts it, “make sure of all things.”—1 Thessalonians 5:21.

  9. 9
    scordova says:

    Here is an example of Alan Fox, I asked him if he thought space shuttles are intelligently designed:

    Sal: Is a man-made design an example of intelligent design?

    Alan : NO!!!

    Sal: Given what you said, is the Space Shutte and example of intelligent design? How about GMOs?

    Alan: Nothing is an example of intelligent design unless you want to tell me what “intelligent design” is other than the creationist ploy we both know it to be.

    ARN: horrible implications for ID

  10. 10
    Alan Fox says:

    That’s the Sal I know and love!

    You know you are personally responsible for my enduring curiosity about the fortunes of creationism/ID. Does Sal still think the corporation, Genetic-ID, is using the “explanatory filter”?

Leave a Reply