Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"The case for junk DNA"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    ...

    Furthermore, if I were a practicing research biologist, my research would be based on my worldview, i.e., I would start with the premise that essentially all of the DNA was NOT junk and from that premise carry on my research towards discovering what that function is. I would bet my career (entire life's work) that I would discover more things in the affirmative than the Evolutionary biologist would find in the negative (said biologist begins with the premise that most of the DNA is "junk"). So this is actually a positive research direction making for good science. Note, however, that it is based on an ideological belief (every bit as much as the Evolutionists are based on their beliefs).

    By the way, there is also a possibility that there is redundancy built into the system, i.e., that some of the DNA may be 'deleted' with no apparent effect (making it appear that the deleted portion was "junk") but that is only because another part of the DNA 'takes over' that function. If you think that this is implausible or 'begging' on my part, remind yourself of the proven fact that when certain parts of the brain become damaged there is a 're-routing' of sorts so that the function of the lost part is now performed by another part. The wonders of God's creation are unending.

    Jorge
    Wasn't that the "ideology" of genetic researchers at the beginning? The "junk" was unexpected. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

    Same deal with Deep Time. The expectation of the 18th century geologists was to find evidence of the Noahic Fludde. Evidence of multiple episodes with a time frame much larger than 6,000 years was a "surprise".

    Evidence drives science, not ideology. The converse is how creationism works. But you know that already.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by Ucchedavāda View Post
    The article you link to talks about the role of some long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in regulating gene-expression in certain tissues. However, using GENCODE release v19 as a reference, the exons of all known lncRNA only constitute around 22mb. This amounts to roughly 0.71% of the human genome. More types of functional sequences like these undoubtedly remain to be discovered, but there is a very long way to most of the genome being functional.

    I am also somewhat curious as to how the position you are taking could possibly be falsified. How, in your view, could you establish that a region of a genome was non-functional?
    My general answer to your points above is simply that, as you probably are aware, very, very little is known about how the genome 'works'. The nucleotide sequences of many organisms (including humans) have been mapped out for many years, and we also know what certain (a relatively insignificant amount) DNA segments determine or control.

    Those relatively miniscule things aside, GENERALLY SPEAKING no one has a clue as to how the entire genome works ... no one knows how different sections interact or even if they do interact ... no one knows all of the codes that are in operation or how these codes work with each other or if they do at all ... no one knows what other parts of an organism play a role in determining and controlling the organism as a whole or how these other parts interact with DNA in the overall function ... on and on and on and on and on ... I trust you get my point (?).

    As for how my position could be falsified: two comments. First, given the near-absolute level of ignorance on this matter (which I've barely outlined above), the same question may be asked of the reigning paradigm (Evolutionism). But all is not lost: Second, I simply say let's continue making observations and trying to understand what we are seeing. My position - stated several times now - is that the more we observe and learn, the more we will find that what was once regarded as "junk" will be discovered to be functional and essential - NOT "junk".

    Furthermore, if I were a practicing research biologist, my research would be based on my worldview, i.e., I would start with the premise that essentially all of the DNA was NOT junk and from that premise carry on my research towards discovering what that function is. I would bet my career (entire life's work) that I would discover more things in the affirmative than the Evolutionary biologist would find in the negative (said biologist begins with the premise that most of the DNA is "junk"). So this is actually a positive research direction making for good science. Note, however, that it is based on an ideological belief (every bit as much as the Evolutionists are based on their beliefs).

    By the way, there is also a possibility that there is redundancy built into the system, i.e., that some of the DNA may be 'deleted' with no apparent effect (making it appear that the deleted portion was "junk") but that is only because another part of the DNA 'takes over' that function. If you think that this is implausible or 'begging' on my part, remind yourself of the proven fact that when certain parts of the brain become damaged there is a 're-routing' of sorts so that the function of the lost part is now performed by another part. The wonders of God's creation are unending.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Ucchedavāda
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Roland, with all due respect and as nicely as I can say it, you don't know what you're talking about.

    So I wake up this morning and find .... here's an excerpt: "Once again, the exquisite bioengineering in the genome as anticipated by the Biblical view of creation has prevailed over the evolutionary predictions of useless junk littering our chromosomes."

    Yup, my money is squarely on the table regarding my position (Biblical Creation) and prediction on "junk DNA" - is yours?

    Article here: http://www.icr.org/article/8170/

    Allow me to kindly advise you people to give up on your folly.
    You're just going to keep falling further and further behind.

    Jorge
    The article you link to talks about the role of some long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in regulating gene-expression in certain tissues. However, using GENCODE release v19 as a reference, the exons of all known lncRNA only constitute around 22mb. This amounts to roughly 0.71% of the human genome. More types of functional sequences like these undoubtedly remain to be discovered, but there is a very long way to most of the genome being functional.

    I am also somewhat curious as to how the position you are taking could possibly be falsified. How, in your view, could you establish that a region of a genome was non-functional?

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    ...

    Yup, my money is squarely on the table regarding my position (Biblical Creation) and prediction on "junk DNA" - is yours?

    ...

    Jorge
    Confused.

    I thought you admitted you accept the existence of "junk" DNA but believed it was a result of a degrading genome from the effects of the Fall.

    And if your position is the highfalutin term "Biblical Creation", why can't you get through Ge 1:2-3 with an unambiguous reading?

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Interesting indeed - that comment shows the 'stuff' that you're made of. Watch ... In this very thread, Post # 100, you find my words, "... I don't know enough at this time."

    Your hatred of God's Wordas it was written and intended to communicate blinds you to the truth and, as a result, gives you a distorted, false view of the world including people. You are to be pitied, O-Mudd.

    The rest of your post was ... uhmmm ... ignored on the grounds of uselessness.

    Jorge
    Drop the "at this time", and you'll have a true statement.

    By God's Word -- do you mean the Logos or do you mean your deification of a book containing a story meant to be interpreted "literally" yet you can't even get through Ge 1:2-3 with an unambiguous, clear, plain, straightforward reading?

    K54
    Last edited by klaus54; 05-22-2014, 06:48 AM. Reason: font

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Erm. Jorgy pal, that one is crammed full of metaphysic/worldview/religion, just like the other one.

    Erm. Again Jorgy pal, that one is basaed on observable, testable phenomena, just like the first one.
    The red one started with the Fall. The brown one doesn't exist.

    Near as I can tell.

    K54
    Last edited by klaus54; 05-22-2014, 06:35 AM. Reason: typos

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    Interesting, it does seem you are incapable of saying or writing the 3 words: "I don't know". Much the same as "I was wrong", and "I am sorry".
    Interesting indeed - that comment shows the 'stuff' that you're made of. Watch ... In this very thread, Post # 100, you find my words, "... I don't know enough at this time."

    Your hatred of God's Word as it was written and intended to communicate blinds you to the truth and, as a result, gives you a distorted, false view of the world including people. You are to be pitied, O-Mudd.

    The rest of your post was ... uhmmm ... ignored on the grounds of uselessness.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    Erm. Jorgy pal, that one is crammed full of metaphysic/worldview/religion, just like the other one.

    Erm. Again Jorgy pal, that one is basaed on observable, testable phenomena, just like the first one.
    Roland, with all due respect and as nicely as I can say it, you don't know what you're talking about.

    So I wake up this morning and find .... here's an excerpt: "Once again, the exquisite bioengineering in the genome as anticipated by the Biblical view of creation has prevailed over the evolutionary predictions of useless junk littering our chromosomes."

    Yup, my money is squarely on the table regarding my position (Biblical Creation) and prediction on "junk DNA" - is yours?

    Article here: http://www.icr.org/article/8170/

    Allow me to kindly advise you people to give up on your folly.
    You're just going to keep falling further and further behind.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    One, evolution, is good science based on observable, testable phenomena.
    Erm. Jorgy pal, that one is crammed full of metaphysic/worldview/religion, just like the other one.

    Originally posted by Jorge
    The other, Evolution, is ideological - part of a metaphysic/worldview/religion - i.e., it is not science.
    Erm. Again Jorgy pal, that one is basaed on observable, testable phenomena, just like the first one.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Now I'm confused. Did Jorge say he acknowledges the existence of "junk" DNA but attributes it to the effects of sin resulting from the Fall?
    I guess some volcanic craters changed a bit, because of the Fall and ended up looking like impact craters. Thus, volcanic craters were the perfect ones made by God, and impact craters are the Fallen ones.

    One starts thinking these things after reading lots of Jorge's posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Now I'm confused. Did Jorge say he acknowledges the existence of "junk" DNA but attributes it to the effects of sin resulting from the Fall?

    If so, anti-evolutionists have yet another untestable conjecture on their hands.

    I also don't understand what he means by Shannon information being "perfect".

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Ad hominem gets you nowhere, O-Mudd.
    You are correct in that Ad hominem is a useless debate tactic if the audience is intelligent. You are incorrect in that the comment you refer to was not Ad hominem.


    ANSWER: There are several possibilities: first, genomes were designed and so it is expected that there will be some numerical-statistical aspects to it whatever causation it is attributed to (such as drift or NS constraint). Second, you may have heard that correlation does not imply causation. Third, some statistical correlation is almost always present (even the points on a circle have a positive linear coefficient). Fourth ... errrr ... Is any of this sinking in?
    This is not 'some' correlation. Again, read the paper. So your answer is wrong in that it does not reflect the characteristics of the results. It is a hopeful construct, not an accurate one. You are right in that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In fact, that is what your answer should reflect. Why would coding regions exhibit the characteristics expected in an evolutionary paradigm even though they did not evolve.


    ANSWER : If I knew the answer to that, you'd be visiting me in Stockholm just as I'm receiving the Nobel.
    Interesting, it does seem you are incapable of saying or writing the 3 words: "I don't know". Much the same as "I was wrong", and "I am sorry".

    My claim was and continues to be that as we learn more and more about these "junk DNA" regions, we will uncover that, "Oops, I guess they weren't junk after all." I stand by that claim and the papers/articles/reports that come out almost daily are supporting my position while demolishing yours. Get a clue.

    I base that prediction - now and as I did over 20 years ago - on my Biblical Creationist worldview. God's creation was essentially "perfect". The decay that has followed as a result of sin gives us what we now have - a corrupted genome subject to mutations and malfunction. Nonetheless, God did not create with 60% - 98% "junk DNA" in the genome. In addition, what I know about information theory tells me that the vast majority of the genome must be functional - there has to be what I refer to as an 'information infrastructure' if information is to be useful. 'nuff on that.
    You can claim what you wish. The rubber meets the road when you try to back it up. If you ever try to back it up.



    ANSWER : What I've written above would answer that. I'll add that it is you/others, not reality, that (1) invented this "drift measure" and, (2) have interpreted the observations to fit into your model. Kind of like what the Medieval-folk did with astronomical observations, physical-chemical observations, medical observations and in other areas.
    Jorge - you fail to comprehend any of this. And I am quite sure it is willful, though not necessarily fully conscious. There are certain kinds of characteristics that SHOULD differentiate coding from non-coding regions of DNA IF we have evolved. What these programs try to do it TEST that prediction which is based on an evolutionary HYPOTHESIS. The test results are those EXPECTED/PREDICTED. Thus this test is CONSISTENT with the theory.

    If the Theory/hypothesis is FLAWED and YEC is a viable contender, then YOUR theory (YEC) should ALSO be able to EXPLAIN this correlation. This is how science is done. This is how we decide between viable and inviable hypothesis.


    Very nice Straw Man!

    Jorge
    And you still have not figured out what a Straw man is. What you called a "Straw man" was simply a comparison of two instances where an individual fails to comprehend the significance and difference between a hypothesis predicting a result which is then tested and confirmed, and the use of special pleading and ad hoc inventions to support belief in a concept that has in fact no observational support.

    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post


    Jorge
    Thanks for another non-answer.

    Two Evolutions?

    Ge 1:2-3?

    Nada.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    You really - I mean REALLY !!! - ought to remain silent regarding things of which you are clueless about. Of course, I know that, like the bull in the china shop, you will continue -- that's what makes you what you are.

    Jorge
    Good advice! Why don't you heed it?

    Physician cure thyself.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    What arguments? You mean the ol' "Two Evolutions" canard? Evolution works the same way - generation to generation - by mutations worked on by natural selection of phenotypes. Where's the boundary between the "Two Evolutions"? That's right, you can't come up with one. It's your religion that forces you to make the unfounded assertion of "Two Evolutions".

    Your writing is plain-straightforward enough in the sense your English is impeccable, but what you write is abject ginned-up content-less nonsense.

    The devil is the details -- which of course you cannot provide because your "hypotheses" are just hot-air.

    Bear in mind you cannot even provide a plain-straightforward reading of Ge 1:2-3. Some track record for a "Biblical Creationist".

    Lock 'n load and try again -- with substance this time.

    K54


    Jorge

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X