Thursday, June 30, 2016

Do Intelligent Design Creationists still think junk DNA refutes ID?

I'm curious about whether Intelligent Design Creationists still think their prediction about junk DNA has been confirmed.

Here's what Stephen Meyer wrote in Darwin's Doubt (p. 400).
The noncoding regions of the genome were assumed to be nonfunctional detritus of the trial-and-error mutational process—the same process that produced the functional code in the genome. As a result, these noncoding regions were deemed "junk DNA," including by no less a scientific luminary than Francis Crick.

Because intelligent design asserts that an intelligent cause produced the genome, design advocates have long predicted that most of the nonprotein-coding sequences in the genome should perform some biological function, even if they do not direct protein synthesis. Design theorists do not deny that mutational processes might have degraded some previously functional DNA, but we have predicted that the functional DNA (the signal) should dwarf the nonfunctional DNA (the noise), and not the reverse. As William Dembski, a leading design proponent, predicted in 1998, "On an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function."
I'm trying to write about this in my book and I want to be as fair as possible.

Do most ID proponents still believe this is an important prediction from ID theory?

Do most ID proponents still think that most of the human genome is functional?


  1. I can't answer for them, but I note that when evolutionists point out examples of Bad Design, creationists and ID advocates are very quick to say that one cannot know the intentions of the Designer, so apparent Bad Design is no argument against design.

    However the rejection of junk DNA is then justified because to do otherwise would be accepting Bad Design. The intentions of the Designer obviously not being to create junk DNA.

    Which is nothing if not a first class contradiction.

    1. Christian apologists also want to have it both ways. When junk DNA becomes irrefutable, even to a creationist, creationists have the fall back of interpreting junk as degeneration that set in after the Fall. The Duke of Argyll in Darwin's days explained sexual ornaments as divinely created works that added beauty to a perfect world and not the product of purposeless sexual strife.

    2. Joe has pointed out this total contradiction in ID claims many times, the best response they ever came up with was "But Hitler was a Darwinist!"

    3. Joe,

      Do you still insist that the so-called backwards retina is an example of Bad Design?

    4. "Which is nothing if not a first class contradiction."

      Or to put it another way, more in touch with its genesis, economy class theology.

      [edited for typo]

    5. Re Diogenes

      In his seminal work, Hitler rejected common descent so in no way, shape, form, or regard could he be characterized as a "Darwinist". Every time the creationists respond with that characterization, they should be called out.

    6. I thought that the DI's position was actually that Darwin was a Nazi.

    7. To me you are a coward Joe F... you will never have the guts to admit that ID was right about the inverted eye retina and you were just wrong... again.. Why wouldn't you admit that you and Darwinista like Dawkins were wrong?

      Because your reputation is on the line? How about your pension? Is it coming from the recycle darwin support fund? 47 million of your buddy americans use food stamps; 1 in 4. I guess you don't want to become one of them...

    8. Eric, how in God's name can "ID" (as if it is a person) be right about the inverted retina? That's an instance of bad design, historically constrained by common descent, the sort of stuff evolution explains and nothing else does.

      A bad design can be bad in a trillion different ways. The bad designs we actually find in nature are a tiny tiny subset of all conceivable bad designs, those which reflect historical constraints due to common descent. Why this particular type of bad design, out of the trillions of conceivable bad designs? Evolution explains them, magical hocus pocus doesn't.

      ID cannot emit a prediction about the inverted retina. If you try claiming, falsely, that the inverted retina is not a bad design (because it has ridiculous kludges to correct for its obvious defects), and if you say ID predicts there can be no bad designs... then the implication is, ID predicts there can be no Junk DNA, nor any other bad designs. Then you're screwed, because your genome is mostly junk, and we can move on to other bad designs, like the left recurrent laryngeal nerve on the giraffe, etc. All those bad designs can be explained by gradualistic evolution, while if ooga booga is true, according to you, they shouldn't exist. But they do.

    9. Eric, the belief that vertebrate eyes are poorly designed is based on the fact that a layer of capillaries and information-transmitting cells (nerve fibers) lies over the layer of light-sensing cells. This decreases the amount of light reaching the light-sensing cells and slightly obscures the pattern.

      This is not the way humans would design a camera, for example, and not the only way animals eyes can work. In octopus eyes, the light sensing cells are in front of the capillaries and the information-transmitting cells, theoretically allowing more light sensitivity in low light and better pattern recognition.

  2. Since the only analogy that IDist can draw is to human design, the prediction that there should be very little non functional DNA can't really be made. Ties, spats, tail fins on cars and eight track tapes were all human designs. I have yet to find any function for them.

    1. Ties hold your collar closed, spats keep your shoes clean, eight track tapes ensoundinate 8 speakers if you have them, tail fins on cars make you feel that your boat-like car can go faster than it does.

    2. All fine except for the 8-tracks, which can be either mono or stereo, but are not in any way octo.

    3. Tail fins were very useful for punching holes in people when you accidentally backed your car into them.

    4. Gaudy tail feathers and fins are quite useful in perpetuating the species. What other definition of function could be relevant?

    5. Legend has it that I was conceived in the back of a 1954 Chevrolet Bel Air 2-door Hardtop.

      Tail fins on cars may have been a factor in this.

    6. I respectfully disagree with Perrushka. Sexual ornaments are evolved traits that are not, properly speaking, adaptations. This is why Darwin chose to distinguish between 'natural selection', which gives rise to ecological adaptations, and 'sexual selection', which was wasteful of time and resources and actually made it more difficult for individuals to SURVIVE. My take is that species would (probably) be better perpetuated, in the short-term adaptive sense, if species were sexually promiscuous.

    7. W. Benson said:
      My take is that species would (probably) be better perpetuated, in the short-term adaptive sense, if species were sexually promiscuous.

      Alas, this is incorrect. Sexually promiscious species have the most intense sexual conflict, resulting in all kind of nasty stuff (google " traumatic insemination bedbugs" for a taste). It is in monogamous species that reproducing is somewhat more harmonious because the reproductive interests of the male and female coincide. I believe it was Bill Rice that did some elegant experiments in Drosophila to demonstrate this.

    8. @John: There's some ambiguity in the term. There's 8-track, which starting with the Ampex 5258 was used to record up to 8 channels of mono (usually on 1" tape). There's also 8-track as a consumer medium, which of course was at best stereo.

    9. I was unaware that Drosophila were harmoniously monogamous. I was also unaware that bedbugs were the architype of promiscuity. I was using promiscuity more in the sense of oysters, where mating is at random and without elaborate courtship displays. Parental care, of course, adds a whole new dimension to the question.

    10. @W. Benson

      Indeed, in free-spawning marine organisms sexual selection is probably low. I am not sure if this is the most efficient way to perpetuate the species though, as sperm limitation becomes a real problem.

      I was unaware that Drosophila were harmoniously monogamous

      They are not; Drosophila are sexuallly promiscuous (in the sense that they have multiple partners). Seminal fluids of the males harm the females, indicating sexual conflict. However if you house one pair in a tube for life they become monogamous (reluctantly), and the male harm decreases over generations.

  3. I have yet to figure out why IDists would think or predict that most DNA is not junk. Why is it a prediction? Whether most or some DNA is junk or not could be explained by either evolution or ID. ID runs into trouble when that "junk" is in the form of genetic markers that show evolutionary relationships, like ERVs.

    1. Because God made Man perfect, in His image.

    2. How dare you say ID is religious! It's 100% science and 0% religion. Says so right on their website

  4. I would ask what, if anything, makes their 'prediction' a necessary consequence of their position, or is it just a "We think this will happen"?

    1. Truth is the latter, their marketing brochure says the former.

  5. I think the most ardent desire in the entire ID panoply is finding Larry Moran on some significant issue.

    Which issue is unimportant.


  6. Flip the question around: How many do you know that haven't linked ID to the idea of only small amout of junk DNA?

  7. There is absolutely no question the genome is functional.

    Contrary to was Joe Felsenstein says, the more we study life the more we understand that we didn't understand.

    That's what its all about. Because non-teleological evolution affirmers can't fathom how it all works, then well it doesn't work very well. Right? Wrong.

    It is modern technology that is confirming the intelligently designed nature of the genome.

    That is why Larry Moran et al are keen on dissing ENCODE. Larry knows technology is not the non-teleologist's friend.

    What I want to know is why there is so much angst about the reality of an enigmatic designer?


    In fact, that reality is an innovation driver, not a show-stopper.

    How cool are the tools of that enigma? Gimme those tools, dammit.

    So lets shut up like the designer, and get cracking on those immaterial concepts that are the foundation of life.

    AI is making little headway. Seems if we wanna accelerate our understanding and truly mimic life, we will have little choice but to you know....shut up and think, think, think.

    1. That's what its all about....

      ...the reality of an enigmatic designer?

      ...immaterial concepts that are the foundation of life.

      Pure comedy gold.

      Were you actually attempting to communicate something there, Steve?

      Just wondering if the Designer is so enigmatic, how you know It intentionally designed the genome, and did so with the intent of having little or no junk; then permitted mutation, which actually makes genomes with little or no junk impossible to sustain? (Read about "genetic load:" .)

      In other words, any designer with any sense who allowed mutation would also allow for lots of junk; or conversely if said designer did not want want to allow lots of junk, It would have to design a replication system that was free of mutation. We know our replication system allows mutation, so if junk wasn't allowed in genomes, life would have died out long before humans came on the scene.

      So what makes you certain that your "enigmatic" designer (whose enigmatic mind you seem to know oh so well) chose an impossible, unworkable design, mutation plus no junk? Does It have a richly antic sense of humor?

    2. Typical christian befuddlement. If there was a grand designer it would indeed be so enigmatic that you wouldn't find a church in its name nor anyone praying in supplication. The human god (intelligent designer, that is) had to be humanized in order for all the praying, worshipping, loving, kneeling, and the manufactured pomp and ritual of the churches to make any sense at all.

    3. "Enigmatic designer"....

      Seems very similar to 'The lord works in mysterious ways.'

      Classic creationist cop-out, nothing more. This is among the many reasons that creationists are laughed at by those with relevant knowledge, and those that do not have their realities determined by ancient middle eastern myths.

    4. Steve "that reality [the mysterious Designer] is an innovation driver, not a show-stopper."

      Really? Then you can list just one innovation produced by the scientists at the Discovery Institute. Or just one innovation produced by people who say the genome is 100% functional. One innovation. One.

      Surely a big shot innovation like theirs would be spread like wildfire through the science community.

      Better question: since IDists say evolution is a "science stopper" that hindered research into non-coding DNA, please list just one nucleotide of non-coding DNA from the human (w/ 3 billion nucleotides total) or any species anywhere, whose function was discovered by the scientists at the Discovery Institute.

      Just one nucleotide.

      Just one.

      Out of 3 billion, in the human.

      Or from any other species.







    5. And Steve repeats the creationist lie we have called out 1,000 times already:

      "Because non-teleological evolution affirmers can't fathom how it all works, then well it doesn't work very well. Right?"

      No. No evolutionist ever said that because we don't know the function of all non-coding DNA, therefore all non-coding DNA has no function. That appears nowhere in the SCIENTIFIC literature, it originated in CREATIONIST literature and in pop science articles written by muggle reporters who wanted to write attention-grabbing headlines with the old story "Arrogant scientists were so arrogant, they thought that if they didn't know the function of non-coding DNA, it must have no function!"

      It was a lie then, a lie now.

      The case for Junk DNA was based on POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE. To begin with, every human baby born has 100 or so more mutations than its parents. If all DNA is functional, and all mutations are "catastrophic" as creationists claim, how can babies survive?

      Simple answer: most DNA in humans isn't functional.

      Plus, the differences between the genomes of frogs *in the same genus* is often larger than the entire human genome. You think those huge DNA differences are all functional? Why do these vast functional differences not manifest in notably differences in the complexity of frog species *in the same genus*? Ditto onions, etc.

    6. I'm waiting for the following idea to be floated by creationists: "Well, certainly frogs and onions and such may have non-functional DNA, but just not humans".

    7. so what now, judmarc? im i supposed to retort with 'oh judmarc's comedy platinum?

      Grow up.

      WTF makes you think mutation must equal junk DNA? Illogical claptrap.

      Just like Diogenes 100 mutations shtick. Because a baby is born with 100 mutations, then it all has to be junk DNA?

      Yet, we know the genome has the capability to detect mutations and eliminate them.

      So on the one hand, the genome is deaf dumb, and blind and can do jack shit about mutations but on the other hand, it has created the ability to detect, analysize, repair and/or eliminate mutations.

      Sounds like a case of cognitive dissonance. Tortucan mind, anyone?

      Comedy gold, alright.

    8. @Steve

      In the absence of DNA repair each newborn would have 10,000 new mutations. DNA repair eliminates 99% of DNA replication errors but that still leaves 100 per generation.

      Try and keep up. This has been explained many times on Sandwalk. You are making IDiots look like idiots.

    9. Comedy gold, alright.

      Indeed, as Larry has pointed out, comedy gold.

      WTF makes you think mutation must equal junk DNA? Illogical claptrap.

      You should really try Google, Wikipedia, or some other reliable reference before you call a well known scientific principle like genetic load "illogical claptrap." You just make yourself look (a) ignorant, and (b) as if you like being ignorant and intend to remain that way. (Of course the fact this happens to be the truth, sadly, means you would have a hard time hiding it even if you wanted to.)

    10. Seriously, ID proponents, at least some of them, must know they're consciously lying.

      Look at the way Steve tries to put words in my mouth: "Because a baby is born with 100 mutations, then it all has to be junk DNA?"

      DUH. Like I would say "all"! In fact I clearly said most. As I pointed out above, creationists have said for decades that all mutations are catastrophic. How can every baby survive the 100+ new catastrophes? Creationists got no answer, they just twist, lie, insult.

  8. The rabble on UD certainly believe most of the genome is functional and that this was a prediction of ID. Whether the leaders of ID still think so I'm not sure but I think they do. Its still a talking point in the latest ID videos. I don't think they'll ever have to withdraw this argument. Its powerful and can never be quite refuted. The argument goes
    1. Evolutionary thinking was holding back progress by assuming much of the genome was junk
    2. ID thinking led to progress
    3. Evilutionists forced the ENCODE people to retract their original claims because it threatened their worldview and ENCODE caved to the political pressure.
    ..follow up with the latest paper showing a transcribed pseudogene or regulatory TE. It doesn't matter how small the percentage of functional stuff...they can always point to the trend of finding more and more functional 'junk'
    Its about rhetoric not evidence

    1. The biggest problem for ID on this "prediction" is that at best, it is actually a post-diction, and an embellished/extrapolated one at that. I had an exchange with a DI fellow a few years ago about this and the best evidence for a 'prediction' was from Forrest Mims in 1993. Of course, this was more than 2 decades after legitimate scientists have not only predicted, but found some function in noncoding DNA. The ID camp cannot even construct their scientific myths without lying.

    2. NManning

      I think you're right on this. I've been following the ID arguments for decades and can't remember anyone predicting that all the 'junk' would be functional. Their strategy was to use the 'designers-can-do-whatever-they-want/God works in mysterious ways' argument to explain the presence of non-functional DNA

  9. Hi,

    If I had an old car engine and place it on the back seat of my car it would certainly have an effect on that car. The car would be heavier, contain less space, slower and less manoeuvrable. That old engine would have many effects some of which might actually be beneficial to the performance of the car depending on terrain and conditions but is it fair to say that it’s functional? That old engine was designed for a specific purpose – to provide power for the car – but it’s not doing that because it’s a broken piece of junk. The car owner may see no reason to discard the old engine because, say, the extra weight helps to car get a grip on his muddy farm but the old engine is still junk.
    It appears to me that junk DNA must have some effect. Everything that exists has some effect on its surroundings but this is a long way from saying that it’s functional. The functional purpose of DNA is well understood and Junk DNA doesn’t appear to comply with those known purposes.

  10. Hi Larry
    You don't have consensus on this issue among the ID guys. Michael Behe who I consider one the most scientific of the group does not believe that junk DNA is relevant to the design inference. Steven Meyer claims that design made a prediction here which he stated in the Krauss debate. Most of the smartest people at UD would not support a prediction from ID here. So my opinion is those who understand the design inference and are not trying to sell it for more than what it is would be at best neutral on junk DNA. I can supply a youtube link with my discussion with Behe on this subject if that would help.

    1. @Bill

      I'm well aware of the fact that some ID proponents don't go along with the prediction. There has even been some internal dissention on the ID blogs.

      What I don't know is how many ID proponents are still committed to the idea that massive amounts of junk DNA refute Intelligent Design Creationism.

      I don't know how many still believe that most human DNA is functional.

    2. @Larry
      "What I don't know is how many ID proponents are still committed to the idea that massive amounts of junk DNA refute Intelligent Design Creationism."

      I think it is a minority of those who really understand the inference are committed to junk DNA as a necessary confirmation of the concept. If you are trying to organize 4^320 million or 4^3200 million units of genome sequential space you're dealing with almost infinity in both cases.

      "I don't know how many still believe that most human DNA is functional."
      Salvador Cordova believes that your 10% number is probably light. He has been taking graduate classes at the NIH and is studying epigenetics among other things. The discussion I have had with him is regarding introns and can their length be relevant to gene timing expression. Although there are several papers that may support this concept, I think the answer is unclear at this point.

    3. Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer clearly stated that no Junk DNA was a prediction of ID. And they are sold as being scientists and among the smartest of the IDers.

      If they're not the authorities, why don't other IDers like Behe and Sal Cordova say that their big shot famous guys are wrong and what's wrong about their thinking that made them wrong?

    4. Diogenes
      "f they're not the authorities, why don't other IDers like Behe and Sal Cordova say that their big shot famous guys are wrong and what's wrong about their thinking that made them wrong?"

      They both have and believe its too early to make a call. Behe also doesn't think the debate over junk DNA and common decent is very important.

  11. We don't know yet how much of Junk DNA is junk, and how much is functional. Proponents of ID/creationism are unable sofar to claim that all so called Junk DNA is functional, since science has not a full picture yet of the situation. Therefore , the genome and its information content must have a natural origin. Seems to be Larry's self delusional fantasy.

    1. But nobody actually makes that imbicilic inference. Who the fuck says, or even thinks, that because ID proponents don't know what the junk does, that means the junk is junk with a naturalistic origin.

      Nobody thinks like that and nobody has ever suggested this. Except you.

    2. We don't know yet how much of Junk DNA is junk

      In fact we do, to a rather fine percentage. We know by and large its origins, and if it was once functional, what the functions were and what the mutations were that made it nonfunctional.

    3. pure fuc5ing' hubris from judmarc.

      No, we dont know shit about jDNA.

      Precisely because current technology doesn't give us the tools we need to elucidate the functionality of so called jDNA.

  12. Mikkel

    you need to try harder to poke holes in my arguments.
    Its obvious why Larry focuses that much in this issue, as in others where the picture is not clear yet.

    Larry thinks he has a brilliant case.....

    1. where the picture is not clear yet

      Oh it's been quite clear for a long while.

    2. you need to try harder to poke holes in my arguments.

      What argument?

      Is this your argument ... ?

      We don't know yet how much of Junk DNA is junk, and how much is functional.

      Because if this is your main argument then it's trivial. Of course we don't know exactly how much of our genome is junk. However, we do know that whatever the exact percentage it has to be far greater than 50% junk according to all the scientific evidence.

      Do you agree with that?

      If not, let's hear your objections to the data on genome comparisons between species (C-value paradox), sequence conservation, genetic load, and sequence data showing the abundance of bits and pieces of transposons.

      Waiting ....

    3. We do know that whatever the exact percentage it has to be far greater than 50% junk according to all the scientific evidence.

      Ok. Lets deal with the situation that this is true. I do not see any reason to dispute this.

      What inference do you draw upon this fact and situation in regard of the quest of origins ? What meaning does it have in regard of the evolution/ID/creationism debate ?

      I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that you think you have a strong argument to justify naturalism. If that is so, why would that be the case ?

      All i see is genetic entropy in action, which is not a big deal. We know that evolution happens......

    4. Grasso: "All i see is genetic entropy in action". Copy and paste the equation by which genetic entropy is computed. If you're going to lie about observed increases in GE, then copy and paste the equation by which GE is measured.

      Oh, wait.

      No creationist book has any equation by which to compute Genetic Entropy.

      Maybe because it doesn't exist, and creationism is a fraud?

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. Ask a physicist how to compute entropy, and he'll $%^&ing tell you how.

      Ask a creationist how to compute "genetic entropy", and he'll start sputtering "But Hitler was a Darwinist!"

    7. Diogenes

      nice strawman.

      transposable elements in humans, called Alu, occur in about a million copies and accounts for about 10% of our genome. Almost all copies of transposons in genomes are partial or defective elements that were inserted in the evolutionary past and are now decaying away, largely by neutral mutational drift.

      So this is a random process. How exactly do you think could that be quantified, and why should it ? And why should that falsify ID theory as a whole ?

      What we know so far is, that a good part of Junk DNA is junk through endogenization of viral DNA and pseudogenization , unconstrained evolving introns, pseudo genes through gene duplications etc. But there is a lot of Junk DNA, which we did not know a decade ago what the function was, and now we know.

      Researchers from 32 institutions around the world collaborated to determine the hidden messages within the 97 percent of human DNA that was said to have no function. They found that roughly 80 percent of the human genome has at least one biochemical activity associated with it.

      So both sides , the evolution , and ID proposing camp, are partially right and wrong. Not all " junk DNA " is functional. But that does not falsify ID, first, because the claims and predictions ID and ID theory go far beyond that issue, and secondly, a good part of fhe origin of the coded , functional DNA has still to be explained.......

    8. @Otangelo Grasso

      Your inability to engage in serious discussion is extremely annoying.

      The only people who say that junk DNA falsifies Intelligent Design Creationism are the IDiots themselves.

      It looks like you disagree with them. Correct?

      Also, the fact that you've been reading this blog for years and still fail to understand why ENCODE is wrong is evidence that you just aren't paying attention. You are remarkably resistance to facts and evidence.

      You seem to be incapable of rational thinking.

    9. @Larry

      On facebook our dear mr Grasso started lamenting about how we are doing the devil's work and leading people away from Jesus. I think this one is too far gone.

    10. Larry

      being you, i would  be rather annoyed about the brute fact, that the more scientific knowledge advances and unravels, important biochemical functions of junk dna are discovered, which doesn't favour your views of things.  Complex instructed information is used on various levels, not only in the genome, but also in the epigenome. And we know now that a big responsability goes to the noncoding DNA regions, and what was supposed to be Junk DNA, HAS been uncovered to have several essential functions to form complex organisms.

       Dr. Mae-Wan Ho mentions " a vast RNA underworld where RNA agents not only decide which bits of text to copy, which copies get destroyed, which bits to delete and splice together, which copies to be transformed into a totally different message and finally, which resulting message - that may bear little resemblance to the original text - gets translated into protein. RNAs even get to decide which parts of the sacred text to rewrite or corrupt. The whole RNA underworld also resembles an enormous espionage network in which genetic information is stolen, or gets re-routed as it is transmitted, or transformed, corrupted, destroyed, and in some cases, returned to the source file in a totally different form.

      RNA's of course do not decide anything ( thats one of the often used anthropomorphised language that should be tabu in evolutionary writings ) . RNA's, transcribed from " junk dna" are PROGRAMMED, or INSTRUCTED to exercise many tasks in the organism. These instructions can only be the result of preloading by intelligence, since a stepwise evolutionary manner is not possible. Jerry Coynes assertion that natural selection is capable of the task is unsupported pseudoscientific nonsense.

      The fact that there might remain a portion which is non-functional, does not falsify IDs predictions. It means that a part of this part of the genome is indeed the result of evolutionary remainings. So what ?


      I thought you knew that i am a fundamentalist traditional born again evangelical christian, and that i believe in the doctrine of the bible, Hell, Heaven, Angels , Satan etc.... :=))

  13. Larry,

    I don't think it really matters what creationists think how important that prediction was. What matters more or the most now is that many non-creationist (ENCOE and more) think most of human genome is functional even if they ignore the fact that creationists had predicted this now undisputed fact.

    Whether you and your buddies are going to deny it, it doesn't matter anymore. You are all going down with your beliefs trying to pretend that you are still right... It's a pity to watch it...

    1. Wouldn't it just be quicker to just threaten everyone with Hell if they don't accept Jesus as their personal savior? Why the pretense knowing or caring about science? Seems like your rhetoric is larded up with the semantic equivalent of junk DNA.

    2. Eric, you have no idea what scientists think in the laboratories where you never set foot. Most molecular biologists and geneticists, including within the ENCODE project, concede that most of the human genome is non-functional. Even most workers on the ENCODE project who have expressed an opinion on the topic concede that most of the human genome is nonfunctional.

      E g.:

      Georgi Marinov is an ENCODE author and agrees with us. Many other ENCODErs do as well, as I know from asking them.

      Ewan Birney was lead author on the ENCODE paper that promoted the "70% functional" lie, and he admitted on his blog and to the media that they said that to get publicity, and he thinks the human genome is about 80% nonfunctional.

      The ENCODE consortium walked back their false claims, publishing a de facto retraction in Kellis et al. 2014. That's two years ago, so you're way behind the times.

      You have about two ENCODE scientists who agree with you, out of the hundreds of ENCODE authors. John Stammatoyannopoulis and John 'Dog's Ass Plot" Mattick. You got a scare Dog's Ass Plot, John Stam's terrible math and speculations, so that's two guys who agree with you. That's it. That's all you got. Even including ENCODE. Maybe we throw in James "the human genome is formatted like a 1970's floppy disk, cutting edge" Shapiro, who's not in ENCODE. Three guys, out of tens of thousands then. Sad really.

    3. They retracted because of your' sorry ass objections. Fuc87, they know the trend is in the direction of function, but when they have to deal with you, they demure.

      Your punkass attitude has been duly noted, diogenes.

    4. Steve - really keen reasoning there in your latest comment. Is that because you really have nothing in the way of factual reply to Diogenes' citation of facts? (Just a wild guess on my part.)

  14. There is a logical flaw that Neo-Darwinists make, and it is the same flaw that many ID people make.

    And that is this: If an intelligence was involved with evolution (let's call it guided evolution), then this intelligence must be perfect.

    But there is no reason why this should be so. If there is an intelligence(s) guiding evolution, there is no reason to believe that they were perfect. Imagine if our universe were a simulation from some previous advanced civilization. They would not likely be perfect, and so imperfections in species is not an argument for ID.

    1. It is not a "logical flaw that Neo-Darwinists make." It is a premise of ID people who conflate the designer with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim deity, and thus imperfections are used to point out to these ID people that the results of evolution don't square with the perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful God or the Bible and Koran.

    2. Some mornings I think the Universe was designed by a complete klutz.