A "junk DNA" discussion

[Method]

referring to POST 107

Referring to Ken Miller's page
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/

and KENNETH MILLER in 1994 is one of the biologists who said DNA is junk if it is non-coding:

No, he didn't. He said that . . .

"The cluster itself, or more specifically a sixth b -globin gene, provides the answer. This gene is easy to recognize as part of the globin family because it has a DNA sequence nearly identical to that of the other five genes. Oddly, however, this gene is never expressed, it never produces a protein, and it plays no role in producing hemoglobin."

He said the pseudogene for the sixth B-globin gene was junk. He never said that all non-coding DNA was junk. It is as plain as day.

and I believe you earlier said I took Jerry Coyne out of context and that he never claimed a 2% number,
EXCEPT I NEVER CLAIMED JERRY COYNE CLAIMED A PERCENTAGE,
...ONLY THAT IF NON-CODING, THEN ITS JUNK/PSEUDOGENE

from POST 107
...Jerry Coyne said it in 2009, that if non-coding, then its junk:

That is completely false. Jerry Coyne said that most, if not all pseudogenes are junk. Nowhere does he say that all non-coding DNA is junk.

Time and again you make these simple errors of reading comprehension.

[jordanriver]

Time and again you make these simple errors of reading comprehension.

sez yoo.

[Method]

sez yoo.

Ken Miller says that the 6th gene in the B-globin family is a pseudogene because it shares a lot of homology with other genes in the family, and it has mutations that prevent the gene from being expressed as a protein. He concludes that, for these reasons, the specific DNA under discussion is junk. He lays out his criteria for determining what is and isn't junk DNA, and he never states that the lack of an mRNA for a specific stretch of DNA is all that is needed to determine if that DNA is junk. He also talks about homology shared between pseudogenes and functioning genes that are producing proteins.

You read this quote, and then come to the conclusion that Ken Miller is concluding that all non-coding DNA is junk, no matter what.

How do you go from what Miller said to what you claim he is saying?

[jordanriver]

Ken Miller 1994 poem:
Doesn't make a protein
call it a pseudogene

....or maybe that is rap

[Method]

Ken Miller 1994 poem:
Doesn't make a protein
call it a pseudogene

....or maybe that is rap

jordanriver 2014 poem:

When caught conflating a term
Twas best to wriggle like a worm
Deflecting questions along the way
Without understanding DNA

[Cerebrum123]

jordanriver 2014 poem:

When caught conflating a term
Twas best to wriggle like a worm
Deflecting questions along the way
Without understanding DNA

Are you perhaps related to Roy? He has, similar talents with poetic responses.

[klaus54]

Ken Miller says that the 6th gene in the B-globin family is a pseudogene because it shares a lot of homology with other genes in the family, and it has mutations that prevent the gene from being expressed as a protein. He concludes that, for these reasons, the specific DNA under discussion is junk. He lays out his criteria for determining what is and isn't junk DNA, and he never states that the lack of an mRNA for a specific stretch of DNA is all that is needed to determine if that DNA is junk. He also talks about homology shared between pseudogenes and functioning genes that are producing proteins.

You read this quote, and then come to the conclusion that Ken Miller is concluding that all non-coding DNA is junk, no matter what.

How do you go from what Miller said to what you claim he is saying?

Simple.

Creationists can go anywhere they want anytime.

No need to explain anything.

That's why Creationism is a beautiful thing.

K54

[phank]

Simple.

Creationists can go anywhere they want anytime.

No need to explain anything.

That's why Creationism is a beautiful thing.

K54

Oh no, that's not true at all. Creationists cannot go anywhere, because doctrine forbids. It's those "move the goalpost" scientists who wander all over the place following the evidence.

[klaus54]

Oh no, that's not true at all. Creationists cannot go anywhere, because doctrine forbids. It's those "move the goalpost" scientists who wander all over the place following the evidence.

No, I meant they are free to move around issues blithely ignoring contrary evidence. As long as they deny deep time, deep history, and (definitely) evolution, they can say anything - and have fun doing it.

It's the same as "goddidit" explains everything and nothing. No need for details.

K54

[phank]

No, I meant they are free to move around issues blithely ignoring contrary evidence. As long as they deny deep time, deep history, and (definitely) evolution, they can say anything - and have fun doing it.

It's the same as "goddidit" explains everything and nothing. No need for details.

K54

I'm not sure we are communicating. Creationists in my experience have hotlines to the Truth. All creationist truth is a priori, all creationist conclusions are foregone, giving them no degrees of freedom. Now, as you point out, this paints them into what you would find the uncomfortable corner of having to deny, distort, misrepresent, fabricate, etc. But creationists have a different notion of evidence than you do. Your notion is based on observation and test, and their notion is based on theological requirements. And what that means is that any observation or test in conflict with those requirements is not evidence. It CANNOT be evidence, by foregone conclusion.

I've seen two general flavors of creationists. One flavor is like Jorge, who doesn't even TRY to use evidence to support his position, relying instead on insults and assertions, none of which need to be consistent or even applicable. But a more common flavor of creationist is one who sincerely struggles to rectify observation with conviction when they two are clearly mutually exclusive. Which means the observation MUST be wrong - either improperly taken, or improperly interpreted. Mix in the religious avenue to knowledge (make things come true by SAYING them true) with the creationist approach to knowledge (avoid it) and we chase around in endless circles.

But we should know that before we start, shouldn't we? Here are people saying something is true because the Bible says it, and the Bible is true because God wrote (or inspired) it, and we know God wrote or inspired it because the Bible SAYS so!

[klaus54]

The "interpretation" idea always gets my goat. Creationists stridently point to that scientific facts need to be interpreted (by "fallible men") but the Bible needs to be read straight up (although I still haven't gotten anyone here to cough up a straightforward unambiguous Genesis interpreta... oops, reading.)

Cognitive dissonance and/or gross hypocrisy.

Throw in a heapin' helpin' of projection too.

And it DOES help immensely to have one's mind made up before starting. "Presuppositionalist Apologetics" as rwatts pointed out.

Oh, and argument by emotion helps as well. One very emotional poster in the past week wrote this gem (paraphrased since I don't want to spend a half hour to find the exact verbage):

"I would hate evolution even if it were true."

Barf...

K54

[tabibito]

Here are people saying something is true because the Bible says it, and the Bible is true because God wrote (or inspired) it,

It is first necessary to determine whether the Bible actually says what people claim it does (and often, the claims can't be verified) ... Then the claim that God inspired the statements under review needs to be investigated.

and
we know God wrote or inspired it because the Bible SAYS so!

Except that the Bible never says any such thing. And even if we allow the meaning that is incorrectly ascribed to one particular verse, the only verse that can be wrested easily enough to make it seem that it is saying all scripture is inspired by God: one witness doesn't count as valid testimony to the truth.

[phank]

It is first necessary to determine whether the Bible actually says what people claim it does (and often, the claims can't be verified) ... Then the claim that God inspired the statements under review needs to be investigated.

Well, no, it's first necessary to determine which, if any, of the thousands of gods people have invented exists anywhere except in the imaginations of the believers in any particular god or set of gods. After all, the only difference between biblical tales and the theological tales of every other culture, is that they attribute their origin to different gods - that is, the origins of both the people and the tales.

Since there is in fact no evidence of ANY of these gods existing outside the imagination, the bible is properly interpreted as cultural myth, same as with any other culture.

[klaus54]

Well, no, it's first necessary to determine which, if any, of the thousands of gods people have invented exists anywhere except in the imaginations of the believers in any particular god or set of gods. After all, the only difference between biblical tales and the theological tales of every other culture, is that they attribute their origin to different gods - that is, the origins of both the people and the tales.

Since there is in fact no evidence of ANY of these gods existing outside the imagination, the bible is properly interpreted as cultural myth, same as with any other culture.

The gist of what you're saying is the notion of the supernatural (whether immanent, transcendent, or both -- or personal) is axiomatic.

And with the Bible another axiom is that the Judeo-Christian God is communicating through it.

K54

[phank]

The gist of what you're saying is the notion of the supernatural (whether immanent, transcendent, or both -- or personal) is axiomatic.

And being so, you can't make any empirical statements about it. You can only generate fiction.

And with the Bible another axiom is that the Judeo-Christian God is communicating through it.

And so you generate fiction, piling one axiom atop another. IF there are gods, and IF the gods create angels, and IF the angels are infinitely small, THEN any number can dance on the head of a pin.

This is what I've called the "ships in the night" problem - one side looking for empirical evidence of the other side's unsupportable axioms.