tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post977364068231976554..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: On My Failure to Educate an Intelligent Design CreationistLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52281812807272675562013-05-10T18:47:30.281-04:002013-05-10T18:47:30.281-04:00"AJ:I would expect a large fraction of the ge..."AJ:I would expect a large fraction of the genome to be relevant only to embryos. In computer speak this would be the ‘initialisation process’ of an organism. Once initialised, the organism is not likely to use that part of the program again."<br />To which LM responds:<br />"That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about transcripts that only appear in one copy per ten or a hundred cells in one tissue out of over one hundred that were examined."<br /><br />AJ talks alot about how darwinism is anti-teleological, and that because of this it has an inherent bias towards accepting explanatory "dead-ends", and thus is something of a 'science-stopper'.<br />So if ID is the opposite of that, then why aren't any IDists trying, or even realizing, that there's an obvious experiment that can be performed here. They can check to see if there's a difference in rare transcripts at different stages of early development. They could even do an experimental version of the "onion test" and see if there is a difference in rare transcripts during early development of closely related species with extremely different c-values.<br /><br />But they don't, because, not surprisingly, ID 'theory' /is/ a science stopper.Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10802843636373254323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50370584954040227772013-05-10T17:13:23.816-04:002013-05-10T17:13:23.816-04:00Funny thing about computer scientists/engineers th...Funny thing about computer scientists/engineers that are creationists - they will argue exact opposite positions in order to prop up their creationist fantasies. I had one creationist computer guy, one CK Lester, insist that like genomes, computer programs can 'absorb' all sorts of 'mutations' (bad code) and still work just fine. Yet another creationist computer guy, R. David Pogge, has an essay on his website declaring that computer programs can deal with almost NO 'mutations', and since a genome is just like computer code, evolution is wrong because it relies on mutations. <br /><br />And the frustrating thing is, they both insisted that they are 100% right...nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67733042401210430842013-05-10T17:09:33.912-04:002013-05-10T17:09:33.912-04:00OUTSTANDING.
"Might there... Is it not poss...OUTSTANDING.<br /><br />"Might there... Is it not possible" are NOT arguments, they are childish cop outs. IDiots really are idiots.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71339224876461890562013-05-10T17:06:53.691-04:002013-05-10T17:06:53.691-04:00Excellent points. I also love how frequently and ...Excellent points. I also love how frequently and without any realization at all the creationist employs the very things he accuses Larry of employing. Then there is the blatant Dunning-Kruger effect...nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58328075435107495672013-05-10T17:04:01.966-04:002013-05-10T17:04:01.966-04:00Come on now - no creationist would EVER engage in ...Come on now - no creationist would EVER engage in confirmation bias. Of course, I do wonder how it was that those mice with 3% of their genome's removed did OK when ALL of their genome was designed to be functional...nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69198917842288934622013-05-10T12:49:55.424-04:002013-05-10T12:49:55.424-04:00Twice the damn spell corrector changed my 'dna...Twice the damn spell corrector changed my 'dna' to 'dan'!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030669424412573308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52562298963262072052013-05-10T12:48:43.265-04:002013-05-10T12:48:43.265-04:00Funny how much andyjones writes about bias, while ...Funny how much andyjones writes about bias, while being •utterly blind• to his own. Larry patiently explained the reasons for junk dan, and andyjones points out the would-be bias of those explanations, while responding directly from the midst of his own biases with completely contorted ad-hoc reasoning.<br /><br />This was a very instructive exchange.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030669424412573308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39928018300754617872013-05-10T09:08:17.316-04:002013-05-10T09:08:17.316-04:00@Negative Entropy
I enjoyed reading your last com...@Negative Entropy<br /><br />I enjoyed reading your last comment, and I agree with much of what you said.<br /><br />In my previous comments here and in other posts, I brought up the ‘nucleo-skeletal hypothesis’ proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith (2), and the ‘nucleotypic hypothesis’ proposed by Michael Bennett and Ryan Gregory, which have been discussed in dozen of papers and books. For whatever reason, you and the other bloggers discussing potential function for jDNA, here or at Gregory’s blog (<a href="http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/</a>), have not addressed them. <br /><br />Again, what do you (and Larry and Allan) think about these hypotheses? Are they irrelevant? <br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50255763191557119982013-05-10T08:44:20.060-04:002013-05-10T08:44:20.060-04:00As someone who has spent his entire working life i...As someone who has spent his entire working life in the software development area I hope to god that the genome is not just like a computer program (at least the ones I've been involved in).steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70936869798288224052013-05-10T08:39:27.603-04:002013-05-10T08:39:27.603-04:00Active functional transposons are selfish. I agree...Active functional transposons are selfish. I agree, but, for example, inactive transposons might be transposed by active transposon machinery, or because active transposons might fall close by and thus carry a bigger piece, et cetera. I find it hard there to decide if, for example, it is junk turned selfish, though maybe passenger-junk DNA, or hitchhicking-junk DNA, might work. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92005542760008729742013-05-10T07:29:55.145-04:002013-05-10T07:29:55.145-04:00"Kurt Wise and Todd C. Wood are honest. Wood ..."Kurt Wise and Todd C. Wood are honest. Wood is not stupid"<br /><br />Yep. I just commented on Todd Wood above before seeing your post. Todd knows well what he talks about. I didn't know about Kurt Wise except some mentioning. I see they both have the same stance: no problem whatsoever with the sceintific theories (at least from Todd) but no matter how sound the evidence is their fate takes precedence. That's why Todd turns to Baraminology.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69018222570480777872013-05-10T07:22:08.669-04:002013-05-10T07:22:08.669-04:00There is one honest creationist I know of: Todd Ch...There is one honest creationist I know of: Todd Charles Wood. You can check him at his blog Todd's blog. He will be the first person to tell you that there is NO problem with evolutionary theory, and he gets quite pissed at all the misinformation and lies coming from other creationists, including ID. He is quite honest and upfront about why he doesn't accept TE in the face of evidence: because his religious beliefs don't let him. That's why he turns to Baraminology...Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45834336371308447262013-05-10T06:47:34.867-04:002013-05-10T06:47:34.867-04:00I think there's a clear demarcation. Selfish D...<i>I think there's a clear demarcation. Selfish DNA (i.e. active, functional transposons) is not junk. I don't see how anyone could think it is.</i><br /><br />It must depend on perspective? Taking Ohno's condition - junk is 'that which cannot suffer a deleterious mutation', then as far as the organism is concerned, selfish DNA fits that bill. As far as the sequence itself is concerned, then of course it can, as it can be disabled, which is deleterious to the transposon. Disabled, it becomes part of the organism's junk, but it seems inconsistent to take the organism perspective only at that point. (Not that I think it matters unduly).AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54742899123548284892013-05-10T06:39:06.775-04:002013-05-10T06:39:06.775-04:00As someone who has spent somewhat more of his work...As someone who has spent somewhat more of his working life as a computer programmer than as a biochemist, can I just say we don't <i>all</i> think the genome is just like one big computer program? It can be a useful analogy, in some circumstances; don't get carried away. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60745729205827491172013-05-09T21:43:35.828-04:002013-05-09T21:43:35.828-04:00Something else I might disagree, is that there'...<i>Something else I might disagree, is that there's a clear demarcation between junk and selfish DNA.</i><br /><br />I think there's a clear demarcation. Selfish DNA (i.e. active, functional transposons) is not junk. I don't see how anyone could think it is.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20489226769884773562013-05-09T20:05:21.411-04:002013-05-09T20:05:21.411-04:00I am convinced that some DNA can act as spacers ne...I am convinced that some DNA can act as spacers necessary given the way eukaryotic genomes organize. I doubt though that they are the exact size that would be required. I agree, for example, that some programmed alternative splicing is evolutionarily selected for, thus making alternative splicing, in those cases, necessary for a healthy organism, but that does not mean that such thing justifies the sizes and the number of introns. In other words, introns contain junk regardless of how necessary some of them might have become.<br /><br />I do think that we can't paint all DNA whose specific sequence is not kept by negative selection as useless and junk. But I doubt that such things mean that therefore there's no junk. I am still convinced that there's abundant junk because evidence points to that. example, the famous onion test also proposed by Ryan Gregory. Something else I might disagree, is that there's a clear demarcation between junk and selfish DNA. Still, a huge amount would be just junk. Also, I think we should not put the cart before the horse. That some transposons might have originated promoters does not mean that transposons are thingies whose function is to produce promoters. That some pseudogenes have acquired functions does not mean that pseudogenes arise for a purpose. Evolution is a mess. Things happen because they can happen. For example, it could well be that we need lots of DNA "so that" DNA can be packed. But maybe we would not have any need to pack it if we didn't have so much DNA ...<br /><br />In any event, there's tons of selfish and of junk DNA. I have had doubts one way or another, and lots of education have proven me wrong in one way or another. My view is the result of changing my views due to the evidences accumulated by lots of research since I first hear about both selfish and junk DNA, about introns, about alternative splicing, and so on. This is why I read carefully. I rather not put my meanings into what Ford wrote, for example. I pay attention. There's a reason Ford said "might be", rather than "is," et cetera, et cetera. I read the whole paper, and Ford is far from suggesting that there's no junk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36174083319014025372013-05-09T15:13:28.080-04:002013-05-09T15:13:28.080-04:00The Five Laws of Creationism
1. Just because crea...<b>The Five Laws of Creationism</b><br /><br />1. Just because creationists can emit English sentences, does not mean they can understand English sentences.<br /><br />2. Just because they can use scientific jargon, does not mean they know what it means.<br /><br />3. No factoid is too large or too small, too important or too trivial, too easily verified or too obscure for creationists to lie about it.<br /><br />4. Majority opinion does not determine truth, except when right-wing politicians are mandating creationism, in which case, it does determine truth.<br /><br />5. When they catch ya lyin', just remember, Darwin = Hitler.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85701947754649297982013-05-09T15:05:56.470-04:002013-05-09T15:05:56.470-04:00P.S. WHY ARE ONION GENOMES SO LARGE, and why are t...P.S. <b>WHY ARE ONION GENOMES SO LARGE, and why are the differences between two onion genomes LARGER than the entire human genome?</b><br /><br />Oops, you forgot to answer that!Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46504570182500117862013-05-09T14:38:59.017-04:002013-05-09T14:38:59.017-04:00@Negative Entropy
Obviously, I can reply on the s...@Negative Entropy<br /><br />Obviously, I can reply on the same note: <i>“Read the whole thing. Make sure that you understand what it means, rather than make it mean what you prefer it to mean</i>"<br /><br />Anyway, what do you think about the nucleoskeletal or nucleotypic theories developed in dozens of papers and books by Cavalier-Smith, Michael Bennett and Ryan Gregory?<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-531645775626806942013-05-09T14:23:46.828-04:002013-05-09T14:23:46.828-04:00You're are still missing the point. Strong sel...You're are still missing the point. Strong selection for C-value does not mean strong selection for a particular point. It could be selecting for a minimum value, it could be selecting for a maximum, but that does not mean that this would justify all the junk, nor that junk would become nonexistent. Still, that there "might be" does not mean that there "is." Again, you miss the point. Ford also talks about positive evidence for junk.<br /><br />Read the whole thing. Make sure that you understand what it means, rather than make it mean what you prefer it to mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32370084719394557212013-05-09T14:01:16.904-04:002013-05-09T14:01:16.904-04:00Exactly ^^^^
Exactly ^^^^ <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06679938903940247915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75208672925697054532013-05-09T13:10:12.895-04:002013-05-09T13:10:12.895-04:00Andyjones writes: "Might there be a design re...Andyjones writes: <i>"Might there be a design reason for having ‘jumping genes’? ...is it possible that there are genes that are designed to jump between cells?"</i><br /><br />Why sure, genius, and is it possible that there are genes that can accelerate faster than the speed of light and go backward in time and kill Lee Harvey Oswald? Fuck, anything is possible, but sane people are supposed to prioritize their possibilities.<br /><br />The Discovery Institute gets about $4-5 million dollars per year. If you really believe a Middle Eastern war deity magically created genes that can jump from one eukaryotic cell to another, then spend let's say half of that on going and finding them. <br /><br />Spend less money on LOBBYING RIGHT-WING dumbfuck POLITICIANS to write laws mandating "God did it" theory, and spend half your $$ millions DISCOVERING SOMETHING you stupid fuck!<br /><br /><i>"Is it possible that pathological viruses evolved from something designed and endogenous...?"</i><br /><br />You're a computer scientists. You may have heard, there are things, look like boxes, with a lighted rectangle in front, called computers. <b>GO USE A COMPUTER TO TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS</b> you stupid fuck.<br /><br />Genomic databases are available ONLINE. Sequence search tools and alignment software are available ONLINE. USE THEM you stupid fuck. Jesus tapdancing Christ you witch doctors are LAZY.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Of course that’s crazy talk – to an Evolutionist"</i><br /><br />NO-- it's not crazy, it's just LAZY, because you're a computer scientist who won't use a computer to align even two sequences, you stupid, lazy fuck. LAZY is worse than crazy.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68488384965872880492013-05-09T12:58:43.168-04:002013-05-09T12:58:43.168-04:00Fred Sigworth of Yale, I believe, asked to have hi...Fred Sigworth of Yale, I believe, asked to have his name taken off the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list.<br /><br />Kurt Wise and Todd C. Wood are honest. Wood is not stupid.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43556046004174114342013-05-09T12:38:35.429-04:002013-05-09T12:38:35.429-04:00@Negative Entropy
As indicated in quote you poste...@Negative Entropy<br /><br />As indicated in quote you posted, indeed Ford Doolittle dismisses that ENCODE data supports the conclusion that 80% of the human genome is functional.<br /> <br />However, he concludes that by building an <b>informed theoretical framework on genome evolution</b>, including <i>“(i) abandoning the distinction between informational and nucleoskeletal or nucleotypic roles for DNA, (ii) admitting that there may be strong selection for C-value as a determinant of many cell biological features”</i>, much that we now call junk could then become functional.<br /><br />As pointed out by Ford Doolittle, this informed theoretical framework on genome evolution should cover the nucleoskeletal or nucleotypic roles of genomic DNA (which included all jDNA, as in the theories proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith, Michael Bennett and Ryan Gregory), and that there might be <b>strong selection for C-value</b> (which also includes all jDNA) as a determinant of biological features.<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82225928072740093492013-05-09T11:28:23.702-04:002013-05-09T11:28:23.702-04:00"However, such a philosophically informed the..."However, such a philosophically informed theoretical expansion is not what ENCODE, or at least those authors stressing the demise of junk, so far seem to have in mind"<br /><br />Claudiu, the sentence you bolded was not the most important. Forgetting the whole context of the article, and such things as the following sentence was not good either. Read the whole article instead. In terms of logic, just looking at what you quoted: that a whole lot of junk would be deemed "functional" by changing definitions (theoretical expansion) does not take away that a huge lot of human DNA is truly just junk. Don't mistake "Much that we now call junk could then become functional" with "There is no junk."<br /><br />See ya.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com