tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7212910046857193002..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Stephen Meyer "predicts" there's no junk DNALarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88839710882773223362017-07-11T14:29:57.833-04:002017-07-11T14:29:57.833-04:00Really? Ok... The lie is the claim -by IDcreatio...Really? Ok... The lie is the claim -by IDcreationists - that IDcreationists predicted function in junkDNA based on creation/ID principles. <br /><br />I know about and agree that 90% of the genome is junk. It is also the case that SOME 'junkDNA' was predicted to have and/or was shown to have function well prior to the supposed 'predictions', so the 'prediction' is a lie on both counts.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58194554984423583802017-06-14T11:10:37.199-04:002017-06-14T11:10:37.199-04:00@N. Manning
I still don't understand what you...@N. Manning<br /><br />I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Knowledgeable scientists think that 90% of our genome is junk but Intelligent Design Creationists are still "predicting" that most of our genome is functional. <br /><br />Who's lying?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58005045415784308262017-06-14T11:06:23.770-04:002017-06-14T11:06:23.770-04:00N. Manning says," I have just not seen convin...N. Manning says," I have just not seen convincing data for the 'cell resources' argument." <br /><br />Lynch, M., and Marinov, G.K. (2015) The bioenergetic costs of a gene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) [<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514974112" rel="nofollow">doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514974112</a>]<br /><br />"<i>An enduring mystery of evolutionary genomics concerns the mechanisms responsible for lineage-specific expansions of genome size in eukaryotes, especially in multicellular species. One idea is that all excess DNA is mutationally hazardous, but weakly enough so that genome-size expansion passively emerges in species experiencing relatively low efficiency of selection owing to small effective population sizes. Another idea is that substantial gene additions were impossible without the energetic boost provided by the colonizing mitochondrion in the eukaryotic lineage. Contrary to this latter view, analysis of cellular energetics and genomics data from a wide variety of species indicates that, relative to the lifetime ATP requirements of a cell, the costs of a gene at the DNA, RNA, and protein levels decline with cell volume in both bacteria and eukaryotes. Moreover, these costs are usually sufficiently large to be perceived by natural selection in bacterial populations, but not in eukaryotes experiencing high levels of random genetic drift. Thus, for scaling reasons that are not yet understood, by virtue of their large size alone, eukaryotic cells are subject to a broader set of opportunities for the colonization of novel genes manifesting weakly advantageous or even transiently disadvantageous phenotypic effects. These results indicate that the origin of the mitochondrion was not a prerequisite for genome-size expansion.</i>"<br /><br />He second author, Georgi Marinov, is a frequent contributor to comments on this blog. He'll set you straight. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24424314085491343352017-06-14T10:01:43.639-04:002017-06-14T10:01:43.639-04:00Such is the way with these underappreciated genius...Such is the way with these underappreciated geniuses. They eventually slink away to find the company of fellow underappreciated geniuses, who can then stroke each others' egos and tell each other how much they appreciate each others' genius. <br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61225488694748405742017-06-14T09:37:20.893-04:002017-06-14T09:37:20.893-04:00The supposed predictions made by IDcreationists th...The supposed predictions made by IDcreationists that there will be little or no 'junkDNA' and/or that junkDNA will have function is in my view are lies, sorry if it came out jumbled. One cannot predict that which has already been shown (for example, a paper in Cell in 1975 'predicted' that a function of junk DNA was to help maintain optimal concentration based on the authors' work on the lac operon). To come along in 1993 or 1996 and "predict" function in junkDNA based on ID/creationists ideology is at best disingenuous, at worst a lie. And I tend to see, based on history, the worst in creationists.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7103529180735416492017-06-14T09:27:49.997-04:002017-06-14T09:27:49.997-04:00Hi Larry,
No, I don't have a better explanati...Hi Larry,<br /><br />No, I don't have a better explanation, but I am not sure why I must accept an explanation because I don't have a better one, I have just not seen convincing data for the 'cell resources' argument. Do you know of data on, for example, ATP use during DNA synthesis compared to that used by a typical non-mitotically active cell during its lifespan? I've looked for such data in the past and came up short.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32288528476522973502017-06-14T09:26:18.383-04:002017-06-14T09:26:18.383-04:00How about replication speed? Time is not exactly a...How about replication speed? Time is not exactly a "cell resource" in the sense intended.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84194245389296210562017-06-14T08:46:34.670-04:002017-06-14T08:46:34.670-04:00@N. Manning
What is your explanation for why most...@N. Manning<br /><br />What is your explanation for why most bacteria species have so little junk DNA? The common explanation is that the population size is large so that the slight selective disadvantage of having extra DNA causes it to be eliminated. <br /><br />Do you have a better explanation since you reject the "cell resources" argument? Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54772714884000900882017-06-14T08:40:08.898-04:002017-06-14T08:40:08.898-04:00@N. Manning
I'm not sure what you mean when y...@N. Manning<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "This lie about IDers 'predicting' no junk DNA has been debunked so many times ..."<br /><br />Are you focusing on the "no" part of the phrase and arguing that ID proponents are willing to accept some junk DNA, or are you questioning whether Intelligent Design Creationists actually predicted that our genome would have very little junk DNA? <br /><br />I found your comment to be very confusing.<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58034634327158578972017-06-14T08:14:13.475-04:002017-06-14T08:14:13.475-04:00I have never bought the 'cell resources' a...I have never bought the 'cell resources' argument, even when JM Smith made it. It seems to me that the amount of resources devoted to DNA replication would be minuscule compared to the amount of energy cells use on a daily basis just getting things across their membrane.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4286264190285581602017-06-14T08:10:15.172-04:002017-06-14T08:10:15.172-04:00I doubt that any such prediction was made, and I d...I doubt that any such prediction was made, and I doubt Shapiro mentioned it. This lie about IDers 'predicting' no junkDNA has been debunked so many times and it is so easy - I saw an email exchange between a biologist and John West, and West made the 'prediction' claim. He was asked for clarification, and he mentioned Mims' rejected letter to Science in 1993 and Demsbki's 1996 essay. The biologist then provided a handful of quotes and citations from the 1970s in which real scientists were not only predicting that SOME junkDNA had function, but actually documenting it. He was asked what one calls predictions made decades after discoveries. He stopped responding.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7517993000433407572017-06-14T08:01:49.338-04:002017-06-14T08:01:49.338-04:00Perry Marshall is still hawking the gibberish he g...Perry Marshall is still hawking the gibberish he got demolished over on the old Secular Web forum years ago. The ego of these clowns...nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35804629998388895482017-06-10T22:11:20.188-04:002017-06-10T22:11:20.188-04:00In before creationists change the subject to the o...<i>In before creationists change the subject to the origin of life!</i><br /><br />Maybe if you've learned something about quantum information conservation, the origin of life wouldn't be such a thorn in your ass...Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63802816642696652722017-06-08T18:26:35.822-04:002017-06-08T18:26:35.822-04:00As Dr. Moran mentions, junk DNA is only slightly d...As Dr. Moran mentions, junk DNA is only slightly deleterious in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, there just isn't a whole lot of selective pressure to remove it.<br /><br />On top of that, I have to wonder how junk DNA removing systems would even work. How would proteins identify junk DNA and remove it with precision? How would an evolutionary pathway even start down that road?<br /><br />As long as there is a tolerable rate of both random addition and removal of DNA, then that appears to be the strategy of choice. Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09481645265615126897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80740673404375037942017-06-08T18:16:08.446-04:002017-06-08T18:16:08.446-04:00That should be "transcribed into RNA" at...That should be "transcribed into RNA" at the end. Strange autocorrect error.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09481645265615126897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92120265838958725222017-06-08T15:20:48.062-04:002017-06-08T15:20:48.062-04:00If Meyer worked on the bladderwort genome he would...If Meyer worked on the bladderwort genome he would largely be correct if he said that most of the genome was functional, if that is any consolation.<br /><br />Overall, Meyer seems to have fallen into the trap of only hearing what he wants. He hears ENCODE saying that 80% of the genome has function, but stops listening when ENCODE's definition of function is little else than RNA transcription. Like most IDers, he just doesn't understand that junk DNA can and will be described into RNA, and it is still junk.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09481645265615126897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55649742785599441082017-06-08T13:23:46.729-04:002017-06-08T13:23:46.729-04:00I would guess Meyer knows the universe is designed...I would guess Meyer knows the universe is designed and therefore there will be less ‘junk’ than has been proposed. He would then see ENCODE as confirming. It seems there is function being discovered in sequences that were considered ‘junk’ before.<br /><br />If one views this from a Bayesian perspective, one would say Meyer’s priors are such that the current information is confirming to the view there is little or no junk.<br /><br />The power of any evidence is always weighted by one’s priors.<br /><br />Using my family history as an example, one of the amazing things about humans is how they can be completely wrong about so much and still survive and reproduce and live happy and glorious lives.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51021312799239362922017-06-07T09:17:19.084-04:002017-06-07T09:17:19.084-04:00I didnt exhaustively follow links but it looks lik...I didnt exhaustively follow links but it looks like the prediction was 2004 from Sternberg. For 15 years before that they were arguing as above and by 2004 I think there were enough lncRNAs discovered that it wasn't much of a prediction. At least not one that can be claimed to be based entirely on a belief in IDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21532734769458190102017-06-07T09:01:31.896-04:002017-06-07T09:01:31.896-04:00I found this article on the drift-barrier hypothes...I found this article on the drift-barrier hypothesis coauthored by Paul Sniegowski very interesting: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213000213judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2949449580963432872017-06-07T08:49:24.950-04:002017-06-07T08:49:24.950-04:00As someone once said, "They know not what the...As someone once said, "They know not what they do." They're just looking for quotes that sound like someone is objecting to something in evolutionary theory. When there are arguments on issues large or small among scientists (quelle surprise!), it does not matter whether that they have no idea what the scientific issue actually is, as long as there's something that can have enough context chopped out of it to sound critical.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47338845732548704682017-06-07T08:44:20.206-04:002017-06-07T08:44:20.206-04:00Ah, but then there's Sal Cordova and "DNA...Ah, but then there's Sal Cordova and "DNA steganography," by which he means that God has placed an actual identifier in our DNA that this was His work (kind of like those "Body by Fisher" plates on old Chevys).judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71734146853410722422017-06-06T18:52:29.693-04:002017-06-06T18:52:29.693-04:00If you follow the link in the post, you'll fin...If you follow the link in the post, you'll find the prediction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52492829521494038792017-06-06T17:10:24.856-04:002017-06-06T17:10:24.856-04:00Id really like to see a reference for this predict...Id really like to see a reference for this prediction. I've read most of the output of the prominent IDers over the decades and I dont remember ever seeing such a prediction. What I do remember is long arguments on why junk DNA wasn't a problem for IDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4914355278382056832017-06-06T13:39:07.007-04:002017-06-06T13:39:07.007-04:00Even worse, after they thoroughly fail to get it, ...Even worse, after they thoroughly fail to get it, they then use the objection to primitive panadaptationist Darwinianism raised by people who actually understand evolution as "evidence" for how evolution has been discredited within the scientific community....Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32033187986312620152017-06-06T13:36:38.774-04:002017-06-06T13:36:38.774-04:00Junk DNA is a burden because it uses up the cell&#...Junk DNA is a burden because it uses up the cell's resources for no reason. If you are a strict Darwinian, you must conclude that this excess DNA will eventually be eliminated by natural selection.<br /><br />If you have grasped the essence of modern population genetics and the importance of random genetic drift then you understand the effect of population size and the the drift-barrier hypothesis. In that case, you understand why slightly deleterious alleles (junk DNA) can be retained. <br /><br />Intelligent Design Creationists don't get this at all. They think that Darwinists predict junk DNA when, in fact, they predict the exact opposite. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.com