Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
I believe I've only been banned once so far.
Regarding juvenile behaviour, the way people who don't share your point of view are treated is also pretty juvenile e.g. Calling ID proponents IDiots, referring to William Dembski as Dumbski, calling creationists creatards etc. If your side are allowed to dish this sort of stuff out you should also be prepared to take it. Yet if I have a pop at Dawkins I'm liable to be banned!
You haven't proven any of your claims and plenty of disproving of your points and others has been done that is backed up with sources. You aren't even addressing oldrnwisr's points because you're lacking basic knowledge on the topic you're discussing.0 -
Feynman also said:
"The only way to have real success in science, the field I'm familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good and what's bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty."
This doesn't seem to be happening with evolution/Darwinism.0 -
Careful Mick, two more posts and you might start believing in evolution...0
-
-
Feynman also said:
"The only way to have real success in science, the field I'm familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good and what's bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty."
This doesn't seem to be happening with evolution/Darwinism.
Ummmm, yeah, sure, whatever. I fail to see what a quote to do with displaying the transparency of science has to do with this though.
Full quote
"The only way to have real success in science, the field I'm familiar with, is
to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it
should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good and
what's bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard
integrity and honesty.
In other fields, such as business, it's different. For example, almost every
advertisement you see is obviously designed, in some way or another, to fool
the customer: the print that they don't want you to read is small; the
statements are written in an obscure way. It is obvious to anybody that the
product is not being presented in a scientific and balanced way. Therefore,
in the selling business, there's a lack of integrity."0 -
Advertisement
-
This doesn't seem to be happening with evolution/Darwinism.
You admit that we can observe mutations in genetic code altering structure of organisms.
Despite your claims otherwise this alteration to genetic code has been observed to add new function to organisms, both by add new genetic code (making chromosomes longer), but also by rearranging genetic code producing new functionality. In fact new functionality has been observed by the removal all together of genetic code.
Despite your claims otherwise we have observed such alterations to push organisms over the species barrier, which while being a rather arbitrary classification is rather significant given that organisms stop mating with previous organisms. You continue to claim this cannot happen, but give no reason why it cannot happen, nor an alternative explanation for what has been observed.
Despite your claims otherwise we have observed massive structural changes in organisms, such as single cell organisms evolving into multicell organisms, within lab conditions. You continue to claim this cannot happen, but give no reason why it cannot happen, nor an alternative explanation for what has been observed.
You claim that mutation cannot alter organisms beyond certain limits. It is difficult to mount a serious response to this because you refuse to define what "limits" you are talking about, but given the point above (single cell to multi cell in only a few thousand generations, observed by scientists) this "limit" you suppose seems rather ridiculous.
The fossil record shows transitional forms between major structural changes, such as in the evolution of the whale, which while on their own would not amount to proof of evolution, when coupled with both the observations we have of mutations in the lab, and what we know about DNA, paint a clear picture that these species evolved from one major structural form to another over millions of years.
You keep ignoring this, or refusing to properly engage, and instead start every discussion of with the same points that have already been refuted.
You then claim we are persecuting you by refusing to listen. In fact you are refusing to listen or mount any serious rebuke to the points being put to you. Your claims have been debunked, at least the claims you actually make in enough detail to actually be worth discussion, which is the minority.
You criticise evolution for not making sense but then refuse to detail the alternatives you claim better explain life on Earth. This shows that you are disingenuous in your claim that you are searching for the best explanation. You cannot be looking for the best explanation because clearly your alternative explanation fails your own standards.
And yet you are surprised when you are met with annoyance on this forum.0 -
-
You admit that we can observe mutations in genetic code altering structure of organisms.
Despite your claims otherwise this alteration to genetic code has been observed to add new function to organisms, both by add new genetic code (making chromosomes longer), but also by rearranging genetic code producing new functionality. In fact new functionality has been observed by the removal all together of genetic code.
Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)Despite your claims otherwise we have observed such alterations to push organisms over the species barrier, which while being a rather arbitrary classification is rather significant given that organisms stop mating with previous organisms.
Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?Despite your claims otherwise we have observed massive structural changes in organisms, such as single cell organisms evolving into multicell organisms, within lab conditions.
I'm almost certain that this has never been observed.You criticise evolution for not making sense
No, I question Darwinism for not making sense.0 -
Your argument is not evolving.Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)
Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?
I'm almost certain that this has never been observed.
No, I question Darwinism for not making sense.
0 -
Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)
And what exactly is wrong with those examples of new functionality? Other than that they are observations obtained from experiments capable of being carried out within a single human lifetime...Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?
Depends on how you define complexity(and to a lesser extent observation, and species), but sure.
Just to annoy you I'll go with Lenski's E.coli: They gained a function not previously present in their lineage. They didn't lose a function in order to gain it, therefore the new function was additional. Lenski's bacteria have more functions than their ancestors.
Complexity!I'm almost certain that this has never been observed.
Good thing you said 'almost'. Note these are yeast. That might be important later...No, I question Darwinism for not making sense.
But it only doesn't make sense when you refuse to examine the evidence yourself. Which is what you have done by repeatedly ignoring the points made by people doing the legwork for you only to wait a few weeks and come back to make the same arguments you made last time. Again.
I don't want you to become a supporter of evolution because I said so, or because sarky said so, or even because oldrnwisr said so. I want you to become a supporter of evolution because you've actually looked at the things that have been put in front of you and thought about them for yourself.
The thing that saddens and angers me is that you have no intention of examining the evidence put before you. You are here to present your ill informed point of view unceasingly in the vain hope that you can force us to concede that scientists should take your baseless opinions seriously.
The thing that utterly enrages me is that you have no intention of providing a basis for your own opinions. You just want to sit back and claim there are issues. What are the issues. We can't address them if you refuse to elaborate on them. If you actually provided some evidence, or observations, or reasoning which you think supports your view point so I could consider it or understand it I'd be much less inclined to treat you like you're wasting my time. I'd probably reject it, but I could explain why I reject it. Instead the best we can get from you is the opinions of other people. And opinions are like arseholes.
I'm also going to take this opportunity to take issue with your constant referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection as 'darwinism'. I feel you are only doing so in an attempt to make evolution out to be some ancient hypothesis we're just going along with out of tradition.
You should refer to the theory as 'modern evolutionary synthesis' or 'evolution' for short.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mickrock, don't you see your argument basically comes down to sticking your fingers in your ears and not listening? You keep claiming 'Darwinism' is bull, while refusing to say why. If you could at least attempt to explain why you think its nonsense, and respond to the long posts from people attempting to debate with you, you might get a bit more respect.0
-
Every attempt to educate /debate/question here ....is ruined by this sort of post, and those who thank it.
It's an appeal to the crowd...and it is obvious.
Sometimes debate is rendered pointless by the sheer lack of facts presented by the opposition; you can't punch fog, as the saying goes.
Regardless of what some might like to think, the crowd is not always wrong.
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, as the other saying goes.0 -
Depends on how you define complexity(and to a lesser extent observation, and species), but sure.
Just to annoy you I'll go with Lenski's E.coli: They gained a function not previously present in their lineage. They didn't lose a function in order to gain it, therefore the new function was additional. Lenski's bacteria have more functions than their ancestors.
Complexity!
Lenski's E.coli gained an advantage by the breaking or blunting of existing functional information. Nothing new was created, whether genes or molecular machinery.
It's hardly a ringing endorsement of the supposed creative power of Darwinian mechanisms.Good thing you said 'almost'. Note these are yeast. That might be important later...
A cluster of unicellular organisms isn't a muticellular organism.
"Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff's experiment.
"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.htmlI'm also going to take this opportunity to take issue with your constant referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection as 'darwinism'. I feel you are only doing so in an attempt to make evolution out to be some ancient hypothesis we're just going along with out of tradition.
You should refer to the theory as 'modern evolutionary synthesis' or 'evolution' for short.
I refer to it as Darwinism because everyone knows that it is blind and undirected.
I believe in evolution and that it is an intelligent, directed process. If I referred to Darwinism as evolution we'd be talking at cross purposes.0 -
A bit surprising nobody has mentioned the ENCODE project as yet. This is the largest research project ever undertaking in science with hundereds of scientists working in collaboration across several countries. Although the project is ongoing a major update was released in late 2012 and the results are fascinating.
At the time the human genome was first decoded a decade ago scientists were surprised to find that only 1.5% of human DNA was involved in coding. The remaining 98.5% was referred to as "junk" DNA. This was perfectly in keeping with the new-Darwinian model of evolution being a messy process with random mutation leading to a fragmented DNA structutre with only a small % actually functional. Evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins have argued that the presence of so such junk DNA is validation for random mutation as the primary mechanism that drives natural selection.
The ENCODE project has looked at the functionality of DNA in a variety of human cells. The tentative conclusions are that 80% of DNA is biologically active and involved in regulation within human cells. It is regulation that turns genes on and off, for example leading to one type of cell becoming a brain cell and another a skin cell. The study has only looked at 147 types of cells so far and as the human body has thousands of different types of cells, there are strong reasons to suggest that the 80% number wll rise to 100% after further research.
The initial results published by the ENCODE team has been vigerously debated in scientific and non scientific circles. Some of the attacks on the researchers are incredible, given the scope of the project and the fact that the scientists are just reporting their results and not drawing any conclusions as yet. The problem for many scientists and especially non scientists is that the results suggest intelligent design causation rather than random causation so of course they must be wrong. I don't think we have ever seen such an example of anti-science hysteria in action, perhaps since Gallileo's time.
The next 5 years will be fascinating as the ENCODE project proceeds and evolutionary biologists fit the results into evolutionary models. We could well be on the cusp of another major breakthrough in our understanding of how evolution progresses.0 -
This might have a little relevance to this thread, interesting and a good watch.0 -
The initial results published by the ENCODE team has been vigerously debated in scientific and non scientific circles. Some of the attacks on the researchers are incredible, given the scope of the project and the fact that the scientists are just reporting their results and not drawing any conclusions as yet. The problem for many scientists and especially non scientists is that the results suggest intelligent design causation rather than random causation so of course they must be wrong. I don't think we have ever seen such an example of anti-science hysteria in action, perhaps since Gallileo's time.
Have you any examples of this? Nothing I have read or listened to regarding the ENCODE project has mentioned any creationist or ID interpretations of the results. Though perhaps I haven't been following it closely enough.0 -
A bit surprising nobody has mentioned the ENCODE project as yet. This is the largest research project ever undertaking in science with hundereds of scientists working in collaboration across several countries. Although the project is ongoing a major update was released in late 2012 and the results are fascinating.
At the time the human genome was first decoded a decade ago scientists were surprised to find that only 1.5% of human DNA was involved in coding. The remaining 98.5% was referred to as "junk" DNA. This was perfectly in keeping with the new-Darwinian model of evolution being a messy process with random mutation leading to a fragmented DNA structutre with only a small % actually functional. Evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins have argued that the presence of so such junk DNA is validation for random mutation as the primary mechanism that drives natural selection.
The ENCODE project has looked at the functionality of DNA in a variety of human cells. The tentative conclusions are that 80% of DNA is biologically active and involved in regulation within human cells. It is regulation that turns genes on and off, for example leading to one type of cell becoming a brain cell and another a skin cell. The study has only looked at 147 types of cells so far and as the human body has thousands of different types of cells, there are strong reasons to suggest that the 80% number wll rise to 100% after further research.
The initial results published by the ENCODE team has been vigerously debated in scientific and non scientific circles. Some of the attacks on the researchers are incredible, given the scope of the project and the fact that the scientists are just reporting their results and not drawing any conclusions as yet. The problem for many scientists and especially non scientists is that the results suggest intelligent design causation rather than random causation so of course they must be wrong. I don't think we have ever seen such an example of anti-science hysteria in action, perhaps since Gallileo's time.
The next 5 years will be fascinating as the ENCODE project proceeds and evolutionary biologists fit the results into evolutionary models. We could well be on the cusp of another major breakthrough in our understanding of how evolution progresses.
The 80% figure has indeed been the subject of much debate - amongst scientists, many of whom have been highly critical. Essentially the 80% includes every bit of DNA that was transcribed into RNA. However, a lot of this transcription seems to be background noise, with the DNA being transcribed at very low levels in an unregulated fashion and having no evident functional role.
The idea that all of genomes could turn out to be functional doesn't seem to square with the long-established lack of correlation between genome size and organism complexity. Fugu fish, for instance, have a very small genome due in part to a very low level of transposable element 'junk' dna (2% of the genome vs 44% for humans).
In subsequent interviews, ENCODE project leader Ewan Birney has qualified the headline 80% figure, saying that he thinks that around 20% of the human genome may turn out to be functional.
This nature blog describes the controversy and explains the 80% vs 20% discrepancy.0 -
Have you any examples of this? Nothing I have read or listened to regarding the ENCODE project has mentioned any creationist or ID interpretations of the results. Though perhaps I haven't been following it closely enough.
It is too soon to make any firm conclusions as the data is so new and incomplete. However, what we can say I believe with some certainty is the concept of "junk" DNA has now to be discarded. Instead of being a messy, chaotic genome it now looks like we have what could be an incredibly functional genome (with some negatives of course like disease, but these are mainly due to errors in regulation processes and not in the genes themselves). The level of information transfer and complexity that is being discovered in the cell is virtually incompehensible. I am not stating that the ENCODE data proves anything, but it will in time lead to new understandings of the mechanisms of evolution as our understanding of how the genome works is now being completely updated..
We need to distinguish between creationists and those who consider intelligent design. Creationists believe in a speicfic "story" of creation as outlined in their religious texts. However, there are many who consider intelligent design who are not religious. If for example we eventually conclude that life as we know it on earth was desiged as opposed to having emerged from random processes, one obvious source is that life was designed elsewhere in the universe and either carried here by interstellar debris early in earth's history or brought to earth by an advanced alien civilization. There was certainly time for this to occur as the universe was around for 10 billion years before our planet formed.0 -
However, there are many who consider intelligent design who are not religious. If for example we eventually conclude that life as we know it on earth was desiged as opposed to having emerged from random processes, one obvious source is that life was designed elsewhere in the universe and either carried here by interstellar debris early in earth's history or brought to earth by an advanced alien civilization. There was certainly time for this to occur as the universe was around for 10 billion years before our planet formed.
But isn't that kind of just kicking the can down the road?
Would an extra 10 billion years really make it much more likely that life arose and evolved by random, undirected processes?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Mickrock, why haven't you bothered to read a book on these topics? Most of your questions are, not to put too fine a point on it, indicative of a near-total ignorance of evolution and molecular biology.
Please educate yourself.0 -
-
Evolution is not random. It is driven by natural selection.
A lot of the confusion regarding evolution hinges on this question. The mechanism for generating genetic variation is commonly believed to be random mutation, whereas how likely an individual is to survive and reproduce is based on how well its traits, defined by its DNA, are suitably adapted to its environment. The genetic mechanism is believed to be random but the outcome is highly predictable.
We are just now learning the details of how DNA actually functions. As these details unfold we may well have to update our thinking on the mechanisms behind evolution. Random genetic mutation is very consistent with DNA that has 98.5% "junk", not so consistent if there is no junk and all of DNA is highly functional biologically. There is no firm evidence yet for the last part of the prior statement but the evidence seems to be heading in that direction.0 -
-
Lenski's E.coli gained an advantage by the breaking or blunting of existing functional information. Nothing new was created, whether genes or molecular machinery.
It's hardly a ringing endorsement of the supposed creative power of Darwinian mechanisms.
Supposed creative power? Hang on, you do realise that evolution is a slow process of iteration? These E.coli are a good example of evolution because it's a small change that proves useful and so becomes fixed in the population.
At this point of the thread the idea that I should still have to explain to you, who's been in it for so long, such basic tenets of evolution is absolutely ****ing ludicrous.
Your issues with it btw are exactly what makes it a good example.A cluster of unicellular organisms isn't a muticellular organism.
Isn't it? There's no difference in the genetic data present in any of the different cells in the different tissues of your body after all.
Well, as long as you discount your microbiota ofc.
There are differences between a cluster of unicellular organisms and a multicellular one, but I doubt you know what they are.
More importantly, the slow gradual change predicted by evolution would absolutely require such an intermediary 'multi-unicellular' stage.
"Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff's experiment.
"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly.""
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html
Oh yes, this is a possible explanation, but the retention of some of the features of multicellular life would just mean that unicellular yeast have a shorter road to evolve it again than other organisms. Which would actually explain why it evolved so rather astoundingly rapidly.
Indeed look again at what the skeptical objection actually is."I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."
He's not disagreeing with the principle of unicellular to multicellular occuring. He's pointing out that evolution doesn't usually happen that fast.
I'd also point out that this argument hinges on accepting that the yeast in question are engaged in a multicellular lifestyle...I refer to it as Darwinism because everyone knows that it is blind and undirected.
Except it's not either of those things. Natural selection is actually the mechanism by which it is neither of those things. Once again you fundamentally fail to understand evolution.I believe in evolution and that it is an intelligent, directed process. If I referred to Darwinism as evolution we'd be talking at cross purposes.
I don't give a rats that you have a pet belief you want to call evolution. It's not evolution. Evolution is taken. And I see no compelling reason to continue to indulge your silly personal nomenclature at the expense of others who may read the thread. Your belief seems to be Intelligent Design.
The only one who would be talking at cross purposes if everyone else started using the correct terminology would be you.0 -
The ENCODE project has looked at the functionality of DNA in a variety of human cells. The tentative conclusions are that 80% of DNA is biologically active and involved in regulation within human cells.
Pretty sure the 80% figure only comes about because they included the regions near binding sites which don't actually do anything other than take up space.It is regulation that turns genes on and off, for example leading to one type of cell becoming a brain cell and another a skin cell. The study has only looked at 147 types of cells so far and as the human body has thousands of different types of cells, there are strong reasons to suggest that the 80% number wll rise to 100% after further research.
No there aren't.
Regulation is what turns genes on and off and we know lots about regulation at a local scale. What's exciting about this type of work is that we'll be able to start looking at regulation as the genome wide process we've always suspected it was. I don't see why that implies that everything is biologically active. I see the number dropping myself. Just like the predicted number of protein coding genes dropped constantly to it's current amounts.
Indeed I could see a debate for not counting every single binding site as 'biologically active' in order to reduce confusion between the physical modification of the chromatin structure to make a gene available/unavailable for transcription, and the transcription of a gene. Although I'd probably land on the against side of said debate.
That said by a loose definition of biologically active, well the entire genome gets reproduced at replication. That's biological activity, no doubt about it. Hmmm maybe we should just put more emphasis on 'biological activity' being a huge umbrella term... Anyway, just typing out loud.The initial results published by the ENCODE team has been vigerously debated in scientific and non scientific circles. Some of the attacks on the researchers are incredible, given the scope of the project and the fact that the scientists are just reporting their results and not drawing any conclusions as yet. The problem for many scientists and especially non scientists is that the results suggest intelligent design causation rather than random causation so of course they must be wrong. I don't think we have ever seen such an example of anti-science hysteria in action, perhaps since Gallileo's time.
Not in what I've read. Where did you get that idea? Seriously I'd like to read that and you're usually good for a source.The next 5 years will be fascinating as the ENCODE project proceeds and evolutionary biologists fit the results into evolutionary models. We could well be on the cusp of another major breakthrough in our understanding of how evolution progresses.
This one, yes. Definitely. It's very exciting. Although more so from a genetics rather than evolutionary point of view. We might finally be able to start figuring out how the genome as a whole is regulated and how differentiation works. We've been building up to this with gene level perturbation and expression experiments for some time now so it's really cool to see all this stuff starting to come together.0 -
Could you give some examples of all these new functions? (I hope it's something more than the likes of antibiotic resistance and Lenski's E.coli.)
Are there any observed examples of the "new" species ever being more complex than the one it "evolved" from?
I'm almost certain that this has never been observed.
No, I question Darwinism for not making sense.
If I give the examples to all the things you ask will you promise to stop arguing that Darwinian evolution is unsupported, or at the very least simply go away?0 -
Having had a bit more time to respond to the discussion of ENCODE, here's a fuller version of what ENCODE found, and what went wrong in the reporting.
The ENCODE project gives us a new understanding of how the genome functions, and an atlas of all the regulatory features in the DNA sequence that allow it to function. Publication of the results should have been cause for celebration. However, the authors of the main paper spoiled things with an extravagant claim for the amount of functionality in the genome. This claim formed the basis of most of the media reporting.
Here's what the main paper said:ENCODE wrote:The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome.
[...]
Operationally, we define a functional element as a discrete genome segment that encodes a defined product (for example, protein or non-coding RNA) or displays a reproducible biochemical signature (for example, protein binding, or a specific chromatin structure). [...]
The vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome participates in at least one biochemical RNA- and/or chromatin-associated event in at least one cell type. (link)
The media turned 80% 'biochemical function' into 80% 'biological function', then (in more exaggerated reporting): 80% of the genome is essential gene switches that control the genes that make us healthy or sick. URL="http://thefinchandpea.com/2012/09/06/encode-media-fail/"]Good summary of media here[/URL.
What 'functionality' did ENCODE find?
- That most of the genome's DNA gets copied into RNA, often at low levels (less than one copy per cell for many sequences).
- Binding sites in the DNA for proteins involved in activating genes
- Sequences that may enhance or repress gene activity, or help decouple activity at one gene from its neighbour.
The regulatory sequences lie outside the 1-2% that ultimately codes for proteins, as do most of the sequences detected as RNA copies.
None of this is unexpected; the principles of gene regulation have been understood for decades. The novelty is in the detail, which is far more extensive than what we've had before.
So what's the problem?
The >80% functional claim, distorted into a claim of over 80% of the genome being necessary for the organism. This goes against some long-established facts of biology. To take two:
1) Genome size varies hugely, and has little bearing on organism complexity.
Puffer fish = 0.4Gb <
> Human, mice = 3Gb <
> Salamanders ~ 35Gb
Does a human or a mouse need almost ten times as much information as a fish? Does a salamander need ten times more still? Why do some amoebas have genomes hundreds of times bigger than ours?
URL="http://www.genomesize.com"]Explore genome sizes at http://www.genomesize.com[/URL
2) Known 'junk' DNA. This hasn't gone away, despite some of the headline claims.
Genomes contain transposable genetic elements, DNA sequences that replicate themselves and insert copies randomly into our genomes in a manner similar to retroviruses. Numbers vary between species: they account for just 2% of the puffer fish genome, and ~80% of some amphibian genomes. The human genome contains literally millions of degraded transposable elements that have jumped all over the place, with a small fraction still active today. In total, they add up tp over 40% of our genome. While most copies are neutral, some are shown to cause disease, and a smaller proportion may be functionally useful to the organism. This, though, is a chance occurrence; the elements are just busy copying themselves, as selfish genes will URL="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111912008931"]review here[/URL.
We also know of lots of pseudogenes that are no longer functional due to mutation. To take one well studied group, we have over 400 degraded pseudogenes for olfactory receptors (genes for detecting odours) that once were functional link. In all, there are around 15,000 pseudogenes in the human genome, according to the current Ensembl genome assembly.
Given these facts, ENCODE needed to provide good evidence to justify claiming that >80% of the genome is functional. But their definition of 'functional' sets the bar so low as to be meaningless.
What is lacking, as many scientists have commented, is a good basis for comparison. An interesting thought experiment proposed by Sean Eddy is to synthesise a full chromosome of randomly-generated sequence, then to drop it into a cell line and apply ENCODE's battery of analyses. What percentage of this genuine junk would end up being classed as having a 'biochemical function'? Quite a lot, we can expect. A parallel ENCODE project on vertebrates with very large and very small genomes would also be illuminating. Study a salamander, and I'd bet that 80% of its bloated genome would turn out to be 'biochemically functional' too, according to the ENCODE definition.
The ENCODE scientists should have been more careful in their comments to the press, as they managed to give a quite false impression of their findings, and one that has been seized on by creationists and intelligent design advocates as supporting their pseudoscience.0 -
Random genetic mutation is very consistent with DNA that has 98.5% "junk", not so consistent if there is no junk and all of DNA is highly functional biologically. There is no firm evidence yet for the last part of the prior statement but the evidence seems to be heading in that direction.
There's no requirement in evolutionary theory that there should be junk DNA. Amount of junk varies widely between species, after all. If it were disadvantageous, it would be selected against, and genomes would be very compact. Its existence, though, is a fact. The problem is only for creationists and intelligent design believers, who find junk DNA very inconvenient.0 -
Advertisement
-
darjeeling wrote: »There's no requirement in evolutionary theory that there should be junk DNA. Amount of junk varies widely between species, after all. If it were disadvantageous, it would be selected against, and genomes would be very compact. Its existence, though, is a fact. The problem is only for creationists and intelligent design believers, who find junk DNA very inconvenient.
I agree that creationists and some believers in intelligent design are dishonest in how they try and interpret and spin scientific findings. However, they are not the only ones who do this.
Richard Dawkins from The Greatest Show on Earth (2009, 3 years ago), in the context of how junk DNA is useful for mocking creationists and those who believe in intelligent design: " it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95% in the case of humans) of the genome may as well not be there, for all the difference it makes". In other words such a high percentage of junk DNA is what you would expect from the messy process of random mutation over millions of generations.
Since the preliminary results of the ENCODE project, Dawkins has changed his tune and in recent debates has said that what was thought to be junk DNA now being found to be vital for life's function was "exactly what a Darwinist would expect". If that isn't moving the goalposts I'm not sure what is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement