Dr. Cornelius Hunter on ENCODE and "Junk" DNA, Part 2
Here's part of the transcript.
Casey Luskin: ... and, as we all know, or many ID the Future listeners probably know, for years Darwinian theorists and evolutionary scientists have said that our genomes ought to be full of junk if evolution is true
.....
Casey Luskin: So, Dr. Hunter, you think, just for the record, that in the long term there is going to be function found for probably the vast majority of the genome and so, maybe, you might call it a prediction you would make coming out of an intelligent design paradigm. Is that correct?
Cornelius Hunter: Yes, that's correct Casey, I'll definitely go on the record on that. Not to say I have a hundred percent confidence and also I wanna be clear that from a metaphysical perspective, from my personal belief, I don't have a problem wherever it lands. It doesn't matter to me whether it's 10% or 90% or any where in between or 100% ... just from the scientific perspective and just from the history of science and the history of what we've found in biology, it really does look like it's gonna be closer to 100 than zero.
Casey Luskin: Okay, great, I always like it when people put clear and concrete predictions out there and and I think that's very helpful.
I predict that about 90% of our genome will turn out to be junk DNA—DNA with no function. I base my prediction on the scientific perspective and the history of what we've found in biology. That's interesting because Cornelius Hunter and I are apparently reaching opposite conclusions based on the same data.
I also love it when people make predictions. Will the intelligent design paradigm be falsified if I turn out to be right?
Does it sound to you that Cornelius Hunter personally doesn't care if the prediction coming out of the intelligent design paradigm is correct or not?
1. How come in the podcast they never refer to Dan Graur as Dr. Graur? Isn't that strange?
177 comments :
He doesn't care, because it won't change his beliefs.
Hunter: "it really does look like it's gonna be closer to 100 than zero"
Casey Luskin: "Okay, great, I always like it when people put clear and concrete predictions out there..."
That's a clear and concrete prediction? No much science in ID, then.
Nobody cares what Hunter predicts. What's that paradigm and why does it predict... oh, wait a minute... first he says "the vast majority of the genome" then "it really does look like it's gonna be closer to 100 than zero"
"looks like"? Based on what?
I mean if they had a theory like Gawd works on DNA all the time excepts on Sundays when junk accumulates, then we can predict a 85.71428% functional DNA
No science there, no prediction I can see unless fortune tellers qualify as scientists somehow.
Larry says: I also love it when people make predictions. Will the intelligent design paradigm be falsified if I turn out to be right?
I'm still not making any junk-DNA predictions. And the theory of intelligent design that I defend (as opposed to scientifically useless hoopla being sold as such) already has the correct function to model genetic systems. It cannot be falsified by a religiously political cross-forum feud that serious experts don't even care about anymore. Years of neither side having any genuine interest in helping to work on such a thing now speaks for itself.
And to be more precise:
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_requirement
In software engineering (and systems engineering), a functional requirement defines a function of a system and its components. A function is described as a set of inputs, the behavior, and outputs (see also software).
It should be noted that this is the very same Cornelius Hunter who claimed that wolves and thylacines are the same. We can be sure though, that from his personal belief he doesn't have a problem if this should turn out wrong. It doesn't matter to him whether they are 10% or 90% similar or anywhere in between or 100% ... just from the scientific perspective and just from the history of science and the history of what we've found in biology, it really does look like it's gonna be closer to 100 than zero.
It really does. One just has to compare pictures from which the identity of wolves and thylacines becomes obvious.
Link: http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/01/26/cornelius-g-hunter-thylacines-wolves-and-images/
When someone raises the issue of examples of Bad Design (such as the giraffe recurrent laryngeal nerve) creationists and ID advocates quickly lecture them about the inappropriateness of saying that a Designer would not make bad designs. One cannot, they say, know the intentions of the Designer.
But when junk DNA comes up, they get very upset when anyone says that there is a lot of it. After all, a Designer wouldn't design a genome that way.
And when someone points out that this is a contradiction, they fail to see it.
The explanation for Graur is found in creationist rule #29: anyone who agrees with a creationist must be referred to with their honorific title (and also mention any prizes they won or books they wrote). By contrast, anyone who disagrees with a creationist must be called a "tenured Darwin-drone" or "tax burden" or "Brit toff" or "hair model" or ...
The latest post by Ann Gauger is quite interesting: More on the "Mechanism" of Intelligent Design.
She's responding to my request for more information on how the intelligent designer operated; when, where, what species, etc.
She appears to back Stephen Meyer's rationalization. ID proponents are not obliged to supply materialistic explanations because they don't accept the premise of methodological naturalism. They think that the intelligent designer worked his.her magic by "conscious activity."
First, the theory of intelligent design does not provide a mechanistic account of the origin of biological information or form, nor does it attempt to. Instead, it offers an alternative causal explanation involving a mental, rather than a necessarily or exclusively material, cause for the origin of that reality. It attributes the origin of information in living organisms to thought, to the rational activity of a mind, not a strictly material process or mechanism.
You really can't make this up.
If we accept the Meyer/Gauger explanation then it poses several problems for ID proponents.
The first is that it appears to rule out the idea of aliens or humans from the future who designed bacterial flagella. Both of those explanations seem to require materialistic details and both seem to fit within the confines of methodological naturalism.
That's a problem because ID proponents want to argue that their "theory" doesn't involve supernatural beings and it isn't religious.
I wonder what they think? Do they think that there might be perfectly natural beings who can create things with thoughts?
Perhaps they do because here's what Ann Gauger says,
We have no mechanistic explanation for the mystery of consciousness, nor what is called the "mind- body problem" -- the enigma of how thought affects the material state of our brains, bodies, and the world that we affect with them. Yet there is no doubt that we can -- as the result of events in our conscious minds called decisions or choices -- "will into existence" information-rich arrangements of matter or otherwise affect material states in the world. Professor Asher did this when he wrote the chapter in his book -- representing his ideas impressed as words onto a material object, a printed page -- attempting to refute intelligent design. I am doing this right now. This example, representative of countless daily experiences in life, surely satisfies the demands of uniformitarianism.
Hmm. That's interesting. So Intelligent Design involves some sort of telekinesis. Like an Uli Geller stunt, only for real.
That goes against Barry Arrington's recent claim that Craig Venter's synthetic genome, created thru everyday physical processes, constitutes "Intelligent Design."
I expect there will be robust debate and vigorous argument between Arrington and Gauger as they try to settle this disagreement.
The second problem for ID proponents is that this form of "logic" can be turned against them.
They consistently demand detailed explanations from evolutionary biologists on the grounds that any correct theory should be able to predict, or at least explain, how bacterial flagella came to be present in bacteria.
They complain when we say we don't know the exact details but offer a reasonable supposition based on what we know about evolution.
Surely they recognize the inconsistency between their own obfuscations about intelligent design "theory" and their demands of evolutionary biologists?
BTW, Evolution News & Views (sic) [sarcasm] doesn't allow comments.
I think we all know why.
Gee, I thought "function" had already been found for 80% of the genome: it's transcriptionally active! Why bother doing more research - isn't that enough...?
They consistently demand detailed explanations from evolutionary biologists on the grounds that any correct theory should be able to predict, or at least explain, how bacterial flagella came to be present in bacteria.
Not just that. Three years ago kairosfocus announced a challenge to "Darwinists". His request is modest -- an essay of 6,000 words in which the author plausibly explains the origin of life and its further evolution, including the emergence of complex body plans. The essay should be comprehesible to a non-specialist and should include the following components:
(i)an intro,
(ii) a thesis,
(iii) a structure of exposition,
(iv) presentation of empirical warrant that meets the inference to best current empirically grounded explanation test for scientific reconstructions of the remote past,
(v) a discussion and from that
(vi) a warranted conclusion.
Additionally, [I]t would be helpful if in that essay you would outline why alternatives such as design, are inferior on the evidence we face (but don't exceed the allowed space of 6,000 words).
You can then send it to kairosfocus for evaluation. If you manage to convert him to evolutionary theory, you win. If not, you lose.
Can you imagine that no evolutionary biologist has accepted the challenge in three years? KF (of whom 99.99% of them have never heard) has defeated them all!
So, for IDiots if Cornelius is not that sure that's all right, but if scientists are not sure that's proof that evolution is false. Got it.
The stupidity is huge in that one (Gauger).
I am doing this right now.
So, she is saying that the fact that she's typing physically has no bearing on what she's doing. She is transforming her thoughts into a "printed" page. And that, of course, naturally extrapolates into beings who can create things, like genomes filled with "information," by mere thought.
Holy crap.
IDiots argue from every direction and by every indirection; there is no deception they do not employ, no contradiction to which they will not resort, no absurdity they will not assert, and no enlightenment they will not combat. So deeply rooted are the IDiots' delusions and theocratic/autocratic aims that they have to them the character of self evident truth and unshakable wisdom. Hence, IDiots can feel only contempt for any opinion that opposes their own. Reason and evidence are unnecessary and trifling to one so endowed; they are deaf in advance.
H/T to Thornton Wilder
I predict that the Dan Graur's of the world will be the butt of jokes years from now. Not because of ID theory but because of developments in the world of the epigenetic and epitranscriptomc layers associated with the genome.
The mistake is presuming the issues all surround transcription, and they most certainly do not. Recently it was discovered there are substantial mechanisms for reversible writing of Adenosine (Adenine) methylation marks on RNA transcripts as well reading them. This means figuratively speaking, and DNA section that transcribes to an RNA transcript might look superficially like:
A ..N ..A..N..A..N..A ..N ..A..N..A..N..A ..N ..A..N..A..N..A ..N ..A..N..A..N..
but in reality this repetitive sequence hosts an information layer implemented on the Adenosines through mechanisms like methyl transferases, etc.
Rendering the methylation marks = 1, and non-methylations as 0, and stripping away the non-methylatable bases, we can depict (figuratively speaking) a picture that looks like this:
0110 1110 0101 1101 1110 ....
Hence the viewpoint promoted on this blog is embarrassingly simplistic and growing obsolete every day.
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/hartl/lab/Evolutionary.html
Dr. Moran, I can understand why you would say that Dr. Hunter predicts the "vast majority" of the genome will be found to have function, because he appears to adopt Mr. Luskin's statement in the first part of his response. But this is what he actually says at the end regarding his personal view: "it really does look like it's gonna be closer to 100 than zero." That is a much more cautious prediction (which could be fulfilled by 50.0001% function).
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/hartl/lab/Evolutionary.html
Whoa! Thanks Jim!
But, Barry. I thought ENCODE had proven that 80% of the genome is functional. Is Cornelius Hunter not keeping up on the creationist talking points? Maybe he missed one of your memos.
I am really tired of the "ID predicted function in junk DNA" mantra. Even by the gerbil's own admission, the earliest so-called prediction of function for non-coding DNA was an unpublished letter by Forrest Mims in 1994. Only 22 years after Susumu Ohno speculated that there could be function (if only as space-holder between exons) and David Comings speculated that there would be multiple functions found for "junk" DNA.
Just further proof that these DI 'fellows' have nothing, so they are forced to make up claims. They are like that jerk you watch an M. Night Shyamalan film with who insists (after it is over) that he knew Bruce Willis was dead the whole time.
Are you really a YEC, Barry?
By the way, YEC arrington, as you've been told 'Darwinism' doesn't predict junk DNA and neither does any 'Darwinian/Darwinist'. If anyone predicted or predicts junk DNA, they were or are not a 'Darwinist/Darwinian'. Nowhere in Darwin's 'perspective' was there any prediction (or conclusion) of any junk DNA, and anything that wasn't in Darwin's 'perspective' wasn't and isn't 'Darwinism/Darwinian'. 'Darwinism/Darwinians/Darwinists' are actually against the occurrence of junk DNA, and you IDiots are against the occurrence of junk DNA, so that means that you're 'Darwinists/Darwinians', right?
What in ID "theory" sets the junk threshold at 49.99999%?
We really want to know, please enlighten us Barry, because it's the theory that must predict stuff, not some loonie making blank statements based of who knows what
Barry, this is a good opportunity for you to state clearly what the intelligent design paradigm predicts about junk DNA. It's clear that you think it predicts function instead of junk but how much function does it take to satisfy ID theorists?
Is 50.1% sufficient to declare victory for ID and defeat for Darwinists (whoever they are)?
I'm trying hard to answer your questions as best I can. Can you do the same for me?
While you're at it, I'd appreciate a brief summary of the reasons why the intelligent design paradigm predicts function for most of our genome. Just a few sentences will do.
To those who ask whether I am a YEC, my position on the matter is very public and long-standing. See http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-tes-are-like-yecs-or-the-explanation-of-the-illusion-is-itself-an-illusion/
I am really tired of the "ID predicted function in junk DNA" mantra.
Me too. And the reality is that years ago I was taught (online) that Darwinian theory predicts genetic systems are streamlined by natural selection. There are many papers on it:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=genomic+streamlining&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&as_ylo=1900&as_yhi=2015
Which is why people today subscribe to evolutionary theory, not "Darwinism".
Dazz,
"What in ID "theory" sets the junk threshold at 49.99999%?"
I can't imagine why you think I believe that. I certainly have never said it.
That's a very long article, Barry. And, as far as I can tell, it doesn't really answer the question. How about you just answer with a "Yes" or a "No": Do you believe that the universe is about 14 billion years old, give or take?
liar says,
Recently it was discovered there are substantial mechanisms for reversible writing of Adenosine (Adenine) methylation marks on RNA transcripts ...
In this case "recently" means about forty years ago.
Desrosiers, R., Friderici, K. and Rottman, F. (1974) Identification of Methylated Nucleosides in Messenger RNA from Novikoff Hepatoma Cells PNAS 71:3971-3975. [PDF]
The enzyme(s) responsible for creating m6A will only recognize adenosines in the context of GAC or AAC and the following nucleotide cannot be G (GACG doesn't work). In addition, there must be some secondary structure around the methylation sites in order for the enzyme to bind and methylate.
Only a small percentage of adenosines are methylated and they are usually found outside of the coding region.
Nobody knows for sure the function of methylation.
There is the scientific use of the phrase "Darwinian theory":
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Darwinian+theory&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&as_ylo=1900&as_yhi=2015
"Darwinism" is a slang term that includes the religious world views that go with Darwinian theory (BioLogos, Richard Dawkins', Larry Moran's) and includes Atheism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
And "evolutionary theory" now includes theory like this:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/Origin3Cau3Gen4800.png
I can't imagine why you think I believe that. I certainly have never said it.
Do you remember when you claimed to know "Darwinism" so well after 20 years of study?
I assume you know ID theory even better, don't you?
After days of arguing about what a "prediction" means in science, you still think that someone claiming something (be it Francis Collins or Cornelious Hunter) is really a prediction?
So if you know ID theory, you certainly must know what in it Hunter based his prediction, right? Or maybe you can ask him.
This is important because falsiability is at stake. Ever heard of "modus tollens"? for the antecedent (the theory) to be negated, the consequent (the prediction) must be negated, but the consequent must follow from the antecedent. But if the prediction doesn't follow from the theory, it's useless and can't falsify or support the theory if disproved or confirmed.
All your ramblings about who said what bear no relevance to the topic at hand, which is whether junk DNA confirms/faslsifies darwinsm, evolution, ID...
So if you know your theories as you claim you do, you will have no problem explaining what they actually predict for junk DNA.
Careful, Dazz. You're using big words and logic. Poor Barry will get scared and run off back to UD, where he can ban anyone who asks him uncomfortable questions. Then I'll never find out if he's a YEC.
This is what you said Barry
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
You EXPLICITLY claimed that both hypotheses made testeable predictions and ID won. When you were asked to back up your claims, you resorted to quoting others who seemed to agree with you. That won't do it Barry, it's time to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate how those hypothesis make the predictions you claim they make and why
Here's the link where you claimed the above:
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
But, Dazz, you're forgetting that Barry has his own personal definition of "prediction". For instance, he thinks that if a "Darwinist" acknowledges the existence of junk DNA after it has already been demonstrated to exist, this constitutes a "prediction" of "Darwinism".
So it only makes sense, in Barry's world, that Cornelius Hunter would be "predicting" that most of the genome will be found to be functional after Barry has already declared that this was shown to be the case.
The other possible explanation, of course, is that Barry Arrington is a dishonest blowhard who has no idea what he's talking about. But we'll just put that option aside for the moment....
One last thing Barry.Going by your logic, apparently if some "darwinist" claims that "darwinism" predicts junk DNA, and junk DNA is disproven, then "darwinism" is disproven too. All it takes is someone claiming it.
So when some christians predicted the end of the world and the prediction failed, you must then admit that christianity is disproven, and it's not that they got christianity wrong or something
Hey, Barry, aren't you relieved you banned me from UD? Just imagine if I was writing all this stuff there in front of your adoring fans. How disillusioned they'd be.
Dazz, you asked "What in ID "theory" sets the junk threshold at 49.99999%?"
I replied: "I can't imagine why you think I believe that. I certainly have never said it."
And you replied with a rant. But in the course of that rant you never went back to what we were talking about, i.e., why you think I believe ID "theory" sets the junk threshold at 49.99999%. I will address the other issues you raise when you tell me why you think that. If you cannot, perhaps you should admit you were wrong to believe that about me.
What is the threshold then, Barry? Larry asked you that just a few posts earlier, and before you replied to Dazz. Surely you're not avoiding answering Larry's question. It's a very reasonable one. Don't be shy.
I was very clear Barry. If you know ID and Darwinism, you surely must have an insight on what those predict with regards to junk DNA, and in particular, how Hunter derived his threshold. Stop deflecting.
lutesuite can't be bothered to read the answer to his own question, even though it is in the first paragraph. He can't be bothered to read a single paragraph, because that would delay him from spewing bigotry, mendacious invective and prejudice into the Sandwalk combox. I can't be bothered with responding to you if you refuse to read a single paragraph.
@Liar,
You honestly thought that no evolutionary biologists bothered to consider RNA modification or epigenetics?
No, Barry. I'm too smart to fall for your stupid lawyer tricks. Here is what I asked: Do you believe that the universe is about 14 billion years old, give or take?
Here is what you say in that paragraph:
I do not hold this or any other young earth creationist (YEC) position. The evidence that the universe is several billion years old seems fairly compelling to me.
While at first glance that seems to answer the question, when you parse those sentences carefully, you realize it does not provide an answer. So, to clear up any confusion, just answer my question with a simple "Yes" or "No."
Then, you can get around to answering all the other questions you have been assiduously avoiding in this discussion
For the benefit of those who have not read your article, Barry, here is what you write shortly after that first paragraph:
I do not reject YEC reasoning such as this as a logical impossibility. By this I mean that while God cannot do logically impossible things (e.g., he cannot make a “square circle” or cause 2+2 to equal 73), he can perform miracles. He can turn water into wine; he can make five loaves of bread and two fish feed thousands of people. Indeed, the very act of creating the universe — no matter when he did it — was a miracle. Therefore, I conclude that God, being God, could have created the universe on October 23, 4004 BC and made it look billions of years old just as the YECs say, even if that is not what I personally believe.
Oh, so the YEC's just might be right, for all you know. Isn't that interesting. And that last sentence still leaves unanswered the question: Just what do you believe regarding the age of the universe, Barry? Again, why so shy? Don't worry. I'm sure whatever your answer, they'll still find room for a bright little button like you in the ID Creationist Big Tent/
Come on Barry, don't hide away. I never said you believe ID "theory" sets the junk threshold at 49.99999%
I asked you what in ID theory sets that threshold. You said ID makes testeable predictions. If you know ID so well, you must know whether Hunter's prediction follows from ID theory or not and why.
If you can't answer this, the honest thing to do is to let Hunter know that his prediction is bogus and no such thing follows from ID theory.
And if you can't provide a satisfactory answer, you should also retract your claim that ID makes testeable predictions that have been confirmed. Then apologize to Prof. Moran and the rest of us
My prediction is that the human genome's "junk DNA" will very quickly shrink, and Darwinists and "the new evolutionary theory knowledgeable scientists according to Larry's assessment" will continue to argue about the meaning of function. If an organism, like a mouse, seems to be fine in a lab without the majority the genome, that means that the missing part of the genome is junk even though the mouse is blind at night without the "junk DNA" that actually has a function outside of a lab in the wild and the mouse would not survive without it.
Larry will be very disappointed that you have implicitly equated "non-coding" with "junk".
You guys have been arguing semantics for a week.
@lutesuite
Here's what Barry Arrington says in the first paragraph of the article he quoted ...
The evidence that the universe is several billion years old seems fairly compelling to me. In particular, certain celestial objects (stars, galaxies, supernovas, etc.) are billions of light years away. From this fact I deduce that the light we see from these objects has been traveling billions of years to get to us, which leads to the conclusion that the objects emitted the light billions of years ago, which in turn means the objects are billions of years old. This chain of inferences obviously leaves no room for an age of the universe measured in only thousands of years.
That seems pretty clear to me.
No point in pursuing this issue any further.
No. We've been trying to make the IDiots realize that they are offering semantic arguments in place of scientific evidence. It's not going well. They're rather dull students.
Thank you Dr. Moran. lutesuite, if you can't accept the plain meaning of my answers, I suppose there is no sense interacting with you. Go wade around in your fever swamps and leave me alone.
Dazz writes "Come on Barry, don't hide away. I never said you believe ID "theory" sets the junk threshold at 49.99999%. I asked you what in ID theory sets that threshold."
I misunderstood your question. Sorry. If that is your question, my answer is "Absolutely nothing, as far as I am aware."
Beau, if we're going to establish whether junk DNA supports or disproves a theory, we need to clarify what each theory actually predicts and why. If one insists in making baseless "predictions", those are useless to evaluate theories.
Hunter is being a fortune teller there, not doing any scientific prediction
Dr. Moran,
By recent I was referring to articles like this one in 2014:
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v15/n5/full/nrg3724.html
"only in the past 2–3 years, N6-methyladenosine (m6A) has been discovered as the first example of reversible RNA methylation"
"Recent studies have discovered protein 'writers', 'erasers' and 'readers' of this RNA chemical mark, as well as its dynamic deposition on mRNA and other types of nuclear RNA. These findings strongly indicate dynamic regulatory roles that are analogous to the well-known reversible epigenetic modifications of DNA and histone proteins. This reversible RNA methylation adds a new dimension to the developing picture of post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression."
Did you read that word? RECENT! That paper was in 2014.
And this one in 2012:
http://www.genomebiology.com/2012/13/10/175
"Recent studies have found methyl-6-adenosine in thousands of mammalian genes, and this modification is most pronounced near the beginning of the 3' UTR."
You even admitted: "they are usually found outside of the coding region."
Exactly! Outside the coding region.
From the paper:
"Characterizations of m6A across the transcriptome show that m6A is present in the majority of mammalian genes, and is highly enriched at the beginning of the 3' UTR and near the stop codon. Yet, many peaks exist in intergenic regions or in introns, and there is some evidence that m6A functions in the regulation of splicing or other modifications that take place in the processing of RNA into a mature transcript. "
You read that the way I do? MANY! And in intergenic regions.
Do you and Dan Graur want to argue that all that methylation and demethylation activity is spurious too? :-)
Now it make sense why 90% of SNPs associated with heritable diseases are associated outside the coding regions.
This article that references a PNAS study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925443914000714
"What is emerging from these GWAS, however, is that > 90% of disease-associated SNPs are located in non-coding regions of the genome "
You think that GWAS correlation is spurious too?
Any way, thanks for your response.
That was not my intent! I know the difference and should have worded a bit more carefully.
Dazz, If junk DNA is found to have function does it falsify evolution? NO. If junk dna is indeed just that, does it falsify intelligent design? No. So this is no more than an argument over ideology at this point.
I still have my doubts, Larry. Saying you find something "fairly compelling" while still acknowledging that the other viewpoint makes some valid arguments that you cannot dismiss is not the same thing as acknowledging that you believe the conventional position to be true. Especially when matter in question is one with such a clear and uncontroversially correct answer. If someone asks you whether you believe the earth is not flat, would you answer "Well, I find the arguments in favour of a round earth fairly compelling. However, the flat earthers make some arguments which, while I may not personally believe them myself, cannot really be dismissed out of hand"? I suspect not.
Anyway, it should take next to no effort on Barry's part to simply type an answer and remove my doubts.
Dazz, If junk DNA is found to have function does it falsify evolution? NO. If junk dna is indeed just that, does it falsify intelligent design? No. So this is no more than an argument over ideology at this point.
"Absolutely nothing, as far as I am aware."
Fine Barry. Are you going to let Hunter know about that? I mean this is important because if his "prediction" turns out to be wrong, you wouldn't like it if someone claimed ID has been disproved, right?
Are you going to post an entry over at UD titled "Hunter pulls a prediction out of his rear end"
But you still need to answer what is it that YOU claimed ID and darwinism predicted:
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
What are those predictions and how did you derive them from each theory?
Thank you Dr. Moran. lutesuite, if you can't accept the plain meaning of my answers, I suppose there is no sense interacting with you. Go wade around in your fever swamps and leave me alone.
Just "Yes" or "No", Barry. That's all I ask. What's so hard?
Barry, but this is a serious question, one that has been asked of ID proponents many times. You (and others) have claimed that the "theory of Intelligent Design" predicts function for most or all DNA in a genome. How exactly is this prediction derived from your theory? What percentage of a typical genome (with reasonable error bars) is predicted to be functional and why? I have never seen any such calculation based on "ID theory". If you can't offer an answer yourself, can you direct me to the ID literature where this prediction was formulated and the calculations published?
The following UD post was written as a caveat to everything I say here.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-a-lowly-lawyer-make-a-useful-contribution-maybe/
Moran: “Barry, this is a good opportunity for you to state clearly what the intelligent design paradigm predicts about junk DNA. It's clear that you think it predicts function instead of junk
Barry: Yes, my understanding of ID theory is that it predicts function. This is a simple logical deduction from the assumption that a designer would not intentionally design junk into a genome.
Moran: “but how much function does it take to satisfy ID theorists?”
Barry: This is an interesting question. I am not aware of any ID theorist who asserts the total absence of junk. But let us consider the question in the context of the Ventner example you gave over at UD. You said that you would expect no junk whatsoever in the genome of a newly created critter. I agree with you. I think that is a valid prediction. Then in comment 5 Andre brings up this point:
///So lets say this new organism accumulates junk over time as it replicates and multiplies, it gets pseudo genes and the networks are a bit messy as the generations go on as typical systems in operation tend to do. Does that mean it is any less designed than when it was in pristine condition? Doesn’t everything new and shiny wear down over time?///
I think even you will agree that the genome of a particular organism will have more junk in it than the genome of its ancestors 100 million years ago. Junk accumulates over time.
Does it not follow that even if there are significant amounts of junk in a genome now, that fact does not preclude, as a matter of logic, that the genome was originally designed. I am talking logic here. We can argue about the evidence.
But to answer your exact question, I don’t know. Dr. Hunter is far better qualified than I to address that question, and I think his answer is a good one. We will probably find that assertions of junkiness have been overstated. How much have they been overstated? I don’t know. Dr. Hunter’s best guess is that at least half of the genome will ultimately turn out to be functional. I don’t have a better guess than that.
Moran: Is 50.1% sufficient to declare victory for ID and defeat for Darwinists (whoever they are)?
Barry: If a Darwinists predicts 3% function and an ID proponent predicts 50.1% function, and the it ultimately turns out the 50.1% is the correct answer, then it seems obvious to me that the 50.1% prediction was superior (if that is what you mean by “victory”).
Moran: While you're at it, I'd appreciate a brief summary of the reasons why the intelligent design paradigm predicts function for most of our genome. Just a few sentences will do.
Barry: I answered that above.
Dr. Moran, I have answered your questions at the bottom of this main thread instead of this continuing this subthread.
Dazz now rightfully wonders: Are you going to post an entry over at UD titled "Hunter pulls a prediction out of his rear end"
LOL!
Brovo!
Or make that "Bravo!"
I was laughing so much I did not notice the spelling error.
Beau,
So this is no more than an argument over ideology at this point.
It's not about ideology. It's about science.
If IDC's claim that some particular outcome of the amount of jDNA present in our genome is going to support or disprove a theory, it needs to be made very clear what those theories actually predict, instead of quoting what someone thinks will happen for whatever (ideological/metaphysical) reason
Dr. Hunter’s best guess is that at least half of the genome will ultimately turn out to be functional. I don’t have a better guess than that.
His "best guess" based on what? A hunch? What has it got to do with ID theory?
I think even you will agree that the genome of a particular organism will have more junk in it than the genome of its ancestors 100 million years ago. Junk accumulates over time.
Barry keeps showing how much he knows about evolution. Even I know that is not necessarily so and big effective populations will weed out junk DNA. It can grow, and it can shrink
Indeed. Here's a gem from Barry's UD article:
(Philip) Johnson is saying that attorneys are trained to detect baloney. And that training is very helpful in the evolution debate, because that debate is chock-full of faulty logic (especially circular reasoning), abuse of language (especially equivocations), assumptions masquerading as facts, unexamined premises, etc. etc.
Consider, to take one example of many, cladistics. It does not take a genius to know that cladistic techniques do not establish common descent; rather they assume it. But I bet if one asked, 9 out of 10 materialist evolutionists, even the trained scientists among them, would tell you that cladistics is powerful evidence for common descent.
Well! Thank goodness those "materialist evolutionist" trained scientists have a lawyer to clear that up for them. Especially one as expert in baloney as ol' Barry.
BTW, Dazz. I think Barry might need a reminder about your question. It's pretty obvious he's not going to answer mine.
Dazz: "Barry keeps showing how much he knows about evolution. Even I know that is not necessarily so and big effective populations will weed out junk DNA. It can grow, and it can shrink."
Here's one of those "Bad Arguments" that lawyers are able to detect. Dazz says my argument is wrong because accumulation of junk is not "necessarily so." Then he turns right around and says it is possibly so. All my argument needs is for it to be possibly so. Think about why that is the case Dazz, and if you figure it out, let me know.
Barry out for the night, probably till Monday.
Wow, you are ridiculous. I wan't addressing your argument, only your knowledge of evolution. Didn't you claim to know it so well?
And I didn't address your argument because you have nothing there really.
Junk DNA accumulating doesn't preclude design. So what?
Would you present some random evidence in a trial and claim "this banana doesn't preclude this man from killing the victim" as incriminatory evidence?
He won't answer your question and he can't answer mine. He now walks away after showing he doesn't understand evolution and he lied when he said ID and "Darwinism" made predictions about jDNA, and that ID won.
He's guilty of all the charges
Do bring along some friends. Perhaps Cornelius Hunter could be persuaded to tell us about his quantitative predictions himself.
Let me elaborate on the synthetic bacteria example.
If some future human civilization discovered the successors of this bacteria in the wild, they may not be able to distinguish them from the rest of living forms in terms of how it originated, even if they could know they don't share a common ancestor, but if evidence of the original experiment was found, then they could know if a living form evolved from that designed bacteria or not. In that case a theory of biological design would include a detailed account of the evidence and would explain when, how, and who designed the original bacteria. That would be a comprehensive design theory, with all the necessary explanatory power your ID lacks.
So until you put together a theory with some explanatory power and evidence to support it, it doesn't matter what "doesn't preclude" design. All you are doing is pulling the same old god-of-the-gaps BS
Lutesuite: That cladistics thing is great evidence that Barry doesn't understand evolution. Larry should do a whole post on it.
And another on the "accumulating junk" claim.
As they say, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool...
Piotr,
"His "best guess" based on what? A hunch? What has it got to do with ID theory?"
Remember that in Barry's mind, if someone belongs to a "camp," whatever hunches they might proclaim become "predictions" of the theories in such "camp." Didn't you see? Instead of proving that "Darwinism" would "predict this much junk," he instead "quoted" people he (Barry) carefully made sure to label as "Darwinists."
In the end Barry didn't show any understanding of "Darwinism." He just showed that he can label people as convenient and their words as "predictions" that there would be a lot of junk.
He has no idea what science is. He has no idea what predictions mean. He's just some imbecilic creationist with a huge ego.
"Here's one of those "Bad Arguments" that lawyers are able to detect."
Sure. Because if you don't understand the concepts used in those sentences it's enough to notice that things could gone way or another to dismiss them. Oh, but Hunter said that it might not be so. What about that Barry? Is that one of those "Bad Arguments" that lawyers are able to detect? No? Why? Ah! Because he's an IDiot like yourself! Got it.
They seem to be putting forth a testable hypothesis of ID right there:
Andre:
So lets say this new organism accumulates junk over time as it replicates and multiplies, it gets pseudo genes and the networks are a bit messy as the generations go on as typical systems in operation tend to do
Barry acknowledges Andre's hypothesis:
a particular organism will have more junk in it than the genome of its ancestors 100 million years ago. Junk accumulates over time.
But this is a bacteria with a potentially very large effective population. What does this mean for ID and these guys presumed knowledge of evolution?
If they predict this bacteria would accumulate junk steadily like "typical systems in operation do", they surely would expect the same thing from every other bacterial form, right?
Should we put this hypothesis to the test maybe?
Jazz,
These guys don't know what effective population means. For them, if you find something with little junk, god-did-it. If you find something with junk, god-did-it perfectly but it deteriorated. Why the other didn't deteriorate? Easy! God-did-it!
I know man. And since they can't handle more than one concept at a time for some reason, the will explain away organisms weeding out junk with an explanation that contradicts the one they might use to explain how junk got there in the first place. It's just how they roll.
If it's designed to allow for jDNA to accumulate, how come it can also weed it out? What kind of design theory can explain this away?
I'm sure they'd get so creative, some hilarious hypothesis may emerge
Remember that in Barry's mind, if someone belongs to a "camp," whatever hunches they might proclaim become "predictions" of the theories in such "camp."
Which is why he takes such extraordinary pains to avoid saying that the people in his camp who predicted the universe would be found to be 6000 yrs old were proven wrong.
He can say it between the lines, but never as something that could be quoted in front of his fans.
"{This is a simple logical deduction from the assumption that a designer would not intentionally design junk into a genome."
That's not a simple logical deduction. That is you making things up, Barry. How could you possible know that a designer would not intentionally design junk into a genome. That's pure speculation and anthropomorphism. Maybe the designer doesn't care about a little junk. How could you know?
Also, you never told us what scientific principles of 'Darwinism' predicts junk DNA.
What does ID creationism predict about the presence of junk DNA in the Spalacinae, a subfamily in the same family as the mouse? What does it predict about diurnal rodents?
Yeah, we cannot know the Mind of the Designer...
Except when they need to in order to make their "arguments". Then they tell Him what He thinks.
Beau Stoddard,
It is Barry Arrington that has made the claim that 'Darwinism' predicted lots of junk DNA (though he has failed to back that up with any scientific principle of Darwinism) and that ID creationism predicts no junk DNA (for which he has provided no scientific reasoning that would lead to this prediction from any ID creationist theoretical framework). He further claims that the outcome of the level of junk DNA in our genome will vindicate one theory and simultaneously refute the other.
So it is Barry Arrington's ideology that you should be criticizing, right?
Well then, lutesuite, the designer should have given you little arms like a T. rex so you could not reach.
For a second there I thought I read "Comedian Hunter predicts that ..."
What else could the designer use except conscious activity? "And God said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.'" They're admitting it is all done by magic.
Barry: "I think even you will agree that the genome of a particular organism will have more junk in it than the genome of its ancestors 100 million years ago. Junk accumulates over time."
Assuming you are correct, which you aren't, another one of ID's pieces of evidence against evolution is that some species remain unchanged for millions of years.
It sounds like we have the ideal opportunity to test your hypothesis that there will be more junk in an old species than in a new one. Examine the DNA for the level of functionality in "living fossils". I'm sure that UD will provide us with hundreds of species that have not evolved.
This is hilarious. Did he respond when we compiled the mitochondrial sequence of the Thylacine two years later, clearly showing it to be more closely related to the koala than the wolf?
You must flip the thylacine sequence horizontally and blurr it until it's practically illegible. Then you can claim that it bears a strong relationship to the wolf sequence.
But I bet if one asked, 9 out of 10 materialist evolutionists, even the trained scientists among them, would tell you that cladistics is powerful evidence for common descent.
Yeah, confirmation decades later, via genetics, of the predictions of relatedness made due to morphology is meaningless, right?
Ann Gauger: Yet there is no doubt that we can -- as the result of events in our conscious minds called decisions or choices -- "will into existence" information-rich arrangements of matter or otherwise affect material states in the world. Professor Asher did this when he wrote the chapter in his book -- representing his ideas impressed as words onto a material object, a printed page -- attempting to refute intelligent design. I am doing this right now.
Really? Was she typing psychokinetically without using her fingers?
It appears one of my earlier comments was a bit too risqué and has been removed. If that is the case, my sincere apologies to Larry and a to anyone else who may have taken offence.
Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand.
^^ Same here. I apologize too
"I wonder what they think? Do they think that there might be perfectly natural beings who can create things with thoughts?"
They're called wizards. See J.K. Rowling for details.
For all of you insisting on exact quantitative predictions about junk DNA (as opposed to general expectations), I think Dr. Moran is spot on when he writes: "You are asking for the impossible when you demand a theory that makes 'quantitative predictions about the size of an organism’s junk DNA.'"
Can you link to the source of this quote, Barry?
I would argue that population genetics does impose constraints on the part that can be functional (mutation rates and effective population sizes play a role here by affecting genetic load). We can expect the amount of junk to be reduced in some special circumstances (e.g. for really big effective populations); otherwise its amount may vary wildly (and it does in some groups of organisms): there's nothing to prevent its accumulation, though the exact amount can indeed be hard to predict. That's why closely related species may have very different genome sizes. What varies is the non-functional part.
But if you think that no theory can predict the size of an organism's junk DNA, how on earth can ID theory predict it to be close to zero?
OK, I have found the source.
Well, Larry asks a similar question:
Or am I missing something? Does ID make such quantitative predictions about junk DNA?
"For all of you insisting on exact quantitative predictions about junk DNA (as opposed to general expectations), I think Dr. Moran is spot on when he writes: "You are asking for the impossible when you demand a theory that makes 'quantitative predictions about the size of an organism’s junk DNA.'"
I think we all agree. But this entire discussion got started when you said that Darwinism predicted Junk (even though that is not true) and ID predicted no junk. How can you make such a statement unless each is qualified, at least in a semi-quantitative manner. For example:
A predicts junk DNA: 0.00000000000000000001% of DNA is found to be junk. Therefore, A's prediction is correct.
B predicts no junk DNA: one single bit of DNA, ten base-pairs long, is found to be completely non-functional. Therefore B's prediction is proven wrong.
I think that we would also agree that the conclusions drawn from both scenarios above would have to be taken with an ocean's worth of salt. But that is the game you are playing when you made your original claim without providing some level of quantification to it.
WD, Dr. Moran says the version of evolutionary theory to which he subscribes predicts junk. He says "around 90%." But I am fairly sure he would not say the theory is falsified if it turns out to be 80%. Both theories make generalized predictions: Dr. Moran predicts it will ultimately be a lot; Dr. Hunter predicts it will ultimately be less than half. But Dr. Moran is surely correct when he says that it is impossible to give precise quantitative predictions.
He says "around 90%" in the human genome, not in any genome. If you know the size of the genome and a few other facts about a particular species, you can offer at least a plausible estimate of how much of it is likely to be functional (the rest will of course be junk). If the human genome were half the size it is, there would be a smaller proportion of junk in it (ca. 80%, give of take a small margin of uncertainty), since the size of the functional part is roughly the same in all mammals (except, I suppose, in extremely rare cases of recent tetraploidy).
Larry Moran has very good reasons for his estimate (laid out here and elsewhere many times). What is Cornelius Hunter's prediction based on?
All we hear from you, Barry, is Moran said, Hunter says, Collins claimed... but nothing relevant to any of those theories, and why you think those theories predict junk or no junk or whatever
So, once more, Barry: To what were you referring when you wrote this:
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.
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.
Which prediction of "Darwinism" turned out to be false? Which of ID was confirmed?
To state what is obvious to everyone here including Barry: Religion will do what it always does. Grudgingly adapt to the realities deduced by scientific investigation, and then obscure the lessons that could be learned from this by reminding us that science doesn't provide all of the answers to our questions (the point where a significant percent of the population nods in sagacious agreement). And repeat.
What is Cornelius Hunter's prediction based on?
Ignorance.
BA,
I personally don't care who is making the prediction and what it is. I have stated mine.
What I'm interested in is what the "Darwinian prophets " are going to when they are proven wrong by a large margin.
Dan Graur committed himself to the statement that if ENCODE is right about the human genome being 80% functional, evolution mist be wrong.
I would like to hear similar commitments from someone like Larry.
I'm willing to put money on my prediction, since most here don't know who I am.
Dan Graur committed himself to the statement that if ENCODE is right about the human genome being 80% functional, evolution mist be wrong.
I would like to hear similar commitments from someone like Larry.
Why would I do that?
Dan Graur is wrong. He may be right about a particular kind of function—that which requires a specific sequence—but he's wrong if he just says "function."
If it turns out that the function of 80% of our genome requires a specific DNA sequence then it means that, somehow, all those studies that show less than 10% conservation are wrong. In this unlikely event, much what we know about population genetics is in trouble.
Keep in mind this can only happen if current evidence/observations from many labs turn out to have been fabricated.
That ain't gonna happen.
I'm willing to put money on my prediction, since most here don't know who I am.
Normally I wouldn't care who you are but if we are going to make a bet I demand that you identify yourself so I can collect my winnings.
Barry Arrington says,
WD, Dr. Moran says the version of evolutionary theory to which he subscribes predicts junk.
I never said any such thing. I know full well that bacterial genomes don't have much junk DNA and that does not pose a problem for modern evolutionary theory.
Normally I would accuse you of misunderstanding but you are a lawyer and you have bragged about your ability to detect baloney.
That forces me to conclude that you are lying.
Larry, Dr. Hunter was talking about the human genome and so was I. Idiot.
Hi Barry! You're very brave venturing this far from the pillow fort. Do you still not understand Intelligent Design?
Hi Rich. Do you still ask asshat questions? Check that. I already know the answer.
Larry didn't predict on the basis of evolutionary theory that the human genome is 90% junk. He observed on the basis of the data that the human genome is 90% junk. That you don't comprehend the difference strongly suggests that you don't understand evolution.
Are you still dodging questions? Check that. I already know the answer. You must have learned that in Lawyer school. Are you lawyering these days or is it mainly debt collecting? I suppose that D- grade from the Better Business Bureau didn't help. I love where you're taking UD recently, lots of Jesus, not so much design detection. As always, I'm extending a warm invitation for you to participate and start threads at The Skeptical Zone. We won't edit, delete or disappear your posts nor will be ban you or silence you by putting you in moderation and not telling anyone. We find we can do that because we think our ideas can stand up to debate and are happy to learn if they can't. Don't be a stranger now - and I *love* that yellow tie. :D
John, that you don't understand what the term "prediction" in the sense of "retrodiction," demonstrates that you don't have a strong grasp on terms commonly used in science circles.
Rich, it is true that we eject internet trolls at UD. But I don't have to tell you that. You know from personal experience what a troll ejection feels like.
Man-up, Barry and come over to a fair exchange of view at TSZ. If your ideas are good enough you'll be fine. Truth loves inspection, it's just another chance to show its perfection. And here's a *little* catalogue of all the "troll ejection" at UD - Do you spend all your time ejecting? http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=564abde96179d8ff;act=ST;f=14;t=5141
Barry, tell us about the general expectations here, in scientific terms.
What scientific principles of 'Darwinism' predict lots of junk DNA?
What scientific principles of ID creationism predict little junk DNA?
Chris, Larry and I have already gone over that in the thread above. Don't come late to the party and expect us to repeat everything.
Rich, as for troll ejections at UD, it is actually not that common. Just a couple a month really. You have to be a real asshat before you get shown the door. And of course you qualified in spades.
BTW, Rich, you must have a seriously pathetic life if you feel the need to keep track of troll bannings at UD going back to 2007. Good grief. Get a life.
Oh dear Barry. I didn't personally make all those many, many entries, did I? How frail your arguments and endeavors must be that you have to keep removing your interlocutors: You're less than honest and open about the hows and whys of it all. Put on your big boy pants and pop over to TSZ. I've already put the kettle on. World class scientists are dismantling "The Law of Conservation of Information: even as we speak, I'm sure you'd love to give a spirited D- lawyer defense of it. When it goes bad for you we wont delete your comments, ban you and say its because we thought you were a "troll". We'll leave them up for all to see, because that's the right thing to do. Oooh - Kettle's boiling. One lump or two?
I'm not late. You just never answered those questions, Barry.
What scientific principles of 'Darwinism' predict lots of junk DNA?
What scientific principles of ID creationism predict little junk DNA?
Hello Barry
Let me endorse Rich's invitation to join in the discussions at TSZ. There are many of us unable to comment at UD still interested in hearing about an ID theory (should there ever be one).
Could I also ask Professor Moran that he consider joining the boycott of UD by ID skeptics in view of their duplicitous comment policy.
Let's sum it up, Barry.
(1) "Darwinists" (strict adaptationists) used to insist that any junk DNA would actually be deleterious in terms of metabolic cost and so selection would eventually weed it out. Therefore, we should expect nearly all DNA sequence to be functional one way or another because otherwise it wouldn't be there. This is at odds both with empirical observations (of how much DNA has a known function or can be shown to be conserved) and with more recent theoretical developments (see the next point).
(2) According to modern evolutionary theory, the metabolic cost of maintaining excess DNA is actually so low that a lot of it may be invisible to selection. If the effective population is relatively small (as in mammals as opposed to bacteria), there's little to prevent the proliferation of neutrally evolving excess DNA in the genome. Only in those cases where some special selective pressures play a role (e.g. in flying vertebrates with high metabolic rates) do we see a tendency to reduce the size of the genome by getting rid of some of the dispensable ballast. But even in birds and bats most (certainly more than 50%) DNA sequence remains irrelevant, as far as we can tell.
(3) Also mutational load calculations support the view that a large genome (such as we have) would be too vulnerable to deleterious mutations if most of it consisted of functionally relevant DNA sequence. Given the known mutation rates, genetic disorders would kill us all. So most of the sequence must be really irrelevant (not just of unknown function) in humans (as well as all other mammals).
(4) Despite (2) and (3), but in agreement with old-school Darwinists, Cornelius Hunter holds the opinion that most of the human genome consists of functional DNA sequence. What scientific principles of Intelligent Design make him think so? What makes you accept his guess?
Is that the case, Barry? Could then explain to us what it was about this post from Elizabeth Liddle that justified her immediate banning?
Barry, can you cite a scientific paper that makes a prediction, derived from Darwinian theory, that large parts of the genome will be non-functional?
Can you also find an ID paper that predicts that all DNA will be functional?
Can you also find any paper that shows that all DNA is functional?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/elizabeth-liddles-revisionism-is-astonishingly-audacious/
Also, Barry, there are a couple questions Dazz and I have asked, which you have yet to answer. I'm sure that's just an innocent oversight on your part.
To what were you referring when you wrote this:
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.
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.
Which prediction of "Darwinism" turned out to be false? Which of ID was confirmed?
I wouldn't support such a boycott. First of all, the presence of Larry, Nick Matzke, wd400 and the few other informed members who, for whatever reason, seem to have been granted immunity from the ban hammer on UD serves as a corrective to the torrents of ignorance and stupidity that would otherwise drown that blog. Secondly, Barry's habit of banning most who to challenge his unsupportable assertions provides concrete evidence of ID creatoniism's antipathy to open debate and intellectual rigour.
But I agree Barry would be a welcome addition to TSZ, just as he has been here.
Barry,
You are a lawyer. I expect you to choose your words very carefully when you make a claim during a debate.
Also, because you are a lawyer, I have to choose my words very carefully in replying to you because you have a reputation for quote mining and deliberately misinterpreting answers.
You still haven't provided any evidence that I said what you say I said. The judge will warn you not to lie to the court. You could be disbarred.
It was two years ago. Quite a lot of time to read up on evolution (if the previous 18 years hadn't been enough). Barry?
Barry, in the "Liddle thread":
Liddle’s Revisionism:
No one ever said that Darwinism predicted junk DNA.
ID proponents never predicted junk DNA would be debunked.
You have been shown that Darwinists did not predict large amounts of junk DNA (many of them, in fact, were quite averse to the idea when it was first put forward). Maybe you said they predicted it, but if so, you were misinformed or deliberately made stuff up.
Despite being asked the same questions many times by many people you still haven't presented any evidence that a prediction of no junk can be derived from the theory of Intelligent Design (let's assume, arguendo, that such a theory exists).
And when Elizabeth repeated her request, you said:
Elizabeth Liddle doubles down yet again. She is no longer with us.
I suppose you live for such moments, but don't you think an apology to Elizabeth would be in order?
John, that you don't understand what the term "prediction" in the sense of "retrodiction," demonstrates that you don't have a strong grasp on terms commonly used in science circles.
C'mon, Barry. You're not that stupid. As I wrote on UD, suppose I were to say, today, "I predict that the Kansas City Royals won the 2015 World Series." Does that sentence make any sense?
And, moreover, if I were to say that, would it demonstrate that I had some ideological bias that required that I predict the Royals to win the Series?
Wheras, if had a bias the required that I predict the Mets to win the Series, would you expect me to keep saying the Mets were going to win after they had already lost? (For the purpose of this last question, presume I am a normal person with a properly functioning brain, and not an IDiot or other creationist).
You have been shown that Darwinists did not predict large amounts of junk DNA....
Barry has his own Humpty Dumpty definition of "predict", by which the word means: To acknowledge something after it has already occurred, and then explain how it happened.
"Barry, can you cite a scientific paper that makes a prediction, derived from Darwinian theory, that large parts of the genome will be non-functional?
Can you also find an ID paper that predicts that all DNA will be functional?"
Looks like Barry has been avoiding these straightforward questions for a long time.
Piotr, Elizabeth Liddle is not banned from UD. She can post there to her heart's content.
Rich, I didn't say you put them up did I? I said you have a seriously pathetic life if you feel the need to keep track of the troll ejections at UD. And you certainly do. Or was someone impersonating you when you linked to a site where those who are interested can keep track of such things.
Well, you banned her on that occasion for no reason at all (even if you have lifted the ban since): she was right and you were wrong, as I hope you can see now. That is something you should apologise for (better late than never).
Barry Arrington prevaricates:
Piotr, Elizabeth Liddle is not banned from UD.
But guess what, Barry. No one said she is. What we said was that she was banned on that one occasion. If you're going to insist on playing your silly semantic lawyer games, you have to play by the same rules as you insist others follow. Or you can by a hypocrite. Your choice.
So, again: Why was Elizabeth Liddle banned for making that post? What was the justification?
It's a funny read, Barry. Clicking on the links usually reveals some hilarity from you or one of your other censors. I believe there was once an automated bot tracking uncommon descent (because of all the unacknowledged retractions) but a nasty lawyer letter was sent so it was stopped. Maybe that's why you're so scared of posting in open fora like TSZ - the ability to disappear your own inanity is important to you? Didn't keithS catch you with your pants down deleting some posts. You never acknowledge it, though.
Having my life judged by a tiny fraction of my time here in the culture wars by "©Uncommon Descent, Inc., Barry K. Arrington, President" amuses me greatly, though. We can't all be big winners like you, Barry. Now go and win at TSZ - with your lawyer training and scientific chops you're bound to be a big hit. It'll do you good to get out the echo chamber. I'll put the kettle back on...
Barry, I truly do not need any lawyers telling me how terms are commonly used in "science circles". Would I try to lecture you on how terms are commonly used in courtrooms? A little less arrogance regarding a field you don't know much about would do you good.
Lutesuite writes:
Nick Matzke, wd400 and the few other informed members who, for whatever reason, seem to have been granted immunity from the ban hammer on UD serves as a corrective to the torrents of ignorance and stupidity that would otherwise drown that blog.
And letting Uncommon Descent drown in torrents of ignorance and stupidity would be a bad thing? :) It wouldn't be the first ID website to fade out of existence. Seems to me, the sooner it happens the better. All participants would have that extra free time to maybe do something productive.
Barry" "Rich, it is true that we eject internet trolls at UD. "
No, you eject anyone who disagrees with you. Right now you have Virgil Cain, who you know full well is Joe, and Jack jones, both of whom are abusive little turds with little to offer. Yet you do nothing about them. And you have Kairos (don't call me Gordon Mullings) Focus, who makes false accusations about stalking without any reprimand from you.
So, please tell us again how you eject trolls. If I called you a pathetic snivelling coward for refusing to answer a loaded question, would that get me kicked from UD? A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.
have a nice day.
What about Aurelio Smith? Do you remember him. He was the guy who you banned, even after he was allowed to guest post an OP. Not only did you ban him, you deleted every comment that he ever made. You were asked to explain the reason numerous times at UD but,to the best of my knowledge, never responded. Here is an opportunity for you to clear the air.
Barry has a tough balancing act over at UD. If he bans all of the ID opponents, his hit rate, and ad revenue, would plummet. If he allows free and open discussion, admitting that banning abusive commenters is an acceptable practice, the ID arguments would be decimated.
But Barry could go a long way to showing that he is evenhanded about his banning if he would simply ban Joe (Virgil Cain) and Mapou. They contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion other than stroke Barry's ego. Joe, in particular, has been banned by almost every blog he frequents due to his abusive nature. I am really curious as to why Barry continues to allow him at UD.
During my recent, brief sojourn on UD, I was quite surprised to notice that there actually seems to be people who read bornagain's posts. And Barry accuses Rich Hughes of having a "seriously pathetic life."
Barry has previously given glowing praise to BA77's posts. Called him a wonderful resource or something similar I believe. I should also note that although very thin skinned, Barry isn't the worst. KirosFocus regurgitates the same 7-10 diagrams in his FYI/FTR/BTB posts and closes comments so no-one can point out how bad they are or how many times they have been refuted. Great comedy, though.
But we are digressing. I'm waiting for Barry (or Hunter, or Wells, or whoever) to tell us how the Theory of Intelligent Design generates predictions about junk or no junk.
Barry should also reconsider this:
ID predictions
What? UD fearless leader Barry Arrington caught lying?
In other equally shocking news: water is wet, sun rises in the east.
This may be the funniest event in BlogoHistory. Rich and Alan attempting to form a union/picket line until they're reinstated at UD? Long live Local Blogger #9!
Or Beau, if you can actually read you'll note I've simply invited Barry to TSZ. I don't want reinstating, rolling my IP and picking a new user name is quite trivial, if I cared to do so. Get Barry to teach some of that critical thinking stuff..
And they have made me want to take up fishing.
Or Rich, you are on the good professor's blog panhandling? Does TSZ accept donations?
Not at all. We don't monetize the blog in any way (unlike Uncommon Descent) we just want a frank, free and fair exchange of views (unlike Uncommon Descent). You'll also have access to some world class authorities on evolution (unlike Uncommon Descent). But keep going, I'm sure you're amusing many. :D
I just took a quick stroll through TSZ, didn't read much of the content but the headlines seem eerily similar. I'm sure Barry does attempt to make a bit of change at UD, how else can they collect their royalties?
Royalties for what, exactly? Right now at TSZ Dembski / Ewert's "Law of Conservation of Information" is getting eviscerated. Too sciency not enough Jesus for you?
Maybe this discussion would go a bit better if you explained exactly what the hell you're talking about, Beau. Barry needs to make money at UD so he can collect "royalties"? Huh?
And the similarity you noticed might no longer seem so eerie if you happen to read the "About this site" page:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/sample-page/
The difference, of course, chiefly lies in the content, which you did not feel was necessary to read before you rendered your opinion on the website. Oh well. I can at least confirm to Rich the amount of amusement you are providing.
To put it in terms you two can understand, TSZ is stealing what Professor Moran has been doing. Now you're on his territory begging for Barry to make an appearance. Looty you are not blocked because you threaten anyone, you're annoying like a leech on the baby canon.
TSZ is the Jaclyn Glenn of science blogging. Good night.
Looty, you guys don't seem to have much to talk about without ID, it keeps the clicks coming. So thriving off the next man's work often includes royalties, which are delinquent. You're a nobody like myself so let's get back to where we belong, watching and learning.
My goodness you're special. Inviting = begging for appearance, according to you.There are many ID related threads there, partly because we let ID proponents start them. I wouldn't say you're a nobody, Beau, nor would I advize leveling labels at those you know little about.
But it helps tell you that it really is KairosFocus. Who else would post the exploded diagram of the fishing reel? It's very reassuring.
Funny thing is, KF is very impressed by the irreducible complexity of the fishing reel. It doesn't seem to occur to him that the earliest fishing reels were much simpler -- probably either a rock around which the line was wrapped, or a small tree branch with a main shaft with side branches not completely removed.
Still, you know all's right with the world when you see that fishing reel.
Beau is complaining because Beau is feeling threatened by the fact that the pretense of a scientific basis for ID is being exposed as the deluded religious fever dream that it its. He's angry and lashing out as a defense mechanism.
Interesting evolution from wheel barrow to fork truck. An Intelligent Designer would have done it right the first time.
No, Rich. I'm quite happy to admit to being a "nobody" WRT evolutionary biology and biochemistry. Unlike Beau, however, I don't think that obliges me to shut up when I have something to offer to the discussion. Beau, OTOH, seems to think that's what we "nobodies" should do. He keeps telling us that. While he's shutting up, apparently.
Barry in this case what is in question is the scientific merit of predictions being made from a scientific theory of intelligent design.
Speculations do not work here. They just get the judges angry.
Another way to explain it is: the scientific courtroom only allows testable evidence that the hypothesis (idea you can test) in the premise of the "theory of intelligent design" is true.
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.
It's simply "testing a hypothesis". A Dinosaur Train simple concept that should be learned by or before entering grade school.
You are right there stuck having to explain how "intelligent cause" works, nothing else. The phrase "intelligent design" that is in the title and word "designer" are irrelevant to this case.
If the process cannot be computer modeled then it is not going to go anywhere in science, anyway. There are "selection" based Evolutionary Algorithms galore to compete with, which are not going to go away by talking about things that are not even relevant to this case.
Post a Comment