Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, June 16, 2006

Junk DNA and ID

In another thread Steve posted the following:

For example, some claim that ID implies little or no junk DNA? Why? Well, because DNA is like a code, and good code has little extraneous and useless code in it.

ID doesn't make such a claim. Why? Because no one states that the design had to be perfect and even if it started out "perfect" it had to remain that way-

Dr. Behe:
"Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."



In an attempt to demonstrate his point Steve links to the following:

FAQ: Has a lack of intelligent design theory hindered scientific progress?

The site discusses the alleged junk DNA:

"One striking example where a failure to consider intelligent design has stifled scientific progress is with vestigial organs or "junk DNA." Evolution led people to assume they were functionless. Intelligent design might lead scientists to believe they have function."

However that does not support Steve's premise. Non-coding DNA could still be worthless junk and ID would not be phased. What the site suggests is that there is more to functionality than just the ability to code for an amino acid sequence. Some scientists say that the non-coding regions are the "system architecture" of the organism.

Then there are those who say that DNA is not like a code:

The genome isn't a code and we can't read it

And if you think about it, junk DNA, ie DNA with absolutely no function at all, should be an issue for evolutionary theories. Why would something that is not only useless but also carries the burden of using energy to be replicated, be kept for illions of generations? That just does not make sense. IOW under the evoltionary scenario I would be pressed to look for a function in the non-coding DNA sequences.

9 Comments:

  • At 1:32 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    This is so precious.

    Junk DNA really is junk--supports ID.

    Junk DNA really isn't junk--supports ID.

    How to test ID--you can't.

    Your posts only shows that ID is completely immune to any kind of verification/testing. Completely vacuous.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    Junk DNA really is junk--supports ID.

    Never said nor implied such a thing.

    Steve:
    Junk DNA really isn't junk--supports ID.

    Never said nor implied such a thing.

    Steve:
    How to test ID

    By observing IC and/ or CSI.

    How to test evolutionism? You can't. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. We have no idea what mutations were responsible for what changes.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Lukas said…

    Joe G:
    And if you think about it, junk DNA, ie DNA with absolutely no function at all, should be an issue for evolutionary theories. Why would something that is not only useless but also carries the burden of using energy to be replicated, be kept for illions of generations? That just does not make sense. IOW under the evoltionary scenario I would be pressed to look for a function in the non-coding DNA sequences.


    There is of course a major difference between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes. Prokaryotes have little or no 'junk DNA' except in recently evolved plasmids etc. But Eukaryotes have lots.

    This has been adressed in a couple of papers by Michael Lynch. He argues that Mildly deleterious DNA such as viruses, selfish elements etc. can persist is eukaryotes because genetic drift can allow mildly deleterious 'junk' to accumulate because of a decreased population size compared to prokaryotes. The large population size of prokaryotes allows for increased selection against junk and reduced genetic drift making their genomes compact and almost completely free of junk. Junk DNA is not only entirely consistant with evolution and can be explained by the action of natural selection and it is a prediction of the equations of evolutionary genetics.

    Evolution explains again!

    see:
    The Origins of Eukaryotic Gene Structure
    Michael Lynch
    Molecular Biology and Evolution 2006 23(2):450-468.
    Link

    The Origins of Genome Complexity
    Michael Lynch and John S. Conery
    Science 21 November 2003:
    Vol. 302. no. 5649, pp. 1401 - 1404
    Link

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger Steve said…

    How to test evolutionism? You can't. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. We have no idea what mutations were responsible for what changes.

    In any and all cases? True. But there have been examples where the mutations are known and the changes documented and linked to such mutations.

    Your ability to distort facts is amazing.

    C'mon fess up, this is a parody blog to make IDC look really stupid.

    Oh and you certainly did imply that whatever the conclusions are about "junk" DNA are that ID will be immune to those conclusions...once again showing the unscientific nature of ID.

     
  • At 9:30 PM, Blogger William Bradford said…

    Research is rich in examples of function being discovered for regions of DNA previously thought to have been junk. This indicates that predictions are not as reliable as assumed.

     
  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tanks Raevmo and Lukas-


    (to borrow from Steve)

    Junk DNA is really junk-- supports evolutionism

    Junk DNA really isn't junk-- supports evolutionism

    How to test evolutionism-- you can't

    Your posts only shows that ID is completely immune to any kind of verification/testing. Completely vacuous.

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How to test evolutionism? You can't. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. We have no idea what mutations were responsible for what changes.

    Steve:
    In any and all cases? True.

    Finally, we may be getting somewhere!

    Steve:
    But there have been examples where the mutations are known and the changes documented and linked to such mutations.

    But nothing we have observed would lead ANY objective person to the evolutionism inference.

    And about those muations-

    Dr. Spetner discussing transposons:
    "The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events."

    IOW the mutations observed and their effects that are observed could be from design mechanisms such as Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues". And it is only our ignorance that allows us to say the mutations are random.

    Steve:
    Oh and you certainly did imply that whatever the conclusions are about "junk" DNA are that ID will be immune to those conclusions...

    ID isn't based on alleged junk DNA. However it does appear that evolutionism is immune to any contradictory data- add to that fact that it cannot be objectively tested, nor repeated nor verified and anyone should see it is useless.

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Steve said…

    Your posts only shows that ID is completely immune to any kind of verification/testing. Completely vacuous.

    Wow Joe, you finally got something right!

    As for this,

    Junk DNA is really junk-- supports evolutionism

    Junk DNA really isn't junk-- supports evolutionism

    How to test evolutionism-- you can't


    Not quite. What happens is that the theory of evolution itself changes. As new information comes along the theory itself can change as well. This happened when DNA and genes were first discovered. Darwin didn't postulate such things and when this information was discovered the theory of evolution was changed.

    So, junk DNA previously thought to have little or no function turns out to actually have some functions/roles so the theory is changed. In fact, there are competing hypotheses about the role of junk DNA and as more is learned some hypotheses will gain in accpetance and others will lose. Eventually, one will come to dominate...at least until new information becomes available.

    This is how science works. Does IDC have anything like this? Nope. Because there is no process, there is nothing beyond the simple conclusion "design". Move along and don't forget your prayers.

    But nothing we have observed would lead ANY objective person to the evolutionism inference.

    Sure there is. There is quite a bit of evidence on both speciation events that have been observed and things like the fossil record.

    IOW the mutations observed and their effects that are observed could be from design mechanisms such as Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues". And it is only our ignorance that allows us to say the mutations are random.

    By setting up the IDC hypothesis so that it is identical in terms of evidence as evolutionary theory renders IDC somethign other than a scientific theory. Whatever it is, it sure isn't in competition with evolutionary theory if you take this approach.

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Steve:
    There is quite a bit of evidence on both speciation events that have been observed and things like the fossil record.

    Speciation events and the fossil record are also evidence for ID evolution and theistic evolution. Therefore neither supports evolutionism.

    Steve:
    By setting up the IDC hypothesis so that it is identical in terms of evidence as evolutionary theory renders IDC somethign other than a scientific theory.

    Then it is a good thing that ID doesn't do that. You would have known that if you weren't so ID ignorant.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home