A "junk DNA" discussion

[sfs1]

In some areas I definitely need to 'change'.
In others, heaven forbid that I should ever change.
What Roy said was Moderated.
That you agree with Roy just goes to shows ...

The part that I agree with is still there, Jorge. The part about you still failing to tell me what was false about post #34 -- the one you said was false. You've huffed and you've puffed, you've insulted me, you've told me what was wrong with a different post, but still provided no support for your claim.

[Jorge]

The part that I agree with is still there, Jorge. The part about you still failing to tell me what was false about post #34 -- the one you said was false. You've huffed and you've puffed, you've insulted me, you've told me what was wrong with a different post, but still provided no support for your claim.

You keep insisting that I follow your lead: strain on a gnat while swallowing the entire herd of camels. I dislike wasting my time but I'll humor you this once.

"Regarding the history. . . The earliest reference to "junk DNA" I've seen anyone find is here, from 1960. Researchers were groping to understand how DNA sequence information was transferred to amino acid composition; they were puzzled by the fact that ribosomal RNA, which they though carried the information, looked too uniform, in contrast to the DNA and the proteins. Large amounts of non-functional DNA is raised as a possibility, but not an attractive one since, "it seems unlikely that such an inefficient mechanism would have survived through evolution..."

So apparently nonfunctional DNA was being considered (possible) junk not because it was the remnants of evolutionary progression, but in spite of evolutionary expectations."

Okay, so in this case that you've found in the bowels of history you could claim that my thesis is "wrong". Now show us where I said that EVERY Evolutionist believes the same (here that "junk" DNA represents "the remnants of an Evolutionary progression"). Another example would be that many Evolutionists accept the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium while many others do not. So?

Now, would you like to wager -- here in public and in writing -- that I could not find numerous articles/papers where (non-Creationist) PhD researchers explicitly state that "junk" DNA serves as evidence for an Evolutionary history?

If you're as smart as you think you are, you most definitely would NOT enter into that wager with me - 'coz you know for certain that you'd lose!

Many - MANY! - PhD Evolutionists promoted the notion of "junk" DNA as support/evidence for Evolution. Read material from 1970-1990 and you'll find tons of examples.

Heck, I've wasted enough time - let me waste a bit more and spare you the agony: Orgel and Crick (yeah, the same Crick of Nobel fame - not a Biblical Creationist) wrote:

"... much DNA in higher organism is a little better than junk ... its accumulation in the course of evolution ... can be compared to the spread of a not-too-harmful parasite within its host ... it would be folly in such cases to hunt for one." ["one" here referring to "a function"]
Leslie E. Orgel and Francis H. C. Crick, Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite, Nature 284 (1980): 604-607.

So here we have a Nobel laureate explicitly stating my case, which I now rest.

Jorge

[klaus54]

This is very interesting.

Jorge, did you address this point?

...
So apparently nonfunctional DNA was being considered (possible) junk not because it was the remnants of evolutionary progression, but in spite of evolutionary expectations.

k54

[klaus54]

You keep insisting that I follow your lead: strain on a gnat while swallowing the entire herd of camels. I dislike wasting my time but I'll humor you this once.

"Regarding the history. . . The earliest reference to "junk DNA" I've seen anyone find is here, from 1960. Researchers were groping to understand how DNA sequence information was transferred to amino acid composition; they were puzzled by the fact that ribosomal RNA, which they though carried the information, looked too uniform, in contrast to the DNA and the proteins. Large amounts of non-functional DNA is raised as a possibility, but not an attractive one since, "it seems unlikely that such an inefficient mechanism would have survived through evolution..."

So apparently nonfunctional DNA was being considered (possible) junk not because it was the remnants of evolutionary progression, but in spite of evolutionary expectations."

Okay, so in this case that you've found in the bowels of history you could claim that my thesis is "wrong". Now show us where I said that EVERY Evolutionist believes the same (here that "junk" DNA represents "the remnants of an Evolutionary progression"). Another example would be that many Evolutionists accept the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium while many others do not. So?

Now, would you like to wager -- here in public and in writing -- that I could not find numerous articles/papers where (non-Creationist) PhD researchers explicitly state that "junk" DNA serves as evidence for an Evolutionary history?

If you're as smart as you think you are, you most definitely would NOT enter into that wager with me - 'coz you know for certain that you'd lose!

Many - MANY! - PhD Evolutionists promoted the notion of "junk" DNA as support/evidence for Evolution. Read material from 1970-1990 and you'll find tons of examples.

Heck, I've wasted enough time - let me waste a bit more and spare you the agony: Orgel and Crick (yeah, the same Crick of Nobel fame - not a Biblical Creationist) wrote:

"... much DNA in higher organism is a little better than junk ... its accumulation in the course of evolution ... can be compared to the spread of a not-too-harmful parasite within its host ... it would be folly in such cases to hunt for one." ["one" here referring to "a function"]
Leslie E. Orgel and Francis H. C. Crick, Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite, Nature 284 (1980): 604-607.

So here we have a Nobel laureate explicitly stating my case, which I now rest.

Jorge

Simple. Neutral genetic drift, which is what one would expect with non-functional DNA segments.

Fit that in your YEC theory.

Wait -- I forgot. You guys don't HAVE a theory.

The beauty of creationism is that any and everything fits with it. Consilience be damned!

K54

[Roy]

Skip to the end:

Heck, I've wasted enough time - let me waste a bit more and spare you the agony: Orgel and Crick (yeah, the same Crick of Nobel fame - not a Biblical Creationist) wrote:

"... much DNA in higher organism is a little better than junk ... its accumulation in the course of evolution ... can be compared to the spread of a not-too-harmful parasite within its host ... it would be folly in such cases to hunt for one." ["one" here referring to "a function"]
Leslie E. Orgel and Francis H. C. Crick, Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite, Nature 284 (1980): 604-607.

Brainless, helpless, hopeless... You guessed wrong.*

So here we have a Nobel laureate explicitly stating my case, which I now rest.

No good. I've known too many Spaniards.

Roy

*They didn't write that. Once again Jorge is trying to pass off a mangled multiple-hand misquote as if it was from the original text.

[sfs1]

You keep insisting that I follow your lead: strain on a gnat while swallowing the entire herd of camels. I dislike wasting my time but I'll humor you this once.

"Regarding the history. . . The earliest reference to "junk DNA" I've seen anyone find is here, from 1960. Researchers were groping to understand how DNA sequence information was transferred to amino acid composition; they were puzzled by the fact that ribosomal RNA, which they though carried the information, looked too uniform, in contrast to the DNA and the proteins. Large amounts of non-functional DNA is raised as a possibility, but not an attractive one since, "it seems unlikely that such an inefficient mechanism would have survived through evolution..."

So apparently nonfunctional DNA was being considered (possible) junk not because it was the remnants of evolutionary progression, but in spite of evolutionary expectations."

Okay, so in this case that you've found in the bowels of history you could claim that my thesis is "wrong". Now show us where I said that EVERY Evolutionist believes the same (here that "junk" DNA represents "the remnants of an Evolutionary progression"). Another example would be that many Evolutionists accept the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium while many others do not. So?

Now, would you like to wager -- here in public and in writing -- that I could not find numerous articles/papers where (non-Creationist) PhD researchers explicitly state that "junk" DNA serves as evidence for an Evolutionary history?

If you're as smart as you think you are, you most definitely would NOT enter into that wager with me - 'coz you know for certain that you'd lose!

Many - MANY! - PhD Evolutionists promoted the notion of "junk" DNA as support/evidence for Evolution. Read material from 1970-1990 and you'll find tons of examples.

Heck, I've wasted enough time - let me waste a bit more and spare you the agony: Orgel and Crick (yeah, the same Crick of Nobel fame - not a Biblical Creationist) wrote:

"... much DNA in higher organism is a little better than junk ... its accumulation in the course of evolution ... can be compared to the spread of a not-too-harmful parasite within its host ... it would be folly in such cases to hunt for one." ["one" here referring to "a function"]
Leslie E. Orgel and Francis H. C. Crick, Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite, Nature 284 (1980): 604-607.

So here we have a Nobel laureate explicitly stating my case, which I now rest.

Jorge

No, Jorge. What I want is very simple; it's what I've wanted all along, and what I've asked for repeatedly. I want you to tell me what was false in my post. I don't want you to insult me. I don't want you to tell me why some other statement that I could have made would have been wrong, or why someone else was wrong about something. I don't want to know how much smarter than me you are. I just want to know what was false in my post. You know -- the one that you said was false.

[klaus54]

Skip to the end:Brainless, helpless, hopeless... You guessed wrong.*

No good. I've known too many Spaniards.

Roy

*They didn't write that. Once again Jorge is trying to pass off a mangled multiple-hand misquote as if it was from the original text.

Another related idea that Jorge needs to chew on is that the opinion or conjecture of a scientist is not science.

At best Jorge could say that Crick's(?) prediction that no function would ever be discovered was an hypothesis that was later falsified.

But then Jorge doesn't comprehend how science works.

K54

[Roy]

No, Jorge. What I want is very simple; it's what I've wanted all along, and what I've asked for repeatedly. I want you to tell me what was false in my post. I don't want you to insult me. I don't want you to tell me why some other statement that I could have made would have been wrong, or why someone else was wrong about something. I don't want to know how much smarter than me you are. I just want to know what was false in my post. You know -- the one that you said was false.

Get used to disappointment.

Roy

[Roy]

Another related idea that Jorge needs to chew on is that the opinion or conjecture of a scientist is not science.

Have fun stormin' da castle.

Roy

[klaus54]

Have fun stormin' da castle.

Roy

Well, the abusus usum shtick is running out of steam, so we need to anticipate the next Bingo square.

K54

[sfs1]

Get used to disappointment.

Roy

He's really very short on charm.

[rogue06]

He's really very short on charm.

"Short on" implies that there is some. ECREE.

[sfs1]

"Short on" implies that there is some. ECREE.

It was a quotation.

[rogue06]

It was a quotation.

Yeah, I know. Princess Bride. I'm just being a smart ass.

[sfs1]

Yeah, I know. Princess Bride. I'm just being a smart ass.

At least you showed a little class.

<No more rhymes now, I mean it!>