James Shapiro Responds to My Review of His Book

I reviewed Shapiro's book, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century for NCSE reports. (NCSE = National Center for Science Education.) You can read it here.

James Shapiro has responded to my review in the latest issue of NCSE reports: Reply to Laurence A Moran’s review of Evolution: A View
from the 21st Century.

Shapiro seems to be really upset that NCSE would choose someone like me to review his book. He opens his rebuttal with ...

Before I saw Laurence A Moran’s book review (Moran 2012), I wrote the following: “It is a shame that NCSE chose Larry Moran to review my book; not because of anything he said in the review but because he is hostile to new ideas and perspectives.”

A year ago, Moran posted a piece entitled “Physicists and biologists” on his Sandwalk blog [Physicists and Biologists¹]. In this post, he ridiculed the enthusiasm I expressed in the book for physicists coming into evolutionary studies and bringing new skills and new ideas.

Meanwhile, I welcome all those physicists who know nothing about evolution, protein structure, genetics, physiology, metabolism and ecology. That’s just what we need in the biological sciences to go along with all the contributions made by equally ignorant creationists.

What a great way to make new friends for evolution science—equating physicists with creationists and calling them “equally ignorant”!

An Honest Intelligent Design Proponent?

It's unusual to find a proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism who makes an honest attempt to evaluate scientific facts. Jonathan McLatchie (Jonathan M) seems to be one of those rare birds. I'm not going to refer to him as an IDiot.

Here's a bit from his latest post on Evolution News & Views (sic [Perspectives on ENCODE and Junk DNA].

The debate thus hinges on whether activity such as transcription, transcription factor association, and histone modification are signs of true function. My own view is that such activity is suggestive of functionality, but not proof. Therefore I would be cautious about claiming that these results show 80% of the genome to have function in the sense that we normally use that word.

On the other hand, the observation that the genome is buzzing with activity underscores what proponents of ID have been saying for years: not knowing what something does doesn't constitute evidence that it's doing nothing. Moreover, it wasn't long ago that Laurence Moran and PZ Myers were telling us that the genome is not even pervasively transcribed and that this amounted to evidence that the majority of our DNA is junk.

That's pretty good for someone who posts on a blog that also publishes stuff from Jonathan Wells and Casey Luskin. I wonder if they talk to each other?

On the other hand, it's not perfect. I've been arguing for years that there is good solid evidence that most of our genome is junk. I have never used the argument from ignorance that Jonathan attributes to me.

Also, I have never denied that the genome is pervasively transcribed. Instead, I have argued that pervasive transcription is something that one expects given what we know about DNA binding proteins and transcription. I've pointed out that the vast majority of our genome is transcribed very rarely—about one transcript per day in 100 cells—and this is consistent with accidental transcription. This is noise. The product is junk RNA and is has no function [Useful RNAs?] [Junk RNA] [Pervasive Transcription] [How to Frame a Null Hypothesis] [How to Evaluate Genome Level Transcription Papers ].

I discussed this thoroughly when I reviewed Jonathan Wells' book The Myth of Junk DNA [Junk & Jonathan: Part 6—Chapter 3]. Perhaps Jonathan McLatchie hasn't read my earlier posts?

Contrast McLatchie's post with that of Jonathan Wells [A Dishonest Intelligent Design Proponent?].

---

ENCODE/Junk DNA Fiasco: The IDiots Don't Like Me

Casey Luskin has devoted an entire post to discussing my views on junk DNA. I'm flattered. Read it at: What an Evolution Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Evolution Debate.

Let's look at how the IDiots are responding to this publicity fiasco. Casey Luskin begins with ...

University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." Other evolution-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype".

Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet evolution-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.

Pseudogenes Are Pseudogenes and They Are Almost Always Junk

The IDiots have found a paper by Wen et al. (2012) with a very provocative title, "Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more."

Naturally, lawyer Casey Luskin is all over this: Paper Rebuffs Assumption that Pseudogenes Are Genetic "Junk," Claims Function Is "Widespread". And just as naturally, the folks at Uncommon Descent (probably lawyer Barry Arrington) jump on the bandwagon: Junk DNA: Yes, paper admits, it WAS thought to be junk.

The authors of the paper, including Templeton Prize winner Francisco J Ayala, claim that pseduogenes exhibit two puzzling properties: (a) similar processed pseudogenes occur in mouse and humans suggesting that they are conserved, and (b) many pseudogenes are transcribed.

Processed pseudogenes arise when mRNA transcripts are reverse transcribed and inserted back into the genome. They usually come from genes that are highly expressed in germ line cells. Such genes tend to be highly conserved in related species. Mammals are closely related on the scale that were talking about. It's not surprising that a few new pseudogenes in such lineages are very similar in sequence. They're still pseudogenes. The vast majority of known pseudogenes are evolving at a rate that approximates the rate of mutation indicating that they are not constrained by negative selection.

Many pseudogenes are derived from gene duplications followed by mutations in one of the copies that make them incapable of producing a functional product. There's no reason to suspect that the first of these debilitating mutations will prevent transcription; therefore, one expects that many pseudogenes will be transcribed.

Some pseudogenes have been co-opted to provide a different function. There aren't very many examples but that doesn't stop the IDiots from making the fantastic leap from 0.0001% to 100%. (Pseudogenes represent about 1% of the genome [What's in Your Genome? ] so even if we assume that every single pseudogene is not a pseudogene, it hardly makes a dint in the amount of junk DNA.)

I discussed all this when I reviewed Jonathan Well's book The Myth of Junk DNA. The relevant chapter is Chapter 5 [Junk & Jonathan: Part 8—Chapter 5]. That review was posted in May 2011. It seems clear that the lawyers on the IDiot websites haven't read it.

Here's what one of them says on Uncommon Descent.

Darwin’s followers considered junk DNA powerful evidence for their theory, which is really a philosophy (often a cult), and that they often expressed that view, often triumphantly. Others insist it is true anyway.

The problem they hope to suppress is that if lots of junk in our DNA is such powerful evidence for their theory, then little junk throws it into doubt. That is, if it is such a good theory, why was it wrong on a point that was announced so triumphantly?

So it is a good thing that the science-minded public is reminded of the historical fact that Darwinism was supported by junk DNA. And it will be fun when the squirming editorials come out in science mags, warning people not to read too much into this, Darwin is still right.

I'm not even going to bother pointing out how stupid that is. If you're reading Sandwalk, chances are high that you could detect the lies¹ with your eyes closed.

---

1. Yes, "lies." At this point there's no other explanation.

Wen, Y-Z., Zheng, L-L., Qu, L-H., Ayala, F.J., and Lun, Z-R. (2012) Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more. RNA Biology 9: 27 - 32. [doi: 10.4161/rna.9.1.18277]

Note to David Klinghoffer, When You find Yourself in a Hole, Stop Digging

Some of you might recall the recent Chromosome 2 kerfuffle. It started when Carl Zimmer asked David Klinghoffer a simple question. Zimmer asked him to describe the evidence to support his claim that the fusion site didn't look like it should if two primitive ape chromosomes had fused to produce human chromosome 2.

Rather than simply answer the question, the IDiots circled the wagons then went into attack mode. Eventually, after a lot of pressure, they got around to answering the question; apparently there is no evidence to support their claim [And Finally the Hounding Duck Can Rest].

Of course by then they were so deep in their hole that the sun don't shine.

Intelligent Design Creationists Attempt to (re)Define Junk DNA

Paul McBride is causing quite a stir among the creationists. His review of Science & Human Origins was so devastating that they couldn't ignore it.

Jonathan McLatchie (Jonathan M) is the latest creationist to attempt a defense of the home team. He concentrates on defending the Intelligent Design Creationist position on junk DNA [A Response to Paul McBride on Junk DNA].

On this topic (junk DNA), the IDiots make a lot of errors. One of them is to deliberately conflate "junk DNA" and "noncoding DNA" so that when they come up with evidence for function in noncoding DNA they can tout this as evidence against junk DNA. This error is so pervasive in the IDiot literature that Paul McBride even predicted that Casey Luskin would make this mistake in the book.

Why All the Fuss About Chromosomes?

I've been following the latest kerfluffle on the fusion of two chromosome into one during human evolution. I understand the superficial dispute involving Carl Zimmer. He had the audacity to ask for evidence to back up a claim being made by the IDiots on their Facebook page and they responded by going nuclear [The Mystery of the Missing Chromosomes, Continued: An Update From Your Preening Blogger].

Typical.

Let's step back a bit and ask why the IDiots are so upset. Carl Zimmer posted a really nice summary of the evidence that two smallish chimp chromosomes fused to produce human chromosome 2 [The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome]. That evidence is based on an analysis of the chimp, human, and gorilla genomes and it allows scientists to reconstruct the events that led up to the fusion. All of the DNA sequence around the fusion point are consistent with what we might expect, especially the presence of defective telomeres (sequences at the ends of chromosomes).

Why are the IDiots so bothered by this evidence? It's not as if it's new—the essential evidence has been around for decades. There must be something else going on that causes the IDiots to circle the wagons at this time.

It think it's all about their latest book Science & Human Origins by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin.¹ The book is published by the Discovery Institute Press. In that book, two of the authors (Gauger and Luskin), apparently argue that science cannot rule out a recent origin of humans descended from Adam and Eve. The chromosome fusion data threatens that bizarre claim and perhaps that's why they are reacting so strongly.

I think I understand this. The IDiots have made bold claims about some of their recent books (e.g. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design , The Myth of Junk DNA) but those books have been met by yawning indifference from the general public and devastating criticism from real scientists. Two of the authors on this latest book (Gauger and Axe) have substantial scientific credentials so the Discovery Institute must have expected that the book would stand up to criticism by other scientists.

Instead, a "mere" graduate student (Paul McBride) has dimantled the book chapter by chapter [Science & Human Origins: Review] and a "mere" science writer, Carl Zimmer, has challenged the integrity of two "scientists" (and a lawyer). No wonder they're upset. All of their wonderful books are scientific embarrassments.

On what grounds do the IDiots want to deny the chromosomal evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Carl Zimmer supplies a partial answer when he quotes one of the chief IDiot defenders, David Klinhoffer, who says ...

The evidence from chromosomal fusion, for one, is strikingly ambiguous. In the Darwinian presentation, the fact that humans possess 23 chromosome pairs and great apes 24 clearly points to an event in which human chromosome 2 formed from a fusion, leaving in its wake the telltale sign of telomeric DNA — normally appearing as a protective cap at the end of the chromosome — in the middle where it doesn’t belong. Ergo, common descent.

But Casey [Luskin, of the Discovery Institute and co-author of the book] explains, there’s a lot wrong with this inference. Even if there was such an event and humans once had 24 chromosome pairs, it doesn’t at all follow that this happened in some prehuman past. Nothing stands in the way of picturing a human population bottleneck accomplishing the spread of a fused chromosome 2 from part of an early human community to all of it.

But the idea of such an event having occurred at all is itself far from sure. The telomeric DNA parked in the middle of chromosome 2 is not a unique phenomenon. Other mammals have it too, across their own genomes. Even if it were unique, there’s much less of it than you would expect from the amalgamation of two telomeres. Finally, it appears in a “degenerate,” “highly diverged” form that should not be the case if the joining happened in the recent past, circa 6 million years ago, as the Darwinian interpretation holds.

That's it? The fusion event could have happened relatively recently in human evolution so it's no big deal? And if you don't buy that, then maybe it didn't happen at all because the junction sequence isn't exactly what a typical IDiot might expect if evolution were true?

(Carl asked for the evidence that that the junction sequence isn't what one might expect and that's what caused the latest problem.)

I think that even the most stupid IDiots realize that they are in a very weak position on this one. They have been painted into a corner where the only way out is to admit that chromosome fusions happens&mdashbut only in the past 10,000 years—or that solid scientific evidence is wrong and there was no fusion. Neither option is appealing.

That's why you see people like Cornelius Hunter desperately looking for another way out [Carl Zimmer Doubles Down on Chromosome Two Lies and Misdemeanors] and why the people at Uncommon Descent have picked up on a non-scientific way to defend Intelligent Design Creationism [Why no one can confute Darwinism and, consequently, no one should believe it].

My question for Intelligent Design Creationists is, "why all the fuss?" What is there about the figure at the top of the page that really upsets you? Aren't most of you supporters of common descent in some form or another? Are all of you really going to defend the idea that humans have no evolutionary history with the other apes?

---

1. I haven't read the book. It's on order but it still hasn't been released in Canada (see Amazon.ca).

The Top Ten Problems with Darwinism

It was only a few months ago that lawyer Casey Luskin presented us with The Top Three Flaws in Evolutionary Theory. Now he's back with the top ten problems with Darwinian evolution. Here they are, read 'em and weep.

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution.
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life."
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient.
5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely.
6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code.
7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.
9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA.
10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

I started to work on the top 1000 problems with Intelligent Design Creationism but then I realized that it was a waste of time. There are only two essential problems with Intelligent Design Creationism: (1) There's no evidence for supernatural design in nature, and (2) There's no evidence for a supernatural designer.

---

Another IDiot Book: Science and Human Origins

The IDiots at Disco (Discovery Institute) have published another book. This time the authors are Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin. Gauger and Axe are scientists so this book is supposed to be about science. Unfortunately, Casey Luskin is a lawyer which pretty much negates the authority of Gauger and Axe.

The book has been thoroughly reviewed by Paul McBride on Still Monkeys. McBride is a graduate student studying evolution in New Zealand. Read the reviews at ...

Science and Human Origins - Chapter 1 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 2 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 3 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 4 review
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 4 review: Part 2
Science and Human Origins - Chapter 5 review

Wanna know the bottom line?

1. Common descent is still alive and well.
2. Natural selection still works.
3. The human fossil record still demonstrates evolution.
4. Junk DNA still exists.
5. There's no evidence for Adam and Eve.

Here's how Paul McBride sums up his review.

Science and Human Origins has to be described first and foremost as being anti-evolution rather than pro-intelligent-design, or pro-science. If it offers solace to those seeking evidence against evolution for their faith, the solace should be as incomplete as the arguments made in the book.

This is a common criticism. Most IDiot literature is nothing more than a misguided attack on evolution. It's increasingly rare to see any defense of intelligent design. Perhaps that's because it's indefensible?

---

Casey Luskin "Explains" Intelligent Design Creationism

Casey Luskin is upset with a philosopher named Christopher Pynes. Paynes had the audacity to suggest that one of the key features of Intelligent Design Creationism is ... creationism. According to Paynes, "supernaturalism is a necessary component of ID: there must be a designer" [AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN: REPLY TO KOPERSKI].

Luskin wants to remind everyone that Intelligent Design Creationism has nothing to do with a creator/designer [Professor Pynes Rails Against the "Straw-Man Fallacy" while Attacking a Straw-Man Version of Intelligent Design]. According to Luskin (a lawyer), Intelligent Design Creationism is a purely scientific theory that relies on: (a) proving that evolution is wrong, (b) detecting the creator/designer by examining nature.

On the primary¹ grounds that it's always good to know your enemy, I present to you the best scientific grounds for Intelligent Design Creationism.

• Studies of physics and cosmology continue to uncover deeper and deeper levels of fine-tuning. Many examples could be given, but this one is striking: the initial entropy of the universe must have been fine-tuned to within 1 part in 10(10^123) to render the universe life-friendly. That blows other fine-tuning constants away. New cosmological theories like string theory or multiverse theories just push back questions about fine-tuning, and would, if true, simply exacerbate the need for fine-tuning. This points to high levels of complex and specified information (CSI) in the cosmid architecture of the universe--information which in our experieince only comes from intelligence.
• Mutational sensitivity tests increasingly show that DNA sequences are highly fine-tuned to generate functional proteins and perform other biological functions. Again, this is high CSI--which in our experience only comes from intelligence.
• Studies of epigenetics and systems biology are revealing more and more how integrated organisms are, from biochemistry to macrobiology, and showing incredible fine-tuned basic cellular functions. The integrated nature of organismal body plans shows CSI throughout biological systems--in our experience, only intelligence can generate tightly intregrated multi-component blueprints.
• Genetic knockout experiments are showing irreducible complexity, such as in the flagellum, or multi-mutation features where many simultaneous mutations would be necessary to gain an advantage. This is more fine-tuning--and in our experience, irreducibly complex machines arise only from intelligence.
• The fossil record shows that species often appear abruptly without similar precursors, which represents mass-explosions of high CSI--something which requires an intelligent cause.
• There have been numerous discoveries of functionality for "junk DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Intelligent design predicted this data.

If all of these things were true, then you'd predict that scientists would be flocking to church on Sundays. You'd also expect that the scientific literature would be full of papers proving the existence of God. It would be the most remarkable discovery in the history of humans.

A key part of Intelligent Design Creationism—the part that Casey Luskin is leaving out—is to explain why it has been so remarkably unsuccessful after 200 years of trying. That part has to do with the huge Darwinist conspiracy that forces scientists to tow the line and stick with atheistic Darwinism in spite of all the scientific evidence against it. If you read the blogs, you'll see that attacking scientists and Darwinism is the dominant theme. The "scientific" "evidence" for Intelligent Design Creationism is almost never mentioned.

Most of us scientists don't realize that we are part of such a conspiracy because we have been brainwashed into believing in evolution. However, a few god-fearing souls have seen the truth. Some of them are lawyers (Casey Luskin, Philip Johnson), some of them are philosophers, some of them claim to be mathematicians, and a few think they are scientists (Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells). The one thing they all have in common is that they are all IDiots.

---

1. The secondary grounds are to keep a record of the June 2012 "facts" because they will change soon enough.

Fishing for Creationists

Fishing for creationists is not a sport. All you need to do is dangle a bit of bait and dozens of creationists will fight for the right to impale themselves on the hook. The latest victim is Jonathan McLatchie who responded to criticism of Phillip Johnson [Maligning Phil Johnson, with Lots of Rhetoric but Little Substance]. I'm sure the other bloggers on Evolution News & Views don't see him as a fishy victim, they probably think of him as the designated hitter. (You could use "sacrificial lamb" if you want a Biblical metaphor.)

Jonathan M, as he prefers to be known, is studying in Scotland for a Master's degree in evolutionary biology. He's upset with Jeffrey Shallit for criticizing Phillip Johnson's 1993 video (see This Video Should Be Shown to all Biology Students). He's also upset with my critiques of the same video (see Phillip Johnson, One of the Very Best Intelligent Design Creationists).

One Problem with Intelligent Design Creationism

 

There are many different ideas about creators but they all share one common feature; namely, they postulate the existence of a supernatural creator who is directly responsible for creating some parts of the universe (usually the whole thing!).

Intelligent Design Creationism is a version of creationism that focuses on the creation of life. Proponents of this version claim that god played a direct role in creating some parts of living organisms. They concentrate on biochemical structures like bacterial flagella and folded proteins but they're also interested in things like speciation and the Cambrian explosion.

Evolution can explain most of the things that the Intelligent Design Creationists worry about so their main overt activities are concentrated on discrediting evolution and discrediting those scientists who support scientific explanations of biology. Given this necessity, you'd think that the leading proponents of IDC would be quite knowledgeable about biology and evolution.

Advice from Jonathan Wells on Junk DNA

 

Copied from Uncommon Descent (Denyse O'Leary): What advice, on junk DNA, would Jonathan Wells give Francis Collins or Richard Dawkins?.

From the Salvo Magazine interview with Jonathan Wells, by Casey Luskin. Wells is the author of The Myth of Junk DNA:

If you could have lunch with Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, what would you say to them about their use of the “junk DNA” argument? [that there is no design in life]

Actually, Collins no longer relies on “junk DNA.” In 2007 he announced in an interview for Wired magazine that he had “stopped using the term.” In 2010 he wrote that “discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more ‘junk DNA,’ think again” (The Language of Life, pp. 5–6). Unfortunately, his followers at the BioLogos Institute (which he founded) seem to be unaware of this, because they continue to promote the myth that most of our DNA is junk. I would encourage Collins to set them right.

UD News does not think Collins would succeed. They are not Collins’s followers, they are Darwin’s men. They do not seek more knowledge than Darwin had. They seek to make what he knew part of the bedrock of Christianity.

Unlike Collins, Dawkins seems utterly oblivious to recent developments in genomics. I would encourage him to read some of the scientific literature.

Why? Dawkins can command international attention for not keeping up to date – because millions of tax burdens feel he speaks for them – and they don’t need to keep up to date either. Their champions are fronts for the dead orthodoxies that keep them in place.

Dear Jonathan Wells and Denyse O'Leary,

I have read The Myth of Junk DNA and I have read the scientific literature. What advice would you give me?

Why don't you respond to my review of The Myth of Junk DNA? What are you afraid of?

---

Detecting God's Signature

Stephen Meyer has two main objectives. He wants to prove that Intelligent Design Creationism is the best explanation for the origin of information in the cell and he wants to prove that Intelligent Design Creationism is genuine science.

Let's look at the form of argument he uses in Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. This is from Chapter 17 where he's trying to refute the accusation that Intelligent Design Creationism is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

... the argument made in this book ... takes the following form:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for information in the cell.

Or, to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:

Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E.
Premise Two: Cause Y can produce E.
Conclusion: Y explains E better that A through X.

In addition to a premise about how material causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, the argument for intelligent design as the best explanation also affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligence. This argument does not omit a premise providing positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative cause or proposition. Instead, it specifically includes such a premise. Therefore, it does not commit the informal fallacy or arguing from ignorance. It's really as simple as that.

Scientist are often accused of picking on the most idiotic of the IDiots and avoiding the really big guns who have all the best arguments for Intelligent Design Creationism.¹ See A Reason to Doubt the Real, Rather than Pretended, Confidence of Darwin Advocates, where David Klinghoffer asks,

How about answering the arguments of a real scientist who advocates intelligent design on scientific rather than Bible-thumping grounds -- a Douglas Axe or Ann Gauger, for example? How about a thoughtful critique of The Myth of Junk DNA or Signature in the Cell? A response to serious science bloggers like ENV's Casey Luskin or Jonathan M.?

So, here's my response to the very best that the IDiots can offer.

Premise One

Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

On the surface this looks like a purely scientific statement. I'm sure that most creationists accept it at face value since the leaders of the movement have been saying for years that evolution can't account for specified complexity or irreducible complexity.

Stephen Meyer is a philosopher but he's confident that his knowledge of biology is sufficient to establish the truth of this claim. He says on page 341 ...

Undirected materialistic causes have not demonstrated the capacity to generate significant amounts of specified information.

This is an important point since the logic of his argument depends on establishing that specified complexity can never arise from natural (materialistic) causes. You might think that a large part of this book would be devoted to backing up his premise. You would be wrong. Turns out, the real premise isn't exactly how it appears above.

Dennis Venema has written a critical review of Signature in the Cell and one of his criticisms is that there are many excellent examples of new information evolving by entirely materialistic mechansims that not violate the laws of physics and chemistry [Seeking a Signature]. We're all familiar with the examples of gene duplication and divergence but he might just as well have used dozens of other examples where specified complexity evolved. The wings of birds are for flying but they evolved from legs and fins. The irreducibly complex citric acid cycle evolved from simpler pathways.

These examples establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are perfectly reasonable, materialistic explanations for the evolution of specified complexity. That seems to negate Premise One.

Hang on. Meyer responds to the Venema criticism by pointing out that he was not referring to the origin just any specified information. He was only referring to the kind of specified information that appeared when life first formed. It's an origin of life problem.

The balance of [Venema's] review is spent refuting an argument that Signature in the Cell does not make and, thus, the evidence he cites is irrelevant to the main argument of the book; in short, Venema "refutes" a straw man. ... I happen to think -- but do not argue in Signature in the Cell -- that there are significant grounds for doubting that mutation and selection can add enough new information to account for various macroevolutionary innovations. Nevertheless, the book that Venema was reviewing, Signature in the Cell, does not address the issue of biological evolution, nor does it challenge whether mutation and selection can add new information to DNA. That is simply not what the book is about. Instead, it argues that no undirected chemical process has demonstrated the capacity to produce the information necessary to generate life in the first place. The book addresses the subject of chemical evolution and the origin of life, not biological evolution and its subsequent diversification. To imply otherwise, as Venema does, is simply to critique a straw man. [Stephen Meyer Resonds]

Meyer is correct. The book is about the origin of life and the problem of getting information into DNA 3.5 billion years ago, before there were cells, and before evolution. Meyer isn't always clear about this distinction but the argument that he frames above is about the origin of life.

Here's how he should have expressed Premise One ...

After decades of research, biologists have good explanations of how specified information can arise by evolution but they do not have a good explanation of how life began 3.5 billion years ago.

Premise Two

Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

He's referring, of course, to the fact that bees make beehives and beavers make dams. There are hundreds of examples where animals produce complex structures full of specified information. That's what he means by "intelligent causes." All of this creation obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, therefore the explanation is entirely materialistic.

Don't forget that the argument is not about the creation of specified information throughout the history of life. It's about the ultimate origin of the information. Animals can create complex structures just as living cells can create new genes. What Meyer really wants to know is where do animals get this ability? Where did the information to create more information come from?

Animals evolved from more primitive ancestors. It's quite reasonable to postulate that all animals evolved from a common ancestor that had very rudimentary intelligence and that intelligence evolved from primitive neurons. Thus, the ability of intelligent animals to create complex structures—like pocket watches—ultimately traces back to the origin of life.

We can re-word Premise Two ...

Intelligent animals can produce large amounts of specified information by purely materialistic means. The ability to do this depends on the evolution of animals from the first living cells that arose 3.5 billion years ago.

Conclusion

Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.

This conclusion does not follow from either of the corrected premises.

Here's a better conclusion.

All of the information we see in biology, including the ability of beavers to make dams, can be traced back to the information present in the first cells. We don't currently have a good explanation for how DNA and cells arose.

It's difficult to see how you can squeeze a supernatural intelligent designer into this conclusion. Whenever we have good explanations for the origin of specified complexity, those explanations involve materialistic actions and not actions that require violation of the known laws of physics and chemistry. Beavers do not wave a wand to poof their dams into existance and bees don't get their beehives by praying for them

Therefore, it seems quite reasonable to assume that all examples of biological information arise by natural means, including the very earliest examples of DNA in the first cell.

(I don't address information theory, which takes up a significant part of the book for some unknown reason. See Jeffrey Shallit's take-down on Stephen Meyer in: More on Signature in the Cell.)

---

1. Atheists have the same problem. We're always going after the most stupid theists and avoiding the really sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. You'll find a list of those arguments at: A Challenge to Theists and their Accommodationist Supporters.

Is Creationism Anti-Science?

 

It's very hard to define science—it's the demarcation problem and, in spite of what you've been told, philosophers don't agree on how to define science.

A lot of the activities of Intelligent Design Creationists qualify as science, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I spend so much time arguing against their attacks on evolution. Many of the IDiots accept common descent. Their attacks on other aspects of evolution aren't much different than similar attacks from legitimate, non-theistic scientists (e.g. objecting to junk DNA, questioning the Cambrian explosion, challenging strict Darwinism). It counts as "science" but it's very bad science and it's wrong.

All IDiots are anti-evolution but some go farther than others. If you are a Young Earth Creationist who believes that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, then you are not just anti-evolution, you are anti-physics, anti-chemistry, anti-geology, anti-astronomy, and anti-biology. I think it's fair to say that Young Earth Creationists are anti-science. This includes most (all?) of the Republican Presidential candidates in the United States and more than half the citizens of that country.

The only way YECs can possibly justify their strange beliefs is to assume that all the experts in all those fields are completely wrong about the fundamental concepts in their discipline. How could they possibly trust anything else those scientists have to say about their areas of expertise?

Let me introduce you to a "new voice" in the Intelligent Design Creationist world. Here's what Evolution News & Views says about him [A New Voice in the Debate Over Evolution and Intelligent Design].

There is literally a new voice in the debate over evolution and intelligent design. If you're a regular listener to the Center for Science & Culture's very popular and thrice weekly podcast, ID The Future, you have probably come to recognize familiar personalities, like ENV's Casey Luskin. (If you're not yet a listener, then you should be.) Now you will be hearing more often from radio broadcaster David Boze of Seattle's KTTH.

I assume David Boze is a heavy-weight and it's okay to criticize him.

Listen to the Discovery Institute podcast where Boze defends Young Earth Creationism against the charge that it's anti-science ["Anti-Science": Unpacking a Vague & Distorted Label]. (You can click on the embedded copy below.) Note the sleight of hand where he lumps together the Young Earth Creationists with all other IDiots. His point is that just because you're opposed to "atheistic Darwinian evolution" does not mean you're anti-science.

Perhaps not. But if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible then you are definitely anti-science. You are a genuine idiot. Does David Boze do a good job of defending Republican Presidential candidates against the charge of being anti-science? Will a YEC President harm the reputation of the United States? You be the judge.

Personally, I don't think the new kid on the block is much of a threat. Is this the best they can do?

---

Is Intelligent Design Creationism a Scientific Theory?

You should recall that Casey Luskin is one of those "serious science bloggers" who strikes fear into the hearts of evolutionary biologists. In fact, we are so afraid of people like Casey Luskin and Jonathan M that we go out of our way to avoid responding to their posts [see: A Reason to Doubt the IDiots].

Luskin's latest posting on Evolution News & Views (sic) is: How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"?. Here's the main argument ...

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested for by reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When scientists experimentally uncover irreducible complexity in a biological structure, they conclude that it was designed.

A Reason to Doubt the IDiots

 

David Klinghoffer is one of the most entertaining bloggers at Evolution News & Views. His version of logic never fails to bring a smile to my face.

Klinghoffer's latest posting is: A Reason to Doubt the Real, Rather than Pretended, Confidence of Darwin Advocates.

Much of the debate about Darwinian evolution is conducted in public online forums. If interpreted with some care, these give a convenient way of measuring the real confidence of leading spokesmen on the Darwin side. I don't mean the level of bluster -- they're all full of bluster -- but rather what they really must feel at some level deep down.

If you follow the top Darwin blogs you'll notice how eagerly and often they go in for mocking extremely marginal and daffy creationists. PZ Myers specializes in this. So too, in his books, does Richard Dawkins. How about answering the arguments of a real scientist who advocates intelligent design on scientific rather than Bible-thumping grounds -- a Douglas Axe or Ann Gauger, for example? How about a thoughtful critique of The Myth of Junk DNA or Signature in the Cell? A response to serious science bloggers like ENV's Casey Luskin or Jonathan M.?

Uh, no, thank you!

It's quite a contrast with intelligent-design advocates who, like them or not, wrestle with the top scientists and thinkers on the other side, while ignoring the small timers.

I really don't think this merits further comment by me.¹ I'll let the words stand for themselves. I hope you were as amused as I am.

---

1. I assume those "serious scientists" don't read Sandwalk, Why Evolution Is True, Panda;s Thumb, Thoughts from Kansas, or dozens of other blogs and books that refute the nonsense spouted by those "serious scientists."

Image Credit: conservababes

Creationist Logic

Help me out, dear readers. I can't for the life of me figure out the logic behind the latest posting at Uncommon Descent: If you make a prediction and it doesn’t happen ….

I'm serious. Although I often make fun of the IDiots, I usually try hard to understand the points they are trying to make so I can expose them as nonsensical. But this one has me completely stumped. On the surface the author seems to be saying that "Darwinism" made a prediction "based on core principles" that wasn't fulfilled. This is bad for "Darwinism."

What is that prediction?

The author ("News") starts with a quotation from The Myth of Junk DNA.

In 2010, University of California Distinguished Professor of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology John C. Avise published a book titled Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design, in which he wrote that "noncoding repetitive sequences–'junk DNA'–comprise the vast bulk (at least 50%, and probably much more) of the human genome." Avise argued that pseudogenes, in particular, are evidence against intelligent design. For example, "pseudogenes hardly seem like genomic features that would be designed by a wise engineer. Most of them lie scattered along the chromosomes like useless molecular cadavers." To be sure, "several instances are known or suspected in which a pseudogene formerly assumed to be genomic ‘ junk’ was later deemed to have a functional role in cells. But such cases are almost certainly exceptions rather than the rule. And in any event, such examples hardly provide solid evidence for intelligent design; instead, they seem to point toward the kind of idiosyncratic tinkering for which nonsentient evolutionary processes are notorious."

Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2011), pp. 26-27

This is a pretty accurate representation of what John Avise actually says except that it juxtaposes two separate facts. It's true that repetitive DNA sequences—mostly defective transposons—make up about half our genome. Then there's pseudogenes. They are found in the other half and they make up about 1% of the human genome.

Avise, and many others, point out that the presence of pseudogenes is inconsistent with good design and therefore poses a problem for Intelligent Design Creationism.¹ I note that the IDiots have consistently refused to address this problem. Instead, they try and convince their followers that pseudogenes don't exist.

Here's what Avise says in his book Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-intelligent design (p. 115). You can see that Wells accurately represented the actual argument that he (Avise) was making.

At face value, pseudogenes hardly seem like genomic features that would be designed by a wise engineer. Most of them lie scattered among the chromosome like useless molecular cadavers. This sentiment does not preclude the possibility that an occasional pseudogene is resuscitated such that it contributes positively to cellular operations, several instances are known or suspected in which a pseudogene formerly assumed to be genomic "junk" was later deemed to have a functional role in cells. But such cases are almost certainly exceptions and not the rule. And in any event, such examples hardly provide solid evidence for intelligent design; instead, they seem to point toward the kind of idiosyncratic genetic tinkering for which nonsentient evolutionary evolutionary processes are notorious.

It's important to make sure you understand the argument that Avise and others are making. When looking at the big picture the presence of thousands of pseudogenes in the human genome is a challenge for those who argue for Intelligent Design Creationism. The fact that a handful of these regions were misidentified as pseudgenes and now turn out to have a function cannot be taken as evidence that all of the 20,000 known pseudogenes have a function.

So, how does Wells deal with this challenge to his belief? On the next page of his book (p. 27) he says ...

But Is It True?
The arguments by Dawkins, Miller, Shermer, Collins, Kitcher, Coyne and Avise rest on the premise that most non-coding DNA is junk, wihout any significnat biological function. Yet a virtual flood of recent evidence shows that they are mistaken. Much of the DNA they claim to be "junk" actually performs important functions in living cells.

The following chapters cite hundreds of scientific articles (many of them freely accessible on the Internet) that testify to those functions—and those articles are only a small sample of a large and growing body of literature on the subject. This does not mean that the authors of those articles are critics of evolution or supporters of intelligent design. Indeed, most of them interpret the evidence within an evolutionary framework. But many of them explicitly point out that the evidence refutes the myth of junk DNA.

This is a classic "bait-and-switch." The argument from Avise and the others is mostly about the presence of pseudogenes. There is solid evidence that many pseudogenes are completely non-functional. There is evidence that non-functional pseudogenes have been inherited from common ancestors, strongly suggesting that the genes were inactivated in ancient ancestors and passed down to modern species as the evolved.

This argument is NOT about "most noncoding DNA." It's about that 1% of the genome that contains known pseudogenes. Unless that point is addressed directly (it isn't) then Wells is guilty of ignoring one of the main arguments of his critics.

But that's not the point of this posting. I'm concerned about the point that "News" makes in the recent posting on Uncommon Descent. He/she says ...

Darwinism predicts something, based on its core principles, and it doesn’t happen. And there are no consequences? Only on planet Darwin. Where all correct predictions originate in Darwin’s theory and are grandfathered as such by his loyal heirs. All incorrect predictions are “proved” to have originated elsewhere, no matter where they actually originated.

What are these predictions of "Darwinism"? It's surely not pseudogenes since no evolutionary theory that I know of predicted pseudogenes. Bacteria don't have many pseudogenes and that's perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. Plant genomes have lots of pseudogenes and that's perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. Yeast has a few pseudogenes but not nearly as many as plants and that's perfectly consistent with modern evolutionary theory.

Is "News" referring to junk DNA in general? That's not a prediction of "Darwinism" or any evolutionary theory that I know of. The fact that bacteria have very little junk DNA has never been taken as a fact that overthrows modern evolutionary theory. I'm unaware of any evolutionary biologist who predicted back in the 1960s that most of the mammalian genome would be junk and that this prediction was a requirement of modern evolutionary theory. The arguments of Avise et al. are not based on the "premise" that most of our genome is junk, they're based on the evidence that pseudogenes exist.

No prediction was made so no prediction has been refuted. The point that "News" is making seems illogical.

Unless I'm missing something obvious.

What about the predictions of the IDiots? Casey Luskin explains it [Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm].

Proponents of intelligent design have long maintained that Neo-Darwinism's widely held assumption that our cells contain much genetic "junk" is both dangerous to the progress of science and wrong. As I explain here, design theorists recognize that "Intelligent agents typically create functional things," and thus Jonathan Wells has suggested, "From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk'." [4] Design theorists have thus been predicting the death of the junk-DNA paradigm for many years: ...

and in Another Intelligent Design Prediction Fulfilled: Function for a Pseudogene ...

Darwinists have long made an argument from ignorance, where our lack of present knowledge of the function for a given biological structure is taken as evidence that there is no function and the structure is merely a vestige of evolutionary history. Darwinists have commonly made this mistake with many types of "junk" DNA, now known to have function. In contrast, intelligent agents design objects for a purpose, and therefore intelligent design predicts that biological structures will have function.²

Here's another prediction, according to Barry Arrington on Uncommon Descent [FAQ4 is Open for Comment].

ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions.

This claim is simply false. To cite just one example, the non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions. In contrast, on teleological grounds, Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004) predicted that “junk DNA” would be found to be functional.

The Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed and the Darwinist predictions are being falsified. For instance, ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk DNA” regions, including pseudogenes.

Thus, it is a matter of simple fact that scientists working in the ID paradigm carry out and publish research, and they have made significant and successful ID-based predictions.

It seems like it's the IDiots that have hitched their star to a prediction about junk DNA. If any genome turns out to have a substantial amount of junk DNA then Intelligent Design Creationism is refuted. As it turns out, many genomes do have a lot of junk DNA in spite of what Jonathan Wells would have you believe. Thus, Intelligent Design Creationism is no longer a credible scientific hypothesis.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

---

1. Most scientists actually argue a more specific point; namely, that the conservation of specific pseudogenes in different species is an especially serious problem for Intelligent Design Creationists.

2. It's interesting that Casey Luskin seems to know something about the motivations of the intelligent designer because when scientists point out that the genome doesn't look like it was designed this is not taken as an argument against the IDiot position. Instead it's taken as illegitimate science as pointed out by Wells in his book (p. 103), "Do arguments based on speculations about a creator or designer have a legitimate place in science? Not according to Canadian biologist Steven Scadding, who once wrote that although he accepted evolutionary theory, he objected to defending it on the grounds that a creator would or would not do certain things. 'Whatever the validity of this theological claim,' Scadding concluded, 'it certainly cannot be defended as a scientific statement, and thus should be given no place is a scientific discussion of evolution."

See the IDiots Gloat over Jonathan Wells

This is part of my discussion about The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells. I still haven't read the book—it won't be released in Canada until May 31st.

Over on Evolution News & Views (sic) David Klinghoffer is already counting his chickens [Junk DNA and the Darwinist Response so Far].

Over the weekend, Jonathan Wells's The Myth of Junk DNA broke into the top five on Amazon's list of books dealing with genetics -- a list normally dominated at its pinnacle by various editions of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Not bad, Jonathan.

Not bad indeed, except I can't tell if it's true. When I check the top selling recently published books I don't see The Myth of Junk DNA in the top five. Never mind, I'm sure there will be many skeptics like me who will buy the book just for a good laugh.

UPDATE: The latest information shows that Wells' book is ranked 23rd under "Genetics." I'm sure the IDiots just made a simple arithmetic error when they said it had broken into the top five.

The juxtaposition with Dawkins' Selfish Gene is appropriate, notwithstanding the demurrals of biochemist Larry Moran et al. Dawkins and other Darwinists, such as Jerry Coyne, have indeed posited that neo-Darwinian theory predicts that swaths of the genome will turn out to be functionless junk. The Junk DNA argument has been a pillar of the Darwin Lobby's efforts to seduce public opinion and influence public policy. Professor Moran wants to imagine that Dawkins never held that neo-Darwinism predicts junk DNA. But that's not how other Darwinists see it. (Compare, for example, Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, page 316.)

The IDiots have a bit of a problem. In order to make this book look important they have to first establish that the concept of abundant junk DNA in our genome was a "pillar" of support for evolution. That's hard to do when their understanding of evolution is so flawed that they don't see the difference between "Darwinism" and evolution by random genetic drift.

Their claim that evolutionary theory PREDICTED the presence of huge amounts of junk DNA in our genome is just plain false. They been told this but they keep repeating their error. There's a word for that kind of behavior.

It's easy to see how they got confused. It's because they're IDiots. It's partly because they don't understand that an argument for inheritance of a few pseudogenes is not the same as an argument that more than 50% of our genome is junk. There are plenty of scientists who will use the pseudogene argument to challenge Intelligent Design Creationism but who don't believe that MOST of our genome is junk.

It's also partly because the IDiots don't know the difference between selfish DNA and junk. Here's what Daniel Dennett says on page 316 of Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

The presence of functionless DNA in the genome is no longer regarded as a puzzle. Dawkins (1976) selfish-gene theory predicts it, and elaborations on the idea of "selfish DNA" were simultaneously developed by Doolittle and Sapeinza (1980) and Orgel and Crick (1980) (see Dawkins 1982, ch. 9, for the details).

Selfish DNA is not junk DNA. The classic examples of selfish DNA are active transposons and integrated viruses. These bits of DNA have a function—even if it's only to propagate themselves. As you can see from my summary [What's in Your Genome?]. I don't count them as junk.

It's remarkable that Klinghoffer quotes Chapter 9 of The Extended Phenotype (1982) since Dawkins take pains to point out that much of the junk DNA in our genome could have a function. This is exactly the sort of skepticism one would expect from a Darwinist.

This does not mean, however, that the so-called junk DNA is not subject to natural selection. Various 'functions' for it have been proposed, where 'function' means adaptive benefit to the organism.

He goes on to describe several of the proposals that are common arguments against junk DNA. If the DNA has a function and it's adaptive, then it is not junk. Selfish DNA is not junk.

Let's be very clear about one thing. The scientific dispute is not over the existence of junk DNA. That's well established. The dispute is over how much of our genome is junk (DNA with no function). In order to refute the idea that MOST of our genome is junk, you have to show that most of it has a function of some sort. I'm looking forward to Jonathan Wells' book where he is going to prove to us that >50% of our genome has a function. (Not holding my breath!)

So far, with none of them having actually read the book (though P.Z. Myers threatens to do so), the Darwin apologists' response to The Myth of Junk DNA has followed along four lines of defense.

1) The usual insults. In his blog Larry Moran of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, a grown man and from the looks of him not a young one either, repetitively derides Jonathan as an "IDiot." (How embarrassing for this mature gentleman, you might think. Can you imagine Jonathan Wells or anyone else prominent in the ID community replying in kind, designating Professor Moran as "Larry Moron" or similar? The question is self-answering and tells you a lot about how desperation kindles anger among these people.)

You know, there's one sure way to prove you're not an idiot. The IDiots have been trying for over twenty years to show that they understand science. I'll gladly stop calling them idiots as soon as they deserve it.

Speaking of insults. There's one sure way to ensure that you aren't going to be insulted and that's to stop calling evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" and stop saying that they don't understand their own discipline. I find that extremely insulting and I'm not going to refrain from responding in kind.

I don't know what Jonathan Wells is going to say in his latest book but here's a few examples of insults in Icons of Evolution.

There is a pattern here, and it demands an explanation. Instead of continually testing their theory against the evidence, as scientists are supposed to do, some Darwinists consistently ignore, explain away, or misrepresent the biological facts in order to promote their theory. One isolate example of such behavior might be due simply to overzealousness. Maybe even two. But ten? Year after year? (p. 230)

Fraud is a dirty word, and it should not be used lightly. In the cases described in this book, dogmatic promoters of Darwinism did not see themselves as deceivers. Yet they seriously distorted the evidence—often knowingly. If this is fraud when a stock promoter does it, what is it when a scientist does it? (p. 234)

If dogmatic promoters of Darwinian evolution were merely distorting the truth, that would be bad enough. But they haven't stopped there. They now dominate the biological sciences in the English-speaking world, and use their position of dominance to censor dissenting viewpoints. (p. 235)

The truth is that a surprising number of biologists quietly doubt or reject some of the grander claims of Darwinian evolution. But—at least in America—the must keep their mouths shut or risk condemnation, marginalization, and eventual expulsion from the scientific community. This happens infrequently, but often enough to remind everyone that the risk is real. (p. 239)

Klinghoffer continues with his four lines of defense that we "Darwinists" apparently use to defend the existence of abundant junk DNA (>50%) in our genome.

2) Denying that junk DNA ever figured preeminently in the Darwinist's quiver of arguments against design. Moran, for example, asserts, "There was never a time when knowledgeable molecular biologists equated 'junk' DNA and 'noncoding' DNA." Huh, that's strange. I'm not aware of anyone who has scientifically polled the community of professional biologists on the subject. But I do know that in the struggle for public opinion over the question of Darwin versus Design, junk DNA has again and again been employed, by all the most eminent protagonists on the Darwinian side, as a bludgeoning weapon against intelligent design. Never mind The Selfish Gene, in his most recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth (2009), Dawkins observed that "the greater part...of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes," and that this fact is "useful for...embarrassing creationists."

Similarly, in Why Evolution Is True (2009), Jerry Coyne offers it, again, as a "prediction" of neo-Darwinian theory that we'll find the genome littered with useless "vestigial genes."

I said that knowledgeable scientists never said that all non-coding DNA is junk. Klinghoffer says, blah, blah, blah, not even addressing my statement.

You can't make this stuff up. At every single opportunity the IDiots demonstrate that they deserve the title.

3) When not denying that junk DNA is a prime, staple argument for Darwin apologists, Professor Moran wants to have it the opposite way. In the same series of blog posts attacking "the IDiot" Jonathan Wells, Moran maintains his own belief that the genome is indeed overwhelmingly useless junk. "Some (I am one)," he writes, "still think that as much as 90 percent could be junk." He insists that "it's not sufficient to show that a few bits of repetitive DNA have gained a function in some species."

Dr. Moran's problem is that he has neither read Jonathan's book nor, it seems, followed the cascade of evidence from the scientific publications. It's a heck of a lot more than just "a few bits of repetitive DNA" that have been shown to be functional. In a brief (and enviably readable and accessible) 115-page book, Jonathan Wells offers over 600 references to recent peer-reviewed literature.

Twenty-five thousand studies further down the road from where we are now, no one knows how much of the genome will turn out to be truly functionless and therefore genuinely worthy of the appellation "junk." But for Darwinists, the speedily mounting evidence against junk DNA is an ominous portent. As Casey Luskin and others have put it, it's the trend that stands out prominently here, on which the likes of Larry Moran have so far been in denial.

Theme

Genomes
& Junk DNAI've tried and tried to get the IDiots to have a serious, scientific, discussion about the evidence for and against abundant junk DNA in our genome. Some of them have tried but their arguments soon degenerate into insults about my lack of knowledge of the scientific literature. This is in spite of the fact that I have dozens of postings on the subject over the past few years and nobody has ever shown that I've been ignorant of the science behind the controversy. We may disagree about the interpretation but that's not what I'm being accused of here.

As soon as I read the book I'll post a bunch of articles pointing out why it's wrong. That will give the IDiots, like Jonathan Wells, a chance to debate the points I make and show that he is right and I am wrong. I'm looking forward to it.

4) Finally, in my own small contribution to this debate, I made a facetious comment here about how the identification of Osama bin Laden's corpse by DNA fingerprinting, using his "junk DNA" as the media habitually referred to it, provided a welcome news hook for the publication of Jonathan's book. This provoked braying responses from the Darwin Lobby. For example, our journalist friend Lauri Lebo, challenged as ever in her reading-comprehension skills, somehow understood that I was saying the usefulness of non-coding DNA for this forensic purpose proved it isn't junk.

P.Z. Myers tried to show that the usefulness of non-coding DNA for genetic fingerprinting is another demonstration that the stuff really is junk, being "subject to random changes at a higher rate than coding DNA, because it is not subject to functional constraints."

Every now and them some IDiots get something right—even if it's just by accident. One example is when Klinghoffer describes his posting as "my own small contribution."

But whether "junk DNA" is functional is exactly the question at issue, isn't it? The fact that our DNA is pervasively transcribed, as Jonathan Wells points out in Chapter 3 of his book, itself suggests pervasive functionality. As has become clear, too, DNA may serve in various functions even if it does not code for functional RNA.

It will be fun to read how Wells deals with the issue of spurious transcription based on his understanding of how RNA polymerase and transcriptional activators bind to DNA. I'm certainly looking forward to learning about the reliability of those genome studies on transcription and I'm sure Wells is going to discuss conflicting data in the scientific literature. After all, Wells has a Ph.D. in molecular biology so he must know about the real scientific controversy, right?

As for functions that don't require transcription, I highly recommend my short summary of these in What's in Your Genome. We've known about them for decades but apparently the IDiots think this is a new discovery.

So far, the Darwinist response fails to appreciate that Jonathan is in the act of very seriously blunting a Darwinian icon. What, in this context, is an icon? It's a mainstay in the public debate about Darwinian evolution that turns out, on inspection, to be based not on solid science but on puffery, illusion or deception.

This is another icon that, as Jonathan shows, was in the process of being blunted by biologists who are not ID advocates, well before Dr. Wells gathered the evidence together so concisely and conveniently in these pages.

Whatever. Wells' first book, Icons of Evolution was full of lies and I suspect this one will be too. Only one of the ten so-called icons was "blunted" by Wells and that one was the Haeckel drawings. Even then, Wells seriously distorted the significance of those fake drawings by claiming that there was now no evidence of similarities in the development of all mammals.

---

Predictions of Intelligent Design Creationism

I love it when they make predictions. Here's what Casey Luskin just posted over on Evoluton News & Views (sic) [A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design?]

Regarding testability, ID makes the following testable predictions:

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

Such natural structures exist. They are perfectly compatible with evolution. This prediction does not distinguish between Intelligent Design Creationism and real science.

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.

The vast majority of of species with novel information have arisen gradually with plenty of transitional fossils to document their evolution. In a small number of cases (e.g. Cambrian Explosion) the evidence for evolution from known precursors is too sophisticated for creationists to follow. This prediction is not supported; therefore, Intelligent Design Creationism is falsified for all species where we have lots of data.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.

Convergence is perfectly consistent with evolution. This prediction is meaningless.

(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

Most of our genome is junk. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Intelligent Design Creationism has been falsified.

That was easy.

In this regard, ID is falsifiable. When we test these predictions, ID passes those tests.

No it doesn't. Two of the "tests" are consistent with evolution so the "test" is meaningless. Intelligent Design Creationism fails the other two tests.

---