tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4456976303746452334..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Do Intelligent Design Creationists still think junk DNA refutes ID?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20289332044701349772016-07-08T01:58:37.094-04:002016-07-08T01:58:37.094-04:00Some mornings I think the Universe was designed by...Some mornings I think the Universe was designed by a complete klutz.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52501857279300725742016-07-07T20:33:00.451-04:002016-07-07T20:33:00.451-04:00or=ofor=ofjudmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53539883113979257882016-07-07T20:32:34.846-04:002016-07-07T20:32:34.846-04:00It is not a "logical flaw that Neo-Darwinists...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.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23201072235212086202016-07-07T15:31:13.188-04:002016-07-07T15:31:13.188-04:00There is a logical flaw that Neo-Darwinists make, ...There is a logical flaw that Neo-Darwinists make, and it is the same flaw that many ID people make.<br /><br />And that is this: If an intelligence was involved with evolution (let's call it guided evolution), then this intelligence must be perfect.<br /><br />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.Tim Faragehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08104599438906310838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6552874708649536602016-07-06T18:46:05.137-04:002016-07-06T18:46:05.137-04:00Eric, the belief that vertebrate eyes are poorly d...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. <br /><br />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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26244127202899261132016-07-06T09:38:33.530-04:002016-07-06T09:38:33.530-04:00Steve - really keen reasoning there in your latest...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.)judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78459368691686328842016-07-05T01:31:07.420-04:002016-07-05T01:31:07.420-04:00Seriously, ID proponents, at least some of them, m...Seriously, ID proponents, at least some of them, must know they're consciously lying. <br /><br />Look at the way Steve tries to put words in my mouth: <i>"Because a baby is born with 100 mutations, then it all has to be junk DNA?"</i><br /><br />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.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61901664793383831962016-07-05T01:26:28.887-04:002016-07-05T01:26:28.887-04:00Eric, how in God's name can "ID" (as...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3098222102407559782016-07-04T20:15:14.783-04:002016-07-04T20:15:14.783-04:00Comedy gold, alright.
Indeed, as Larry has pointe...<i>Comedy gold, alright.</i><br /><br />Indeed, as Larry has pointed out, comedy gold.<br /><br /><i>WTF makes you think mutation must equal junk DNA? Illogical claptrap.</i><br /><br />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.)judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10944006330614341482016-07-04T06:27:55.097-04:002016-07-04T06:27:55.097-04:00@Steve
In the absence of DNA repair each newborn ...@Steve<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Try and keep up. This has been explained many times on <i>Sandwalk</i>. You are making IDiots look like idiots.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59506463352851252612016-07-04T04:23:37.782-04:002016-07-04T04:23:37.782-04:00@W. Benson
Indeed, in free-spawning marine organi...@W. Benson<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>I was unaware that Drosophila were harmoniously monogamous</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/96/9/5083.short Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43852223420802057572016-07-04T02:34:24.512-04:002016-07-04T02:34:24.512-04:00They retracted because of your' sorry ass obje...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.<br /><br />Your punkass attitude has been duly noted, diogenes.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14539496388549322692016-07-04T02:31:49.091-04:002016-07-04T02:31:49.091-04:00pure fuc5ing' hubris from judmarc.
No, we don...pure fuc5ing' hubris from judmarc.<br /><br />No, we dont know shit about jDNA.<br /><br />Precisely because current technology doesn't give us the tools we need to elucidate the functionality of so called jDNA.<br /><br /><br /> Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69618314115709234852016-07-04T02:23:07.816-04:002016-07-04T02:23:07.816-04:00so what now, judmarc? im i supposed to retort wi...so what now, judmarc? im i supposed to retort with 'oh judmarc's comedy platinum?<br /><br />Grow up.<br /><br />WTF makes you think mutation must equal junk DNA? Illogical claptrap.<br /><br />Just like Diogenes 100 mutations shtick. Because a baby is born with 100 mutations, then it all has to be junk DNA?<br /><br />Yet, we know the genome has the capability to detect mutations and eliminate them.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Sounds like a case of cognitive dissonance. Tortucan mind, anyone?<br /><br />Comedy gold, alright.<br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51365516285889254122016-07-04T01:09:23.389-04:002016-07-04T01:09:23.389-04:00I stand rebuked.I stand rebuked.W. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019350102074238654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72028111087430987322016-07-04T01:05:41.349-04:002016-07-04T01:05:41.349-04:00I was unaware that Drosophila were harmoniously mo...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.W. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019350102074238654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78024237073653726422016-07-03T18:34:39.146-04:002016-07-03T18:34:39.146-04:00To me you are a coward Joe F... you will never ha...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? <br /><br />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...Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13437526628283087842016-07-02T22:36:26.944-04:002016-07-02T22:36:26.944-04:00I thought that the DI's position was actually ...I thought that the DI's position was actually that Darwin was a Nazi.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60456707334613384012016-07-02T21:42:35.267-04:002016-07-02T21:42:35.267-04:00Larry
being you, i would be rather annoyed about...Larry<br /><br />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. <br /><br /> 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 ?<br /><br />Mikkel<br /><br />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.... :=))Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14218177717825477335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29534556310606406072016-07-02T17:54:00.290-04:002016-07-02T17:54:00.290-04:00@Larry
On facebook our dear mr Grasso started lam...@Larry<br /><br />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. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52355613130341690902016-07-02T16:07:30.783-04:002016-07-02T16:07:30.783-04:00@Otangelo Grasso
Your inability to engage in seri...@Otangelo Grasso<br /><br />Your inability to engage in serious discussion is extremely annoying. <br /><br />The only people who say that junk DNA falsifies Intelligent Design Creationism are the IDiots themselves.<br /><br />It looks like you disagree with them. Correct?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />You seem to be incapable of rational thinking. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49484909939643045032016-07-02T15:27:38.658-04:002016-07-02T15:27:38.658-04:00Diogenes
nice strawman.
http://www.sciencedirec...Diogenes<br /><br />nice strawman. <br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212011542<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 ? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/02/new-map-of-human-genome-proves-junk-dna-has-a-purpose/<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.......Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14218177717825477335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90599227527869324902016-07-02T11:48:31.024-04:002016-07-02T11:48:31.024-04:00Re Diogenes
In his seminal work, Hitler rejected ...Re Diogenes<br /><br />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.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7523625779609197052016-07-02T11:31:19.658-04:002016-07-02T11:31:19.658-04:00Eric, you have no idea what scientists think in th...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. <br /><br />E g.: <br /><br />Georgi Marinov is an ENCODE author and agrees with us. Many other ENCODErs do as well, as I know from asking them.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52336063888533440202016-07-02T11:26:49.604-04:002016-07-02T11:26:49.604-04:00Wouldn't it just be quicker to just threaten e...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.Capt Stormfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406739898230505330noreply@blogger.com