tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4465279196334192751..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: See the IDiots Gloat over Jonathan WellsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14580163089979240892014-01-23T17:19:44.709-05:002014-01-23T17:19:44.709-05:00What the hell are you babbling about, Charles Alla...What the hell are you babbling about, Charles Allan?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00802436454197939540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43313427904424949642013-06-28T02:08:29.066-04:002013-06-28T02:08:29.066-04:00Yes what about all the junk DNA floating about the...Yes what about all the junk DNA floating about the primordial muddy pool - then it just came together - just like that - (as tommy cooper used to say) to form the first living cell - then went on from their to a fish then an animal then flew like a bird - if you believe this you need certified.charles allanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14956135332347230119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28254059618676366802011-12-28T14:00:05.046-05:002011-12-28T14:00:05.046-05:00Hmmm. So the new ID tactic is to wait until a comm...Hmmm. So the new ID tactic is to wait until a comment thread is cold, and then to make ridiculous claims, such as Anonymous December 28, 2011 9:01:00 AM, in the hope it looks like you came out this a cracker of an argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5718617963137585592011-12-28T09:01:05.836-05:002011-12-28T09:01:05.836-05:00In response to this:
Can you imagine Jonathan Wel...In response to this:<br /><br />Can you imagine Jonathan Wells or anyone else prominent in the ID community replying in kind, designating Professor Moran as "Larry Moron" or similar?<br /><br />Jeffry Shallit says:<br /><br />"Right, because ID supporters, as we know, are morally flawless and would never resort to ridicule of any kind."<br /><br />You, chaps, need no ridicule from outside. You are derising yourselves with your evolutionary arguments. There is no evidence of random error-accumulating incrementality leading to formal functionality, error correction, noise reduction or semantics proper. You, guys, will never accept the evident existence of the cybernetic cut: spontaneous low-information redundant regularity vs. choice-contingent control proper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66028689380449659672011-05-31T20:53:28.049-04:002011-05-31T20:53:28.049-04:00Anonymous asks:
Jud posted:
"DNA that acts a...Anonymous asks:<br /><br /><i>Jud posted:</i><br /><i>"DNA that acts as a template for products that are thrown away before proteins are made"</i><br /><br /><i>Can you give us references for that?<br />What does it mean to be thrown away? Is it ejected from the cell as waste? <br />Links we can follow would be great.</i><br /><br />Definition of an intron:<br /><br /><i>An intron is any nucleotide sequence within a gene that is removed by RNA splicing to generate the final mature RNA product of a gene.</i><br /><br />Understand? The RNA that is made from the DNA template has large regions that must be deleted (thrown away) before what remains is spliced together to make the RNA template for a protein. The DNA regions corresponding to the RNA that must be thrown out, as well as the deleted RNA regions, are called introns.<br /><br />Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron<br /><br />Also, from our host:<br /><br /><i>Protein-encoding genes: (9.6% junk)</i><br /><i>transcribed region:</i> <br /> <i>essential 1.8%</i> <br /> <i>intron junk (not included above) 9.6%</i><br /><br /><i>Introns sequences account for about 30% of the genome. Most of these sequences qualify as junk but they are littered with defective transposable elements that are already included in the calculation of junk DNA.</i><br /><br />Link: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/theme-genomes-junk-dna.htmlJudnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51656274664639967682011-05-31T14:45:42.325-04:002011-05-31T14:45:42.325-04:00Jud posted:
"DNA that acts as a template for ...Jud posted:<br />"DNA that acts as a template for products that are thrown away before proteins are made"<br /><br />Can you give us references for that?<br />What does it mean to be thrown away? Is it ejected from the cell as waste? <br />Links we can follow would be great.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35744020719854412582011-05-31T13:33:55.798-04:002011-05-31T13:33:55.798-04:00I completely agree with Anonymous' latest comm...I completely agree with Anonymous' latest comment that searching for new knowledge is incredibly exciting, and studies that may lead to new knowledge are to be encouraged.<br /><br />With regard to what are the sensible choices on which to spend research dollars, let freedom of choice reign. Anyone who wishes research to be done searching for functionality in DNA that acts as a template for products that are thrown away before proteins are made is welcome to spend money in an effort to prove it.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-218600548403675612011-05-31T11:13:11.398-04:002011-05-31T11:13:11.398-04:00JUD:
"you have the existence of all the DNA i...JUD:<br />"you have the existence of all the DNA in these beetles that apparently does absolutely nothing" <br /><br />The key word is "apparently". <br />The function has not yet been discovered. <br />That is what science is all about. <br />Exciting isn't it? Or do you suggest no further study of what their function(s) might be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63495755985730634492011-05-25T15:38:35.841-04:002011-05-25T15:38:35.841-04:00"Can you imagine Jonathan Wells or anyone els..."Can you imagine Jonathan Wells or anyone else prominent in the ID community replying in kind, designating Professor Moran as "Larry Moron" or similar?"<br /><br />Translation: I get to call Larry Moran Larry Moron without doing it explicitly. I am so wily!Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56935518112681260172011-05-24T06:59:33.212-04:002011-05-24T06:59:33.212-04:00Anonymous writes:
I am still wondering if Dr. Mor...Anonymous writes:<br /><br /><i>I am still wondering if Dr. Moran will respond to what VMartin has posted.</i><br /><br />I'm sort of curious whether you or VMartin will respond to what VMartin has posted, regarding what it means for Jonathan Wells in particular and ID in general, since although evolution really has no problem with this surfeit of forms, ID does have one in absolute spades.<br /><br />You may not have noticed the following: You have not only the 109 pattern variations resulting from coding and regulatory genes to explain, you have the existence of all the DNA in these beetles that apparently does absolutely nothing - the "junk" - to explain as well. And you have to find some essential design purpose for it, while evolutionary theory easily admits of both "junk" and neutral coding DNA. While you've been pushing VMartin's point, you've entirely failed to realize he's making a much better argument against design than he is against evolutionary theory.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21448395651371048182011-05-23T23:16:39.058-04:002011-05-23T23:16:39.058-04:00Anonymous X does his best to justify attacking tho...Anonymous X does his best to justify attacking those he disagrees with. <br /><br />I am still wondering if Dr. Moran will respond to what VMartin has posted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73696362948101228492011-05-23T22:16:08.289-04:002011-05-23T22:16:08.289-04:00Anon:
It looks like Dr. Moran will not be addressi...Anon:<br /><i>It looks like Dr. Moran will not be addressing what VMartin posted. <br /><br />Pity<br /></i><br /><br />Why? Were you oh-so-impressed by it?<br /><br />How about you explain why it is so pertinent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8558664573987165452011-05-23T22:14:05.421-04:002011-05-23T22:14:05.421-04:00Anon:
VMartin has made an interesting point. Inste...Anon:<br /><i>VMartin has made an interesting point. Instead of addressing it in an intellectually honest way, "Anonymous X" attacks him personally.<br />That is a technique that is practiced here very often. <br />Have people noticed that?<br /><br /></i><br /><br />Well, Mr.Wizard, lets take a look at a couple of facts.<br /><br />1. You ASSUME that VMartin made an interesting point, as is personal incredulty is interesting.<br /><br />2. You apparently failed to realize that this is the comments section on a blog, not a meeting of the Oxford Debate Team.<br /><br />3. Looking at the sorts of things a person believes are good points, valid points, good science, etc. is a good way to assess how much they actually understand about the concepts/claims/issues they are lauding or denigrating. If you are familiar with the inane rants of John Davison, you would understand why so many folks find those impressed with his claims to be functionally scientifically illiterate.<br /><br />Get over yourself.<br /><br />AnonX<br /><br />Anonymous XAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51221370977486267332011-05-23T22:07:55.595-04:002011-05-23T22:07:55.595-04:00Vmartin:
Thank you. Polymorphism refutes his claim...Vmartin:<br /><i>Thank you. Polymorphism refutes his claim in my humble opinion. It is hard to imagine that all those color morphs or races of ladybirds are inevitable for surviving of the species.</i><br /><br />Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity, a creationist classic. I guess the old 'whim of the creator' all purpose escape clause suits you better?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49069240122531373272011-05-23T22:04:34.392-04:002011-05-23T22:04:34.392-04:00VMartin the electrician:
There are 109 color patt...VMartin the electrician:<br /><br /><i>There are 109 color patterns to be found on this ladybird. Apart from the fact that it posits a problem for Darwinists how it comes along with aposematic warning coloration the question is:<br /></i><br /><br />Wow... OBVIOUSLY designed - only a super intelligence could find a reason for 109 coloration patterns in one kind of beetle...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43069642584060388552011-05-23T19:16:47.845-04:002011-05-23T19:16:47.845-04:00It looks like Dr. Moran will not be addressing wha...It looks like Dr. Moran will not be addressing what VMartin posted. <br />Pity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58432542157972179612011-05-23T06:51:15.057-04:002011-05-23T06:51:15.057-04:00Anonymous writes:
Jud seems to be confused.
How ...Anonymous writes:<br /><br /><i>Jud seems to be confused.</i><br /><br />How remarkably cryptic.<br /><br />About many things I may be confused. However, the lack of knowledge of the theory of evolution you've indicated in your comments thus far is quite clear. Let's just take your latest plaint as one example:<br /><br /><i>No matter what the evidence, it always is interpreted as supporting evolution theory.</i><br /><br />Would you be at all surprised to see this in a sentence about the theory of gravitation? All it indicates is that the theory has been so well corroborated and refined over a century or more that it has taken into account all the relevant evidence of which researchers (much less laypeople) are aware. <br /><br />The same is true of the theory of evolution. You and a handful of other relatively uninformed laypeople raise what you think are "issues" (but in fact are not), and are shocked - shocked! - that 150 years of careful scientific research in multiple disciplines doesn't immediately fall before your oh-so-keen minds.<br /><br />Get over it.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53077064542769978132011-05-22T21:02:56.641-04:002011-05-22T21:02:56.641-04:00Jud seems to be confused.Jud seems to be confused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32184478866527204592011-05-22T14:01:02.997-04:002011-05-22T14:01:02.997-04:00Anonymous writes:
No matter what the evidence, it...Anonymous writes:<br /><br /><i>No matter what the evidence, it always is interpreted as supporting evolution theory.</i><br /><br />Translation: "If I, who know nothing about evolution, cannot figure out what is wrong with it, then certainly that must indicate a problem with evolution!"<br /><br />Err, no. That's simply what happens when you try to poke holes in a firmly corroborated scientific theory that you know nothing about. You could substitute "Einstein's theory of gravitation" or "quantum mechanics" for "evolution" and the outcome would be exactly the same.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32722233887649960832011-05-22T10:25:05.535-04:002011-05-22T10:25:05.535-04:00VMartin has made an interesting point. Instead of ...VMartin has made an interesting point. Instead of addressing it in an intellectually honest way, "Anonymous X" attacks him personally.<br />That is a technique that is practiced here very often. <br />Have people noticed that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40670497271428779552011-05-21T22:56:31.621-04:002011-05-21T22:56:31.621-04:00I hope at some point in his book Wells explains ho...I hope at some point in his book Wells explains how "no junk DNA" is a <i>prediction</i> of Intelligent Design since supposedly nothing can be known about the designer; neither his competence nor his intentions nor methods. In fact, I hope he explains how ID can generate <i>any</i> predictions when starting from such a vague assumption.H.H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68068299372263273812011-05-21T18:48:17.180-04:002011-05-21T18:48:17.180-04:00The same VMartin that is good pals with John Davis...The same VMartin that is good pals with John Davison? Humble opinion, indeed.<br /><br />Anonymous XAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40463962671103299022011-05-21T12:16:11.176-04:002011-05-21T12:16:11.176-04:00I sincerely hope that Larry reads "The Myth o...I sincerely hope that Larry reads "The Myth of Junk DNA" and writes a book review of it for some journal.<br /><br />Btw, on the subject of essential function, how much of the 5' and 3' UTRs can be deleted with no consequence? How much of the protein-coding sequence in many genes can be deleted with no effect on survival and reproduction?<br /><br />Should all non-essential DNA be regarded as "junk"? If we deleted all of the SINEs and LINEs in our genome, as Larry recommends, would we be at a biological and evolutionary advantage?<br /><br />I suspect we have cornered Larry into defending the indefensible.Atheistoclastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74029456596599913452011-05-21T08:22:51.130-04:002011-05-21T08:22:51.130-04:00Jud said:
"I don't think it would cause e...Jud said:<br />"I don't think it would cause evolutionary theory in general, or Dr. Moran in particular, any problems whatever."<br /><br />No matter what the evidence, it always is interpreted as supporting evolution theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55306264891804744532011-05-21T01:49:15.216-04:002011-05-21T01:49:15.216-04:00Anonymous:
VMartin, you made a very good point. I ...Anonymous:<br /><i>VMartin, you made a very good point. I hope it does not get lost. Perhaps Dr. Moran could respond to it. </i><br /><br />Thank you. Polymorphism refutes his claim in my humble opinion. It is hard to imagine that all those color morphs or races of ladybirds are inevitable for surviving of the species.VMartinhttp://www.cadra.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com