Barry Arringotn took exception and challenged me in: Larry Moran's Irony Meter.
OK, Larry. I assume you mean to say that I do not understand the basics of Darwinism. I challenge you, therefore, to demonstrate your claim.This was the kind of challenge that's like shooting fish in a barrel but I thought I'd do it anyway in case it could serve as a teaching moment. Boy, was I wrong! Turns out that ID proponents are unteachable.
I decided to concentrate on Arrington's published statements about junk DNA where he said ...
For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.In my first post I established that Barry Arrington's definition of "Darwinism" is actually a definition of "Neo-Darwinism" or the "Modern Synthesis." The definition posted in the Uncommon Descent glossary talks exclusively about random mutation and natural selection as the mechanisms of evolution [Answering Barry Arrington's challenge: Darwinism ]. That's the adaptationist position and it's pretty close to what evolutionary biologists consider to be old-fashioned Darwinism. It is not modern evolutionary theory as developed since the late 1960s but Barry Arrington thinks it is.
Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.
In my second post I proved that "Darwinists" (using Barry Arrington's definition) did not "predict" junk DNA. Nobody predicted junk DNA and Darwinists were generally opposed to the idea when it was first widely discussed back in the 1970s. I also mentioned that the ID "prediction" of no junk in our genome has NOT been confirmed and is most likely to be false [Answering Barry Arrington's challenge: Darwinism predicted junk DNA].
Barry Arrington says,
Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.It's clear that he doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory, which he thinks is called "Darwinism." You cannot challenge the evolution position on junk DNA without understanding Neutral Theory and random genetic drift and there's abundant evidence that Barry Arrington is clueless about those concepts.
Barry didn't like that very much so he posted two quotations that presumably refuted my entire case [Larry Moran is a Desperate Man]. The first quotation was from Francis Collins in 2006 and the second was from Jerry Coyne in 2009. Barry triumphantly concludes with ...
How embarrassing that biologist Larry has to be schooled on this subject by a lawyer. Ouch. That’s gotta smart.He followed up with: Larry Moran Was Channeling Ace Ventura ...
After two failed posts, Larry has put up a post on a completely unrelated topic, apparently giving up on even a pretense of backing up his claim. I expect to see him post an apology for his smear against me that, when challenged, he was unable to support (as soon as pigs fly).In the comments section of that post I attempted to provide links to the ongoing discussion about junk DNA. I emphasized that there were lots of issues that you need to understand in order to have a serious debate. I said I would be glad to debate anyone who challenged junk DNA as long as they did their homework.
Barry Arrington attached the following statement to the bottom of my comment ...
UDEditors: “Anyone who’s prepared to do a bit of homework is welcome to step forward and debate me on whether 90% of the human genome is junk.”Not satisfied with his own "debunking," Barry Arrington put up a post yesterday where he highlighted Casey Luskin's "body slam on post-ENCODE revisionism." Arrigton's post is: Larry Moran’s Revisionist History Debunked (Again). (I seem to be getting a lot of attention on ID websites.) He says,
What a profoundly stupid thing to say. No one believes that. Many Darwinists used to before ENCODE. ID proponents predicted function would be ultimately found. The Darwinists were wrong. The ID proponents were correct. Larry, how can we even begin to debate you when you make Romper Room mistakes like this and don’t even seen to have a grasp on the question we are discussing. Now, you go do your homework. See if you can catch up with the rest of us, and if you can, come and back and we will be happy to discuss it with you.
In the space of just a couple of days Professor of Biochemistry Larry Moran has been taken down not once but twice by mere lawyers. Ouch and double ouch.Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won't Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions.
The scientific debate over junk DNA is a fun and interesting debate with respected opponents on both sides. I think the tide has turned against opponents of junk DNA but it's still possible to be a respectable scientist and support the position that most of our genome is functional. I don't think that's going to be possible in a few years. At some point in the near future you will be a kook if you continue to argue for function in most of our genome.
What's disappointing about the ID position of Barry Arrington, Casey Luskin, and other ID supporters is that they simply won't admit that there's a good scientific case for junk DNA. That ID position doesn't deserve respect.
What's also disappointing is that there are some ID supporters who do understand the issue but they never speak out against people like Casey Luskin and Barry Arrington. That's also a stance that doesn't deserve respect. It's why I call them all IDiots.