Monday, August 10, 2015

Insulators, junk DNA, and more hype and misconceptions

The folks at Evolution News & Views (sic) can serve a very useful purpose. They are constantly scanning the scientific literature for any hint of evidence to support their claim about junk DNA. Recall that Intelligent Design Creationists have declared that if most of our genome is junk then intelligent design is falsified since one of the main predictions of intelligent design is that most of our genome will be functional.

THEME

Genomes & Junk DNA
They must be getting worried because their most recent posts sounds quite desperate. The last one is: The Un-Junk Industry. It quotes a popular press report on a paper published recently in Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). The creationists concede that the paper itself doesn't even mention junk DNA but the article in EurekAlert does.

Let''s look first at the paper (Wang et al. (2015). They are looking at sequences called "insulators" in the human genome. I'm not familiar with this term. Here's how they describe it ...
Insulators are regulatory sequence elements that help to organize eukaryotic chromatin into functionally distinct domains. Insulators can encode two different functions: enhancer-blocking activity and chromatin barrier activity. Enhancer-blocking insulators prevent the interaction of enhancer and promoter elements located in distinct domains, and chromatin barrier insulators, also known as boundary elements, protect active\ chromatin domains by blocking the spread of repressive chromatin.
That doesn't sound very specific. I can imagine that it's going to be very difficult to distinguish between sequence elements that merely disrupt chromatin because they accidentally contain protein binding sites and those that really play a biologically functional role in regulating gene expression.

The authors note that some insulators have been identified in other species. One of them, in the mouse genome, is associated with a defective SINE B2 element. Recall that SINEs (Short INterpersed Elements) are usually derived from short RNAs that have been reverse transcribed and inserted back into the genome. They are pseudogenes [Junk in Your Genome: SINES]. Many of them come from genes that were originally transcribed by RNA polymerase III.

One of the characteristics of RNA polymerase III promoters is that the transcription initiation sites are internal. Thus, when a transcript is reverse transcribed into DNA the promoter region is copied along with the rest of the molecule. When these sequences are integrated into the genome as pseudogenes, they can easily be transcribed again producing more transcripts that can serve as additional sources of cDNA. (RNA polymerase II, on the other hand, binds to sequences upstream of the transcription start site so that when pol II transcripts are copied into cDNA and re-inserted as pseudogenes they cannot be transcribed because they lack a promoter. Protein-coding genes are transcribed by RNA polymerase II.)

A typical SINE looks like the figure on the right. The short sequences labelled "A" and "B" are sequences where the RNA polymerase III holoenzyme binds to initiate transcription at the the upstream transcription start site "P."

The most common SINE in the human genome is derived from 7SL RNA giving rise to the Alu repeats [Signal Recognition Particle and Transcription of the 7SL Gene ]. There are a million copies of this particular SINE in the human genome [Junk in Your Genome: SINES]. Since they are not under selective pressure, most of them have acquired mutations, deletions, and insertions so they no longer make an RNA that resembles 7SL RNA. They are defective copies, of junk. Many of them have mutations in the RNA polymerase III binding motifs so they are not transcribed but lots of them still serve as spurious transcription start sites. The junk RNA that's produce is harmless.


The mouse B2 element is a SINE derived from a tRNA molecule. They are very common in the mouse genome. Apparently, one of them has insulator activity that's presumed to be biologically functional.

There are tRNA-derived SINES in the human genome so the authors decided to look at one particular class, called MIRs to see if they had insulator activity. Some of them are expected to have some of the characteristics of insulators because they contain the B-box sequence that serves as a binding site for RNA polymerase III. This will disrupt chromatin structure in the surrounding region as shown in Figure 1 of their paper (left).

The study identified 1,178 SINEs that could possibly be involved in an insulator-like function. Nobody knows how many of these are just defective SINES that happen to retain RNA polymerase III binding motifs but are still junk DNA. Nobody knows how many of them have been co-opted to serve a biological function in regulating expression of nearby genes. However, it's important to keep in mind that we're dealing with sequences of less than 100 bp and even if every single one of them has been co-opted to serve a biological function—an absurd possibility—it would still only amount to less that 0.01% of the genome.

Now let's look at the report published in EurekAlert [Punctuating messages encoded in human genome with transposable elements]. EurekAlert is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)—the same organization that publishes Science. The Press Release copied in EurekAlert comes from Aelan Cell Technologies Inc. in San Francisco [see Punctuating messages encoded in human genome with transposable elements]. The 7th and 10th authors on the paper are affiliated with Aelan Cell Technologies Inc. The press release is published on the Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) website. The senior author is located at the Georgia Institute of Technology.1

Here's that part that excited the IDiots ...
San Francisco, CA - Since the classical studies of Jacob and Monod in the early 1960s, it has been evident that genome sequences contain not only blueprints for genes and the proteins that they encode, but also the instructions for a coordinated regulatory program that governs when, where and to what extent these genes and proteins are expressed. The execution of this regulatory code is what allows for the creation of very different cell- and tissue-types from the same set of genetic instructions found in the nucleus of every cell. A recent study published in PNAS (July 27, 2015) shows that critical aspects of this regulatory program are encoded by genomic sequence elements that were previously thought to be mere "junk DNA" with no important functions.

The vast majority of the human genome (~98% of the total genetic information) is not dedicated to encoding proteins, and this non-coding sequence was initially designated as "junk DNA" to underscore its lack of apparent function. Much of the so-called junk DNA in our genomes has accumulated over evolutionary time due to the activity of retrotransposable elements (RTEs), which are capable of moving (transposing) from one location to another in the genome and make copies of themselves when they do so. These elements have been considered as genomic parasites that exist by virtue of their ability to replicate themselves to high numbers within genomes without providing any beneficial function for the hosts in which they reside. However, recent studies on RTEs have shown that they can in fact encode important functions, and much of their functional activity turns out to be related to how genomes are regulated. RTEs have been linked to stem cell function, tissue differentiation, cancer progression and ultimately to aging and age-related pathologies.
The most interesting part of this press release—aside from the fact that it misrepresents the paper—is that it's internally contradictory. It begins by explaining that we've known about noncoding regulatory sequences since the time of Jacob and Monod (roughly 1965). The next paragraph repeats the false notion that scientists used to think that all noncoding DNA was junk. Those must have been very strange scientists who had never heard of regulatory sequences.

There was never a time when knowledgeable scientists ever thought that all noncoding DNA was junk [Stop Using the Term "Noncoding DNA:" It Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means].

Here are my two proposed rules about press releases [Stupid Harvard press release illustrates the importance of author responsibility ].
  1. The press release must include the complete citation, including a link (doi). If This means delaying the press release for a day or two after the embargo is lifted then that's a small price to pay.
  2. The press release should always include a notice from at least one author affirming, in writing, that the press release is a complete and accurate report of the results and conclusions that have been published in the peer reviewed literature.

EurekAlert wants to make sure you understand that they don't take any responsibility for anything they publish: "Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

Wang, J., Vicente-García, C., Seruggia, D., Moltó, E., Fernandez-Miñán, A., Neto, A., Lee, E., Gómez-Skarmetad, J.L., Montoliub, L., Lunyak, V.V. and Jordan, I. K. (2015) MIR retrotransposon sequences provide insulators to the human genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) Published online July 27, 2015 [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1507253112]

37 comments :

  1. This part needs bold facing:

    we're dealing with sequences of less than 100 bp and even if every single one of them has been co-opted to serve a biological function—an absurd possibility—it would still only amount to less that 0.01% of the genome.

    This is what I call the "Divide by 3 billion Problem." IDcreationists, muggle reporters and no-junk-at-allers always systematically refuse to count up the total number of base pairs shown to be actually functional in their "Paradigm Shifting" research, then divide that number by the size of the genome: 3.2 billion base pairs. Divide by 3 billion and THEN tell us about your paradigm-shifting research, Galileo.

    They also have the "Passive Voice Pussy" problem:

    this non-coding sequence was initially designated "junk DNA"

    Passive Voice Pussies! Who is the subject of the verb "designated"? PVPs always switch to passive voice when they're being evasive or trying to pull a fast one.

    Tell us who, exactly, said all non-coding DNA was "junk", when and where! Citation to the peer-reviewed literature on genetics, please! Year and page number, please! Jesus, Passive Voice Pussies always pull this BS! Demand a name, year and page number!

    In all discussions of Junk DNA, ban the passive voice!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I sent a message to Georgia Institute of Technology and suggested that King Jordan should read this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I completely fail to understand why the ID movement predicts the (relative) absence of junk DNA.

    1. All they say they can detect is that some features of life show signs of being the result of Intelligent Design. That leaves open the possibility of what gave rise to all the other features.

    2. Actually, all they say is that some features of life can't be explained by natural evolutionary forces. They don't ever seriously try to prove ID in any positive way.

    3. ... and when you confront them with examples of Bad Design, they indignantly insist that we can't know the intentions of The Designer and shouldn't speculate on them ...

    4. Except in the case of junk DNA where they insist that their Designer would never do something so messy.

    So they made a junk set of arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly right, Joe. Even if we postulate an 'intelligent designer', it does not logically follow that there should be no junk DNA. I don't understand why they have latched onto this concept, as it is so untenable. It would make more sense to resort to the 'god is mysterious' excuse for junk DNA and be consistent with the bad design excuse.

      Delete
    2. Because, once upon a time, they bet their money on the no-junk hypothesis and claimed it as their "scientific prediction". They have repeated this claim too many times and now can't retract it without losing face, since they've got no other prediction to replace it. So they stick to their guns stupidly, digging their hole deeper and deeper.

      Delete
    3. Because, once upon a time, they bet their money on the no-junk hypothesis and claimed it as their "scientific prediction".

      They only made that bet after they misread the scientific literature as saying Junk DNA had been disproven. It was only at that point they issued their "prediction". It's as if they "predicted" the winner of the Super Bowl the day after the game was played. And still got it wrong.

      Delete
    4. Bad designer: See top cartoon here -

      http://madnessinthemiddlekingdom.blogspot.com/2009/12/far-side.html

      Delete
    5. It would be easy to rationize that an intelligent designer may make mistakes, or at least not come up with a perfect design, especially since this might have been its first or only kick at the can.
      However, since they know their anonymous designer is in fact god, and they know god to be perfect, this pretty well hamstrings them into claiming perfect design, even if mere humans cannot understand the details.

      Delete
    6. The bottom cartoon is applicable as well considering some of the "gifted" regulars who infest this site.

      Delete
    7. Joe

      The DI has always hedged their bets regarding junk DNA. Up until a few years ago they would say - as you suggest - that junk DNA could have accumulated by natural processes acting on designed structures.

      I think the reason the DI chooses to argue so many seemingly innocuous topics is that they realize that everything in biology is connected and if they give ground on some topic it could come back to bite them in the ass... so point mutations between siblings are part of the same evidence that major clades are related by common descent. If they accept that some DNA is junk then as examples start to accumulate for novel coopted functions for junk DNA that puts them into a very uncomfortable position

      Delete
    8. ...and another example

      A few years ago Luskin wrote a piece disputing the evidence for selective sweeps. This struck me as odd at the time since even YECs shouldn't have a problem with sweeps. They could dismiss it with the same rhetorical tricks that they dismiss antibiotic resistance as significant. But Luskin realized that if they accept selective sweeps are real, then as soon as examples turn up ( and there probably already were examples) of selective sweeps within sequences involved in complex IC structures and processes, they have a big problem

      Delete
    9. I think it's to easy to overanalyze the creationists' tactics and try figure out their subtle and cunning plan. Really, all there is, is that they see science as their enemy and so they fling as much poo at it as they can, hoping at least some of it will stick. Formulating a coherent and testable hypothesis is not even on their radar.

      Delete
    10. Just as the null hypothesis in evolutionary biology is neutrality, the null hypothesis in analyzing people's actions is that where mere incompetence suffices there is no need to invoke grand conspiracies or cunning plans until evidence to the contrary accumulates.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. SRM says: It would be easy to rationize that an intelligent designer may make mistakes, or at least not come up with a perfect design, especially since this might have been its first or only kick at the can.

      Right. One reason we know that the Egyptians invented the pyramid technology (as opposed to getting it from a pre-Flood civilization, or Atlantis, or aliens) is that their earliest attempts were screwups, like the Bent Pyramid and the incomplete pyramid (of Zhoser IIRC). Likewise their mummification technology: the early attempts were more primitive.

      By contrast, with the IDers' Grand Omniscient Designer, all DNA in all species has to be perfect right out of the box.

      Delete
    13. This is off-topic, but Piotr may find it of interest: the DI's "Explore Evolution" textbook has been translated into Polish, so Klinghoffer is crowing about this great achievement:

      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/explore_evoluti098441.html

      The funny part is that Klinghitler links to a video of a guy talking about their book in Polish, and Klinghitler doesn't know Polish, but he's somehow sure they're treating ID with the respect it deserves.

      Teach the controversy!

      Delete
    14. I have never heard of Father Michał Chaberek before, but I know the host well enough -- an ultracatholic bigot, holier than the Pope (especially the current one), a notorious homophobe and anti-IVF activist. Rzeczpospolita is a newspaper with rightwing sympaties (influential but not the largest one in the country, pace Klinghoffer), and Gość Niedzielny
      is a conservative Catholic Sunday magazine, totally controlled by the Church. TV Republika supports conservative, nationalist and religious values (the less said the better|).

      I have just checked that Chaberek is already the author of a book entitled Creation or Evolution? -- The Catholic's Dilemma. Summary: According to the Bible, man was made from dust, and did not evolve from any mythical hominids. The book of nature and God's revelation complement each other, but if they seem to conflict, trust the latter because those who don't go to hell. End of dilemma.

      Delete
    15. Bad design "argument" is not a proof that the designer doesn't exist.

      If anything, it is an argument that the designer did a bad job with his design.

      Or that the design has deteriorated since its original form due to many errors of replication and accumulation of deleterious mutations.

      By acknowledging that something was badly designed one confirms the existence of a designer; good or bad depending on ones view.

      Delete
    16. lies,

      "Bad design "argument" is not a proof that the designer doesn't exist.

      If anything, it is an argument that the designer did a bad job with his design."

      Bad design is not proof that there is a designer either. But just out of curiosity, what is your ad hoc rationalization for why an omnipotent designer did a b ad job?

      "Or that the design has deteriorated since its original form due to many errors of replication and accumulation of deleterious mutations."

      So we were once perfect, with no appendix, no dental problems, functioning vitamin C synthesis enzymes, etc? Did the designer later give us an appendix and leave broken vitamin C synthesis genes in our genome to be cruel? Why do whales have little degenerate pelvic bones? And why did (s)he/it design malaria, cancer etc? What kind of psychotic sadist is this designer?

      "By acknowledging that something was badly designed one confirms the existence of a designer; good or bad depending on ones view."

      That doesn't follow logically at all. If we were in fact perfectly designed you claim that was proof of a designer. So no matter how good, bad, or in between the design, you conclude at the end that this is proof of a designer.

      Delete
    17. "Bad design "argument" is not a proof that the designer doesn't exist."


      Then 'good design' is not proof that the designer does exist.

      You simple Sals want to have your Little Debbie snack and eat it, too.

      Delete
    18. Haha. I see it didn't take long for Lies to adopt my "god is just a bad designer" idea as a way to back out of the junk DNA cul de sac.

      Delete
    19. In any case, bad design has never, and could never, be used as an argument against the existence of god. The reason the topic is discussed is because the faithful claim perfect design... that is all.

      Delete
  4. Answering Joe Felsenstein's questions:

    1. All they say they can detect is that some features of life show signs of being the result of Intelligent Design. That leaves open the possibility of what gave rise to all the other features.

    A wise scientist who is dedicated to "intelligence" related theory would normally follow up on such a hunch, not turn to (anti)religion for answers.

    2. Actually, all they say is that some features of life can't be explained by natural evolutionary forces. They don't ever seriously try to prove ID in any positive way.

    Over the years I have seen many seriously doing the best they can "to prove ID in any positive way". With all considered I have to give them credit for that, even though their perseverance annoys you.

    3. ... and when you confront them with examples of Bad Design, they indignantly insist that we can't know the intentions of The Designer and shouldn't speculate on them ...

    The "Bad Design" arguments are entirely religious, not scientific. You are then fabricating your own religious deity to compete with your stereotypes of what all in the ID movement believe in, even though all are well aware of the realities of life. This tactic is a classic red-herring, a strawman to begin with.

    4. Except in the case of junk DNA where they insist that their Designer would never do something so messy.

    In my opinion it's an expected response to opponents who automatically jump to conclusions in order to use something like this against them, by turning such a thing into another religious "Bad Design" argument. The theory that I am involved in predicts old memories that are not absolutely needed for survival such as disabled viral elements and systems that are not currently being used may fade over time but without them you have an easy to destroy zombie with a serious case of amnesia. There may also be long term survival related networks that in code would look like senseless repeat junk, to those who do not know how it works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary Gaulin says: The "Bad Design" arguments are entirely religious, not scientific. You are then fabricating your own religious deity

      Then how do you IDiots know that the Intelligent Designer would not create bad design in DNA?

      How do you IDiots know that the Intelligent Designer would not create junk DNA?

      Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer, and all other IDiots say they know the Intelligent Designer would not create bad design in DNA. They know the Intelligent Designer must make all DNA functional.

      That is a "bad design" argument, but it's OK and total science-y science when THEY do it. It's only bad when WE use their assumptions!

      Yes, it's OK when they do it because they worship the same god as you. #$%^ you, you #$%^ing hypocritical fraudulent non-scientist posing-as-a-scientist assclown POSER. You have no position of authority from which to distinguish science from your coreligionists' bone-waving voodoo. $%^&ing assclown poser hypocrite.

      Why have you, Gary, not gone over to Evolution News & Views to write a comment and complain that THEIR, not our, '"Bad Design" arguments are entirely religious, not scientific' and tell them that THEY, not we, 'are then fabricating your own religious deity.'

      After all, it should be easy to submit a comment to the Discovery Institute's website. You just look for the "comment" box on their blog.

      Oh wait...

      Delete
    2. Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer, and all other IDiots say they know the Intelligent Designer would not create bad design in DNA. They know the Intelligent Designer must make all DNA functional.

      Or, they say that evolution ("Darwininan" evolution in particular) must result in junk DNA. Which is also incorrect.

      Delete
    3. Correction: That should say "Darwinian"....

      Delete
    4. Before long ENV will probably post a sermon claiming that life forms (and everything else) are gradually (or rapidly) falling apart. Some terms that IDiot-creationists like to use in those claims are genetic entropy, atrophy, degradation, degeneration, etc. (due to 'the fall' of course but they won't publicly admit that). IDiot-creationists (and other versions of creationists) have a tendency to bounce back and forth and all around in their claims (uh, yeah!). Even if they realize and were to admit that there are or may be imperfections in 'God's creation' they obviously don't believe that there were imperfections 'in the beginning', and any suggested 'junk' isn't 'junk' and never was 'junk'. God don't create junk! To creobots, imperfections in 'creation' aren't actually imperfections. They're the deserved result of righteous punishment for the first sin and continued sins, like worshiping false gods (e.g. Darwin the anti-christ). To creobots, everything that God does is perfect, even when it causes imperfections.

      Repent now, Darwinist sinners, before it's too late! LOL

      Delete
    5. Diogenes wonders:
      That is a "bad design" argument, but it's OK and total science-y science when THEY do it. It's only bad when WE use their assumptions!

      It's only a bad thing when you use religious/philosophical arguments as a scientific test for a premise (essentially a hypothesis that requires explaining how something works or happened) that states "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

      Yes, it's OK when they do it because they worship the same god as you. #$%^ you, you #$%^ing hypocritical fraudulent non-scientist posing-as-a-scientist assclown POSER. You have no position of authority from which to distinguish science from your coreligionists' bone-waving voodoo. $%^&ing assclown poser hypocrite.

      Logically speaking: we were all created by the same thing. I worship whatever that is by searching for scientific answers to the origin of intelligent life. It's nice to have others who are genuinely helping, even though it seems like all of us have our own way on getting on each other's nerves.

      Why have you, Gary, not gone over to Evolution News & Views to write a comment and complain that THEIR, not our, '"Bad Design" arguments are entirely religious, not scientific' and tell them that THEY, not we, 'are then fabricating your own religious deity.'

      If all understand that the outcome of the debate leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion then it can be a wonderfully educational experience, for all involved. I'm not ashamed of myself for having helped to stir that one up.

      After all, it should be easy to submit a comment to the Discovery Institute's website. You just look for the "comment" box on their blog.

      The official Discovery Institute website does not have a public forum to post comments in. Uncommon Descent and others are affiliated in the sense that they exist to support ID, but they are separate entities the Discovery Institute would publicly distance themselves from if they fail to stay in-spirit with the premise of the theory. It's scientifically OK to cover the religious implications of a theory like BioLogos does for Darwinian theory, therefore I really have no scientific reason to complain.

      I can honestly say that the ID websites are now more help than ever keeping up what's happening in science that I need to know about. And Larry helps alert me to what I absolutely need to carefully study. So with all considered, all is still going as well as I hoped it would go.

      Verse and Music:
      17 - Gel - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra

      Delete
    6. How do you think Alternative Splicing has contributed to evolution?

      Delete
    7. Gary said;

      "If all understand that the outcome of the debate leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion then it can be a wonderfully educational experience, for all involved."

      The "outcome of the debate" (actually, anything in regard to "the debate") "leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion" for you and your fellow IDiot-creationists, but not for me and a lot of other people, so don't even begin to presume that you can speak for "all".

      "I'm not ashamed of myself for having helped to stir that one up."

      What the hell is that supposed to mean? That you're proud of making things up by arrogantly claiming that "the outcome of the debate leads to a religious (but not scientific) conclusion" for "all"?

      And don't your remarks go totally against the claim that so-called 'ID theory' is scientific, not religious?

      By the way, in regard to the "religious (but not scientific) conclusion" that "the outcome of the debate leads to", whose religious beliefs will the outcome of the debate lead to, yours?

      Delete
    8. Gary said:

      "The official Discovery Institute website does not have a public forum to post comments in."

      Which is what Diogenes pointed out. The theocrats at the discotoot/ENV are too cowardly to allow comments. Did you make the words 'Discovery Institute website" a link so that it's easy for 'onlookers' to go there and see what your leaders are preaching?

      "Uncommon Descent and others are affiliated in the sense that they exist to support ID, but they are separate entities the Discovery Institute would publicly distance themselves from if they fail to stay in-spirit with the premise of the theory."

      The theocrats at UD are also cowards, and only allow a few 'opponents'. They wouldn't allow any, but they have realized that when no 'opponents' were allowed to comment their site quickly withered and nearly died.

      The only things that anyone has to do "to stay in spirit with the premise of the theory" are demonize and fight against Darwin, "Darwinists", evolutionists, atheists, evolutionary theory, science, free speech, secular government and education, and anything/anyone else that doesn't obediently bow down to the malignant narcissism of IDiot-creationists.

      "It's scientifically OK to cover the religious implications of a theory like BioLogos does for Darwinian theory, therefore I really have no scientific reason to complain."

      How does that nonsense apply to what Diogenes said about the lack of a comment box at ENV? And what's with the "Darwinian theory" label? Haven't you heard, evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwin. Like the other IDiot-creationists, you're WAY behind.

      Delete
    9. The whole truth asks: Did you make the words 'Discovery Institute website" a link so that it's easy for 'onlookers' to go there and see what your leaders are preaching?

      The link is for those who would right away wonder which website I'm talking about.

      How does that nonsense apply to what Diogenes said about the lack of a comment box at ENV?

      I had to disable comments on my Theory of Intelligent Design site after it became another way to spew the usual religion laced insults at me. The internet already has way more than enough of that garbage.

      And what's with the "Darwinian theory" label?

      You need to study how the phrase is commonly used by scientists:
      https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Darwinian+theory

      Haven't you heard, evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwin.

      I heard that several hundred times. Possibly over a thousand by now, but I did not keep an accurate count.

      The reason for my having to be specific is that the theory I defend explains the systematics of the process that is generalized using the word "evolution". Darwinian (evolutionary) theory is an outside view that is unable to cover that and many other things especially the origin of intelligence and how it works.

      Only a fool would make intelligence related predictions from a theory that is not even for intelligence related predictions.

      Delete
  5. Larry,

    Before you publish your book on junk DNA, I recommend you leak it to someone like J. Wells or Luskin.

    If you don't, I will have a lot of fun with it, IF, some publishing house wants to committee a public suicide and publish another flop like Coyne's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not aware that Wells, S. Meyer, Behe, et al had their books reviewed by evolutionary biologists before publishing them. It's hard to understand how the books still contain so many obvious and simple errors. It's almost as if no one who actually understood evolutionary theory so much as looked at the manuscripts.

      Delete
    2. In any event, I'd be willing to bet that, if Larry writes a book on the subject, he will have it reviewed by knowledgeable scientists who believe most of the genome is functional. That may well not include Wells and Luskin, however

      Delete
    3. "...publish another flop like Coyne's. "

      "Why Evolution is true"
      #1 Best Sellerin Organic Evolution
      Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,528


      "Darwin's Doubt"
      #41 in Books > Science & Math > Evolution > Organic
      Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #137,457


      I do wonder how you rate Meyer's pathetic creationist tome since you claim Coyne's book is a flop...

      Never trust a creationist.

      Delete
    4. "I was not aware that Wells, S. Meyer, Behe, et al had their books reviewed by evolutionary biologists before publishing them."

      Wells definitely did not, at least not by any competent one. His child-like distortions and non-sequiturs are standard fare in creationist rantings, but I'm betting at least most of them would have been caught by real scientist reviewers. Of course, having been sent on a Mission for the Rev.Moon to destroy Darwin, a rational person understands that truth and honesty are pretty low on the lists of folks like Wells.

      Delete