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

A "junk DNA" discussion

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    I'll try.
    look,
    If you're Darwinist, isn't all DNA remnants of evolutionary progression.
    wouldn't it all be junk that ended up with surprise function
    An interesting way of looking at it, but probably pretty much true, since all functions were novel at one time. But you would have to regard any beneficial mutation as "junk-by-default" first, and THEN notice that it's not so useless after all.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
      I'll try.
      look,
      If you're Darwinist, isn't all DNA remnants of evolutionary progression.
      wouldn't it all be junk that ended up with surprise function
      Aren't you the one who agreed that there's no micro/macro boundary? I.e., that there's no genetic barrier to evolutionary theory (why you use scare quotes on "Darwinism" -- which is only one aspect of the modern theory - is beyond comprehension.)

      That being said, please give the answer that you promised with "I'll try." All you did was make an idiotic wisecrack.

      K54

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by phank View Post
        An interesting way of looking at it, but probably pretty much true, since all functions were novel at one time. But you would have to regard any beneficial mutation as "junk-by-default" first, and THEN notice that it's not so useless after all.
        Zing!

        So JR's (non-)answer would imply the opposite default of what anti-evolutionists claim (there is no "junk".) Now everything is "junk" until proven otherwise.

        I wonder what Jorge thinks of her/his answer?

        K54

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Aren't you the one who agreed that there's no micro/macro boundary? I.e., that there's no genetic barrier to evolutionary theory (why you use scare quotes on "Darwinism" -- which is only one aspect of the modern theory - is beyond comprehension.)

          That being said, please give the answer that you promised with "I'll try." All you did was make an idiotic wisecrack.

          K54
          OK
          what we're the "scare" quotes
          To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            Zing!

            So JR's (non-)answer would imply the opposite default of what anti-evolutionists claim (there is no "junk".) Now everything is "junk" until proven otherwise.

            I wonder what Jorge thinks of her/his answer?

            K54
            Logical conclusion
            if all is junk
            then none of it junk, just raw material
            To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
              OK
              what we're the "scare" quotes
              "Darwinism" as a pitiful attempt at sarcastic jab at modern evolutionary theory.

              And strange since you apparently don't have a scientific problem with macroevolution.

              So what's yer 'splanation for that there "junk" DNA?

              K54

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                Logical conclusion
                if all is junk
                then none of it junk, just raw material
                Puerile summary dismissal via re-definition.

                So you have no idea about "junk" DNA?

                Not as advertised. Disappointing.

                K54

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  "Darwinism" as a pitiful attempt at sarcastic jab at modern evolutionary theory.

                  And strange since you apparently don't have a scientific problem with macroevolution.

                  So what's yer 'splanation for that there "junk" DNA?

                  K54
                  ??????
                  saying "Darwinism" is a scare quote?

                  Darwinism, i.e. methodological naturalism, not just evolution, but evolution with no intelligent agent or supernatural assistance.
                  what is wrong with distinguishing 'Darwinism' , from whatever term would be for creationism (creation of multiple kinds , whatever those original types were ...don't ask me ..I dunno) , followed by speciation/variety

                  I don't see anything scary about that.
                  To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                    I'll try.
                    look,
                    If you're Darwinist, isn't all DNA remnants of evolutionary progression.
                    Yes.
                    wouldn't it all be junk that ended up with surprise function
                    Not really. Some of it likely inherits function from genetic material that predates the existence of DNA, and probably life itself.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      But they do have a problem with that. AiG and ICR spent years rejecting the idea that extra-solar planets would be found. You only have to look at the articles they published in the 1990s, before we had telescopes like Kepler (e.g. this and this). Since the evidence for extra-solar planets became overwhelming, they have instead switched to saying that no Earth-like planets will be found (e.g. here), with equally little justification.

                      Roy
                      Heh. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
                        Yes.

                        Not really. Some of it likely inherits function from genetic material that predates the existence of DNA, and probably life itself.
                        what
                        you are talking about non-carbon based lifeforms?

                        I didn't know they had function.
                        To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                          ??????
                          saying "Darwinism" is a scare quote?

                          Darwinism, i.e. methodological naturalism, not just evolution, but evolution with no intelligent agent or supernatural assistance.
                          what is wrong with distinguishing 'Darwinism' , from whatever term would be for creationism (creation of multiple kinds , whatever those original types were ...don't ask me ..I dunno) , followed by speciation/variety

                          I don't see anything scary about that.
                          Putting quotes around Darwinism was my point.

                          Sheesh...

                          You say evolution has no micro/macro boundary, then you imply you don't accept it, then you write "Darwinism" and "science" (as applied to evolutionary theory) in quotes.

                          K54

                          P.S. So I guess you mean that created "kinds" are in fact a boundary to macroevolution -- even though you or any other YEC/Creto/anti-evolutionist have the foggiest notion what that means.

                          Swell...
                          Last edited by klaus54; 08-28-2014, 09:17 PM. Reason: p.s.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                            what
                            you are talking about non-carbon based lifeforms?

                            I didn't know they had function.
                            No.

                            I thought you were up on all this here evolution-y stuff?

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by phank View Post
                              An interesting way of looking at it, but probably pretty much true, since all functions were novel at one time. But you would have to regard any beneficial mutation as "junk-by-default" first, and THEN notice that it's not so useless after all.
                              at least you didn't call my serious attempt a "wisecrack"

                              Look , I am Creationist, but Creationist who knows we are stuck in NATURAL world for now. and that means entropy

                              And if Yahweh is going to kick us out of paradise and and make us live here in natural world, I think least He can do is provide occasional failsafe mechanism here and there,
                              like mechanism stress induced mutagenesis , like SOS response genes for example ,
                              that way you get not just natural random mutations, but so many that in the mix, if extinction doesn't happen first, at least get survivor.

                              but my attempt at "junk"

                              I think junk DNA is like long repetitive repetitive repetitive ...stacks of building bricks on pallets...
                              to natives coming out of jungle for first time and stumble on civilization, they see fortress built of bricks,
                              on approach they get fired upon by arrows from where wall appeared to open.

                              They conclude fortress not natural, like a hill, but a functional object.

                              later they stumble upon field with stack after stack of bricks on pallets., which they recognize from the fortress.
                              after fear at first, when no arrows fly out, they realize its just stack of bricks with no function.

                              they conclude, must just be junk, maybe used to be fortress , but now just useless piles.

                              I think scientists just recently stumble on DNA "civilization" and came to hasty conclusions at first.

                              now they are discovering epigenetics for example, and changes without out mutations, just activation of genes that were already on hand.
                              To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                This remark, if not a wisecrack, is at best useless, and at worst profoundly ignorant.

                                Originally posted by JR
                                Logical conclusion
                                if all is junk
                                then none of it junk, just raw material
                                K54

                                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