"The case for junk DNA"

[Jorge]

Well Jorge, if you think you have actual evidence that's better than anything someone here could provide, instead of insulting people, lets see what you have.

Is it that you are intellectually unable to follow what I've been presenting - is that it?

I would have thought that my arguments were plain - straightforward enough but I guess I was wrong.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I would add that the above is a very good example of how you insulate yourself from any challenges to your beliefs. You have not read the paper. You do not understand the paper, even on a basic level. And you will not ask yourself the question I asked of the generic YEC:

Ad hominem gets you nowhere, O-Mudd.

1) WHY - if the genome is designed - would the active coding regions be locatable by statistiaclly analyzing drift based on the assumption that natural selection constrains most drift?

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?

2) WHY - if these 'non-coding' regions are as functional as you propose they MUST be, are they subject to drift and not the same NS constaints the limit drift in the coding regions

ANSWER : If I knew the answer to that, you'd be visiting me in Stockholm just as I'm receiving the Nobel.
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.

3) Why - if we've only been here 6000 years, has there been enough time to allow drift to be used as a quantifier of coding vs. non-coding regions.

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.

This actually reminds me a great deal of how John Martin deals with the issues associated with his Scientific 'Geocentrism'. e.g., We know and expect parallax to be seen in the stars as observed at opposite seasons of the Year because the Earth's orbit creates a baseline over which the parallax manifests. This is obvious, and a decision to look for parallax shifts in observations of the stars falls out naturally from the theory. From a geocentic POV, there is no reason to expect parallax, AND only a very ad hoc explanation can even hope to account for it (e.g. a 'wobble' in the universe itself).

Likewise in this case. The proposition we were created de novo 6000 years ago has NO expectation THIS particular kind of differentiation with the genome would be expected or useful. Yet is follows naturally as a component of evolutionary theory. Further, the YEC POV must react in an ad hoc fashion (or ignore) these kinds of correlations. And they certainly would be incapable of formulating the hypothesis driving this research - it is not a logical consequence of the overall 'theory'.

Very nice Straw Man!

Jorge

[miked570]

Perhaps it's because I do not have a PhD in genetics and cell biology...
In any event, it is well beyond the observable facts to dogmatically claim that "junk DNA" is truly "junk" as certain Evolutionists do. They are merely speaking from ignorance.

Interesting.

[miked570]

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.

Surely you are not referring to the ENCODE hype?

Surely you are aware that they have backed off their original claim, and are now saying that, well, they are not really sure what "function" means.

But if you mean something else, do tell.

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.

So, God made our genomes susceptible to mutation such that we are doomed to extinction as a result of Sin; yet he also sacrificed himself as Jesus to atone for that sin; we still experience mutation; God also created a couple of error-correcting mechanisms in the very genomes that He cursed to experience mutation...


I have to wonder if you folks ever just sit back and think, "Holy crap! How can I actually believe such idiotic, contradictory nonsense!"

[klaus54]

Is it that you are intellectually unable to follow what I've been presenting - is that it?

I would have thought that my arguments were plain - straightforward enough but I guess I was wrong.

Jorge

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

[klaus54]

Ad hominem gets you nowhere, O-Mudd.

...

...
Very nice Straw Man!

Jorge

Project much?

K54

[Jorge]

Surely you are not referring to the ENCODE hype?

Surely you are aware that they have backed off their original claim, and are now saying that, well, they are not really sure what "function" means.

But if you mean something else, do tell.


So, God made our genomes susceptible to mutation such that we are doomed to extinction as a result of Sin; yet he also sacrificed himself as Jesus to atone for that sin; we still experience mutation; God also created a couple of error-correcting mechanisms in the very genomes that He cursed to experience mutation...


I have to wonder if you folks ever just sit back and think, "Holy crap! How can I actually believe such idiotic, contradictory nonsense!"

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

[Jorge]

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

[klaus54]

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

[klaus54]

Jorge

Thanks for another non-answer.

Two Evolutions?

Ge 1:2-3?

Nada.

K54

[oxmixmudd]

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

[klaus54]

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

[rwatts]

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.

[rwatts]

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.

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.

[Jorge]

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