Thursday, November 10, 2011

The New Scientific Version of Intelligent Design Is Compatible with Junk DNA

 
Over on Uncommon Descent we've been discussing junk DNA [Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives]. One of the IDiots (Joseph) has proposed a modification of the existing scientific theory of intelligent design. The new version now accounts for junk DNA.

You might think this is just his personal take on intelligent design but I asked everyone else to comment if they objected to his ideas. After more than 24 hours, nobody raised any objection so I assume Joseph's ideas are acceptable to the other IDiots.

The new version goes like this .....
  1. You can have junk DNA because physical constraints and design compromises prevented a perfect design.
  2. Due to genetic entropy the originally designed genomes might have degenerated.
  3. Junk DNA could have been put in the genome by the intelligent designer as preparation for future creations.
  4. Some of the junk DNA is redundant functional DNA that's present in case a gene breaks down.
This new version of intelligent design is not in conflict with the presence of large amounts of junk in our genome.

The evolution side should know about this new development just in case we're ever accused of not keeping up with the latest advances in Intelligent Design Creationism.

UPDATE: Some readers are a little confused by this article. Of course there's no "new" version of Intelligent Design Creationism. Joseph's speculations are completely at odds with the views of the leading IDiots like Dembski, Myers, Wells, Behe etc. Most of the "leading lights" think there's a serious problem with junk DNA. According to them, ID predicts that most of our genome will be functional.

The point of my article is that the IDiots never criticize or correct their friends no matter how stupid they get. That's why you won't see any proponents of intelligent design posting comments below that question Joseph's statements.

BTW, Joseph, or Joe G, is a field service engineer. Please refrain from making unflattering comments about The Salem Conjecture. (That's my job.)


50 comments :

  1. I've been quietly watching, at a distance, your announcements of your discussions with ID proponents, and understand that you regard ID as having or potentially having a scientific component.

    My usual approach to intelligent design is that it all devolves to "God did it" so isn't much use because we could say of any natural event that it was done by an invisible man in such a way as to look natural. I gather your take must be rather more subtle, and since you're the trained scientist and I'm just this bloke on the internet I would like to learn more about why.

    Is there some post or FAQ you could point me at that might help me to understand the point of all this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gosh, I'm looking forward the exciting innovations ahead in onion design!

    Unless it was designed by a committee, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In an interesting exchange on that thread, Joseph tells one poster to go read Wells's book rather than give a direct answer. The factual response "I'm talking to you, not Wells" led to this nugget:

    if you want to make this personal then let’s get together and take care of it[...]

    'Personal' must mean exceptional use of the dreaded word "you".

    So that's how we sort this out. Moran and Wells, bike sheds, 4pm.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1) So all they have claimed of the non-existence of junk DNA is now redundant.
    2) It now precludes an omnipotent entity as the designer.

    I can see some Iders being very unhappy. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Larry- Thanks.

    One point- we do not know there are large amounts of junk in any genome.

    And until someone goes in and removes all teh alleged junk and has the organism fully develop and live a normal life you don't have any evidence to support your claim.

    But anyway I see you are still trapped in your willfull ignoarnce.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tony Sidaway-

    And what does "evolution" devolve into "evolutiondidit"?

    How about archaeology? Is it the scribe of the gaps?

    Or forensic science?

    Do all design centric venues devolve into "gap" arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi anonymous-

    Yes I am sick of evotards trying to make this personal.

    The "I'm talking to you not him" is a little tiring when they can do their own research.

    It's as if evotards need to be spoon fed and if you don't spoon feed them then they "win".

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1) So all they have claimed of the non-existence of junk DNA is now redundant.

    Nope. Try again.


    2) It now precludes an omnipotent entity as the designer.

    Nope. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You can have junk DNA because physical constraints and design compromises prevented a perfect design.

    This seems to acknowledge that the favourite candidate of ID proponents for designer - an omniscient, omnipotent God - has been ruled out. Otherwise I would have to ask: who sets these rules that God must follow? When you're omnipotent its really distasteful to pass the buck.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How can there be a new scientific theory of intelligent design when there isn't even an old scientific theory of intelligent design.

    Oh yeah, godidit. Created it from nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "When you're omnipotent its really distasteful to pass the buck"

    Their answer to that is that God can do everything *possible*, he can't do impossible stuff. The Bible says he can, for what it's worth, but they ignore that bit.

    So I guess, for some reason, he can't just magic up the animals. Er ... like it says in the Bible he did.

    This is the thing about creationism: it doesn't make any sense in its own terms, let alone any correlation to things you see in the in the actual world. Which is why creationists spend so much time explaining they're not like all those other crazy creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe G

    Yes I am sick of evotards trying to make this personal.

    The "I'm talking to you not him" is a little tiring when they can do their own research.

    It's as if evotards need to be spoon fed and if you don't spoon feed them then they "win".


    It is hard to see how the exchange pointed out was "personal", other than in the use of a personal pronoun, and certainly not why you felt an aggressive suggestion to "get together and take care of it" was appropriate. If one is engaged in a discussion, and makes a claim, it is conventional to back it up, rather than invite the opponent to read an entire book which somewhere may contain the answer.

    How do you react when people tell you that the information you need on evolution is all out there in loads of books? Sorry to appear personal, but a quick lurk on UD tells me exactly how you react.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Intelligent Design" rules out an omnipotent, omniscient Creator because ...

    Design means reworking of stuff from the way that it was presented to the designer(s). This means that the way things were before the design took place was not up to the standards of the designer(s). Design was needed only because Creation was not perfect.

    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joe G,

    Second thoughts, maybe you're right and I should apologise for my previous post. I don't wish discussion to be sidelined by bickering over ad hominem this and insult that.

    Allan

    ReplyDelete
  15. "It is hard to see how the exchange pointed out was "personal","

    It seems to be a theme of the week that religious people told their ideas are stupid take that as an attack on them as human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Design was needed only because Creation was not perfect."

    Well ... this is part of the problem, isn't it: what's meant to have been designed? The Christian view is that the entire universe is one structure built and set running by one being, for one purpose.

    There are clearly other options, including alien beings engineering life on Earth from pre-existing matter.

    Or, indeed, committees or rival factions of divine beings responsible for different things at different times.

    The question I'd ask a creationist is this: 'of all the universes the gods could have made, why did they choose to make pretty much the only one we can imagine that could have happened by purely material processes?'.

    The traditional answer was always 'the universe could only have been created and shaped by the gods', but ... well, that's not necessarily true, now. And if it's not necessarily true, why would it be true? Why would a God that condemns the people he *likes* to an eternity of sucking his cock and telling him how awesome he is be so modest as to hide his work? More to the point ... why would someone who created something boast and insist on the credit ... but lie about the method he used?

    Is there a Buffoonish Design theory? One that states that the universe was created by a complete fucking idiot? Someone so incompetent that he organized a special creation for mankind without spotting the way he used DNA made us look like we weren't?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Allan Miller:
    How do you react when people tell you that the information you need on evolution is all out there in loads of books?

    I would ask them to point them to me - I have read more books, textbooks included, by evolutionary biologists than I have read from IDists.

    But anyway you are right- another topic.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey Larry,

    What I said back in 2006 about junk dna and ID-

    As for everyone else- I don't have the opinion that "Goddidit" but I am of the opinion that we can- because we do- detect and study designs.

    We exist and there is only one reality behind that existence.And by studying the design IDists think we can infer the reason behind our existence.

    OTOH if you don't think there is any reason, that we are just some accidental consequence- we emerged from the chaos- then CS Lewis applies:

    If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

    I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.

    It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon:
    The question I'd ask a creationist is this: 'of all the universes the gods could have made, why did they choose to make pretty much the only one we can imagine that could have happened by purely material processes?'.

    I would say your imagination sux. I would also say if science was done by imagination then your position would have some positive evidence for support.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I would say your imagination sux."

    You'd go for the personal insult, rather than a substantive point? Fair enough.

    "I would also say if science was done by imagination then your position would have some positive evidence for support."

    Thanks. Not sure why you phrased it as a conditional.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And BTW- Creationists would explain junk DNA by referencing the Bible- a little-known event called the fall from grace in which A & E were booted out of television, I mean Eden.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "We exist and there is only one reality behind that existence.And by studying the design IDists think we can infer the reason behind our existence."

    To get worked up about gay marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  23. NewEnglandChimp???? LOLOLOLOLOL

    At least CS Lewis was capable of thought, and original thought at that.

    Or has junk DNA overwhelmed your limbric system?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ad hominem joe:
    "At least CS Lewis was capable of thought".

    Too bad he never wrote any down. He was a hack.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Tony,

    Most of intelligent design creationism has nothing to do with God. They spend about 99.9% of their time attacking evolution. That part qualifies as science by any definition. It's bad science, but it's still science.

    I like to refute their attacks on evolution. It's fun.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Creationists would explain junk DNA by referencing the Bible"

    OK. So ... Adam and Eve did not have junk DNA before the Fall? And all the other plants and animals in Eden didn't have junk DNA?

    So, to be clear about this: junk DNA is *not* part of the 'design'?

    Did it all suddenly show up when Eve ate the apple, or has it gradually accreted?

    Also, in Teletubbies, why does Tinky Winky have a handbag?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "limbric"

    Joe you should attend Larry's class.
    Although I doubt you would pass.
    Your dogmatic position
    Stems from a crazy religion,
    And means you talk out of your ass.

    My 'limbric' system seems fine, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree with the first post by Tony Sidaway.

    All observations, ALL observations are potentially compatible with ID. You simply have to post-hoc rationalize some excuse for what you see is what the designer wanted all along.

    Unless design proponents wish to propose some constraints and details about what the designer wants and how the designer wishes to achieve this, all observations are compatible with ID and ID can't make any testable predictions.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But first, let me hear from the other IDiots posting here.
    Now do you know why you are called IDiots?


    How do you get away with posting that sort of thing on a UD thread and not get censored! Hahaa! Perhaps they've at last accepted "cantankerous old Larry" as they devil they know!

    ReplyDelete
  30. And I agree with the observations of Rumraket.

    But it isn't just that ID doesn't make any testable predictions, for ID does not rule out anything at all. Even impossible things are "intelligently designed". Example: "Penrose triangles" are intelligently designed.

    BTW, because some things that don't exist are intelligently designed, that means that intelligent design is not enough to account for the existence of something.

    TomS

    ReplyDelete
  31. Larry,

    You are confused- IDists do not attack evolution, we attack the blind watchmaker. And we do that because of Newton's First Rule- ya see Larry science mandates eliminating the more simple explanations first.

    ReplyDelete
  32. OK guys your ignorance is showing- Intelligent Design can be falsified just by demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for what we say is designed.

    THAT is what ID cannot account for- the removal of a designer requirement by demonstrating blind, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the universe and living organisms.

    But you can't- you can't even muster a testable hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ignorant anon sez:
    Your dogmatic position
    Stems from a crazy religion,


    Except I am not religious and do not have a religion.

    But thanks for proving that you are an ignorant puke.

    I also understand that attacking me is much easier than actually supporting your position, which appears impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  34. BTW, Joseph, or Joe G, is a field service engineer.

    I was- but then again I was also a research scientist, a technical specialist, a sustaining engineer, a R&D engineer and a debug technician.

    I chose technology because science is shit without it- might as well be philosphy.

    We get results as opposed to theoretical musings about past events.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I also understand that attacking me is much easier than actually supporting your position, which appears impossible."

    My position is that what you believe makes you very silly, so what I said was in complete support of that.

    As for not being 'religious' ... no, of course not, you simply believe that the universe was created and designed by - your words - 'an omnipotent entity'. You explained junk DNA by referring to the Fall. You cite CS Lewis as an authority on astronomy.

    Go on, do the caught-out-creationist swerve, say you weren't describing *your own* views, merely what some people think or a hypothesis that you take no view on personally but feel is worth considering.

    As for eliminating the more simple solutions first ... how is 'designed' more simple than 'random'? If you're walking outside and a bird shits on you, which is more likely: it was down to (in this case bad) luck, or it was the consequence of an omnipotent being's designs, carefully choreographed so that you and that bird would converge to teach you an important moral lesson about ... oh, something to do with sexual morality, probably?

    I did, as it happens, ask you a question about Junk DNA and the Fall. You didn't answer it, presumably because you know exactly how foolish your answer would sound.

    ReplyDelete
  36. OK guys your ignorance is showing- Intelligent Design can be falsified just by demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for what we say is designed.

    OK, here goes ... blind, undirected processes can account for what you say is designed. There - demonstrated, with exactly the same rigour as the position that they cannot.

    But you can't- you can't even muster a testable hypothesis.

    ..!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Alan Miller:
    OK, here goes ... blind, undirected processes can account for what you say is designed.

    Yup, that is about all the "evidence" your position can muster.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  38. anonymous douche:
    As for not being 'religious' ... no, of course not, you simply believe that the universe was created and designed by - your words - 'an omnipotent entity'.

    Not my words.

    You explained junk DNA by referring to the Fall.

    No, you moron. I said that is how Creationists explain junk DNA.

    You cite CS Lewis as an authority on astronomy.

    No, I did not. You are a moron.

    As for eliminating the more simple solutions first ... how is 'designed' more simple than 'random'?

    One design over millions of just-so random events? That should be obvious.

    I did, as it happens, ask you a question about Junk DNA and the Fall.

    I don't care what you ask- you have nothing to offer but ignorant spewage.

    ReplyDelete
  39. assface:
    So ... Adam and Eve did not have junk DNA before the Fall?

    Non-sequitur.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Not my words"

    You said it wasn't precluded, Friday, November 11, 2011 8:51:00 AM

    "No, you moron. I said that is how Creationists explain junk DNA."

    You did, Friday, November 11, 2011 4:58:00 PM

    But, as I predicted, you did the swerve.

    "You cite CS Lewis as an authority on astronomy / No, I did not"

    You did, Friday, November 11, 2011 4:05:00 PM

    It's the same old story - twats like you beg for real scientists to take you seriously, and the moment anyone calls you on it and says 'show us what you've got', suddenly, wait, you didn't say any of it, and if you did, you didn't mean it.

    You're an engineer, you read the Bible and see engineering; just as arts grads read the Bible and see metaphors; just as scientists read it and see an obsolescent science textbook. Part of the reason the holy books that endure do so is that everyone can read it and find something they agree with. You've just fallen for a scam.

    Either that, or you look at a tree and think the only possibly way it got there is there's a tree factory in heaven/the platonic realm/the dreamscape with some awesome technical director. In which case, you're just a berk.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yup, that is about all the "evidence" your position can muster.

    So where is your evidence that complexity demands an intelligent agent? You decide that it does, based upon your knowledge of designed complex systems - an argument from analogy, as far as I can see - and then berate scientists for failing to provide evidence to disabuse you of your self-imposed 'difficulty'.

    If this intelligence is physically embodied, as all observable intelligences are, how did it get here? Can intelligent entities actually cross interstellar distances? I don't think they can - I guess it would be up to me to prove they can't? And we still have to explain how they arose.

    Or is your position that it is not physically embodied - in which case, how is it sustained and how does it interact with the matter of biological entities?

    Or, is "assface" actually your best argument?

    ReplyDelete
  42. A different Anon said

    As for eliminating the more simple solutions first ... how is 'designed' more simple than 'random'?

    Joe G responded
    One design over millions of just-so random events? That should be obvious.

    Given the remarkable and so far undemonstrated powers one would have to assume in this designer, I'm not convinced you fully grasp the application of the principle of parsimony!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Joe G writes:

    And until someone goes in and removes all teh alleged junk and has the organism fully develop and live a normal life you don't have any evidence to support your claim.

    Google "knockout mice," Joe - it's been done.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh look, ID debate tactic #1 'when you've been caught out, say you never said it' was followed by tactic #2 'when someone shows where you said it, disappear'.

    Looks like Joe G got the same Field Manual they're all issued with.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Or, is "assface" actually your best argument?

    Yes, closely followed by the "You are a moron" argument.

    Keep them coming Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  46. joe g, it's so nice to see you here. Unfortunately for you there are no mods here that will protect you from having your IDiotic arguments exposed.

    You barfed:

    "when they can do their own research"

    I'm wondering when you IDiots are going to do your own research? Do you know what research is joe? Can you point me to any ID research that supports ID? Bashing science, Darwin and the ToE, and belching religious garbage, isn't research joe.

    You brought up archaeology and forensics, like you regularly do on UD and your site. Something you always ignore is that both of them have to do with human history and actions. Neither is concerned with supernatural sky daddies.

    "Do all design centric venues devolve into "gap" arguments?"

    Well, if I understand you correctly, then yes. You Idiots always look for gaps (even if they're not there) to shove your god into.

    "We exist and there is only one reality behind that existence."

    Who or what exactly is that "one reality" joe?

    "And by studying the design IDists think we can infer the reason behind our existence."

    So, you "think" you "can infer". Cue the brass band! Tell me joe, what exactly is "the reason behind our existence" and what designs are you IDiots "studying"? Where can I see peer reviewed papers on the ID research you're doing that substantiate your ID claims?

    "Creationists would explain junk DNA by referencing the Bible- a little-known event called the fall from grace"

    Hmm, since you're a self proclaimed muslim creationist I'm a little surprised that you would reference the bible. Shouldn't you be referring to the Quran?

    By the way, I think it's hilarious that you would blame the "fall" for junk DNA.

    See part two.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Part two.

    "I would also say if science was done by imagination then your position would have some positive evidence for support."

    ID relies totally on imagination, and yet you still have no positive evidence.

    "As for everyone else- I don't have the opinion that "Goddidit" but I am of the opinion that we can- because we do- detect and study designs."

    That's a nonsensical statement. Apparently you're saying that you don't have the opinion that god-did-it (LOL) but you can have that opinion because you IDiots study and detect designs. You ought to make up your feeble mind joe, and maybe you can show your research and results on the designs you've detected and studied? Designs in nature of course. Not man-made stuff. How much "CSI" is there in a banana?

    "Yes I am sick of evotards trying to make this personal."

    Yeah, your remarks on this site, UD, ATBC, your site, and other sites, really show that you aren't guilty of making things personal. It's just those evil "evotards" that are making things personal. Pfft.

    "The "I'm talking to you not him" is a little tiring when they can do their own research."

    Again, when are you IDiots going to do any research? And again, bashing science, Darwin and the ToE, and preaching religious crap, isn't research.

    "It's as if evotards need to be spoon fed and if you don't spoon feed them then they "win"."

    With you religious zombies it ALL about winning, and even though you've been spoon fed massive amounts of real science by many people for years you still cling to your asinine religious beliefs and try to pass them off as science.

    "At least CS Lewis was capable of thought, and original thought at that."

    Lewis was a nutcase. You IDiots always use the nuttiest people to try to support your claims. Have you seen Bigfoot lately joe? What do you think of crop circles? Have you been captured and 'probed' by aliens?


    See part three.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Part three.

    "You are confused- IDists do not attack evolution, we attack the blind watchmaker."

    Yeah, right. I suggested this to you before joe: Get UD to post a poll on their site asking all the IDiots there to vote on whether they accept evolution in any form. You're not afraid of the results, are you?

    "Intelligent Design can be falsified just by demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for what we say is designed."

    I wish I had a dollar for every time you've said that. Hey joe, I believe that my left nut created the universe and everything in it, including life. You can falsify it by showing that your chosen god did it instead. Can you show that?

    "But you can't- you can't even muster a testable hypothesis."

    And your testable ID hypothesis is....?

    Evolutionary theory has testable hypotheses. Just because ALL the answers haven't been found yet for every possible question doesn't mean that nothing is being done to find the answers or that no answers have been found. It takes time to do actual research. Yeah, actual scientific research, not the science/Darwin/ToE bashing, religion spewing, arrogant, ignorant, pseudo-science crap that you IDiots call ID.

    You IDiots have been bitching, bashing, and whining for YEARS and you haven't gotten anywhere positive with your agenda. Do you know why joe? I'm sure you don't so I'll tell you.

    You're trying to replace science with a religious and political agenda, and a dishonest one at that. All you have is belligerence and bluster and fairy tales. You don't have the slightest clue as to how to conduct science. You expect and demand that science throws away everything that conflicts with your religious beliefs and automatically accepts your beliefs. It's like you taking a bowling ball to a baseball game and then being pissed because they don't allow you to play, and then you try to force them to change the entire game and build a bowling alley just for you.

    Science is science joe. It isn't a church. It isn't religion. It isn't your domain. It isn't where you IDiots belong. You belong in an asylum.

    "Except I am not religious and do not have a religion."

    That's a lie joe, and you know it.

    "But thanks for proving that you are an ignorant puke."

    Look who's talking.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Part four.

    "I also understand that attacking me is much easier than actually supporting your position, which appears impossible."

    What's impossible is for you and the rest of the IDiots to get it through your empty skulls that you are never going to replace science with your insane religious beliefs, and it's also obviously impossible for you to realize that you must have (and don't have) POSITIVE evidence to support your claims.

    ALL you IDiots do is attack Darwin, "Darwinists", materialists, naturalists, atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, science, scientists, science supporters, many journalists/authors/bloggers/speakers, etc., and even other religions or other interpretations of your religion, and of course you throw in a LOT of preaching and proselytizing too.

    "BTW, Joseph, or Joe G, is a field service engineer.

    I was- but then again I was also a research scientist, a technical specialist, a sustaining engineer, a R&D engineer and a debug technician.

    I chose technology because science is shit without it- might as well be philosphy.

    We get results as opposed to theoretical musings about past events."

    Yeah sure joe, and you can bench press 300 pounds, and you're a war hero, and you have an awesome lab in your basement, and you know all about law, and you could beat evolutionists in court, and you never attack anyone, and you never threaten anyone, and you're smarter and more educated than all of the scientists on Earth, and your ID agenda is strictly scientific, and you're not afraid of clowns, and blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Who do you think you're fooling?

    "One design over millions of just-so random events? That should be obvious."

    So, your chosen god designed everything in the universe in just one design?

    "I don't care what you ask- you have nothing to offer but ignorant spewage."

    Buy a mirror joe.

    ReplyDelete