← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 19171 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2005-07-16
2005-07-16 13:06 | User Profile
[url]http://creationsafaris.com/crev200507.htm#20050715b[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=5]The Death of the Concept of ââ¬ÅJunk DNAââ¬Â [/SIZE]
[B]07/15/2005 [/B]
ââ¬ÅGod donââ¬â¢t make no junkââ¬Â has been a slogan for the self-esteem movement, and now no less than Science Now is providing support at the genetic level. [B]ââ¬ÅDonââ¬â¢t call it junkââ¬Â the article announces, indicating that stretches of non-coding DNA are apparently not useless regions of material as previously believed, but vital to the regulation of the gene-coding regions[/B].
[B]Studies by geneticists at UC Santa Cruz have shown that ââ¬ÅThe more complex the organism, the more important junk DNA seems to be.ââ¬Â [/B] Some of these non-coding regions are identical in mice and men. This discovery, made last year (see 11/26/2004), hinted that these geneless regions were important, otherwise neutral mutations should have accumulated in them during the course of evolution. Now, comparisons between five vertebrates, four insects, two worms and seven species of yeast have revealed a pattern that complexity correlates with the amount of ââ¬Åjunk DNA.ââ¬Â This suggests that ââ¬Åthe regions might contain important regulatory switches that control basic biochemistry and development, which might help organisms build sophisticated bodies.ââ¬Â
Although the re-evaluation of non-coding DNA that views it as functionally important is not yet universally shared among geneticists (see 12/10/2004 entry), this latest revelation appears convincing to many. [B] The new paradigm is summed up in the photo caption in the article: ââ¬ÅTrash is treasure[/B].ââ¬Â [/COLOR]
[COLOR=DarkGreen]It bears repeating what we have said for years about this (06/03/2004 and 10/16/2003): the concept of ââ¬Åjunk DNAââ¬Â was a useless dead end that resulted from evolutionary thinking. [B]It is similar to the now-outmoded concept of ââ¬Åvestigial organsââ¬Â used for decades as proof of evolution: the idea that the wasteful process of evolution left relics of junk in our bodies. This viewpoint actually delayed the progress of science.[/B] It prevented research into the function of the appendix, tonsils, pineal gland, coccyx, pituitary gland and other body parts now known to be useful and even vital for life and health. [B]How long has fruitful research into the genetic function of non-coding DNA been delayed by the concept of ââ¬Åjunk DNAââ¬Â? [/B] Who would want to waste time looking at junk?
An intelligent-design approach to non-coding DNA would have been entirely different. [B]An ID scientist would say there must be a reason for it. Just because its function is unknown does not mean there is no function. [/B] The burden is on the scientist to figure it out, not on nature to explain itself. Like a puzzle fanatic trying to solve the latest crossword, such a scientist would be motivated to search and discover the function of the phenomenon, and might have found the secret of gene regulation much sooner.
[B]The paradigm shift in progress about so-called junk DNA provides a classic rebuttal to the argument that intelligent design theory would shut down scientific progress. Most anticreationist rhetoric includes the charge that ID brings scientific explanation to a halt with the quick explanation, ââ¬ÅGod did it that way.ââ¬Â Here we have seen that the contrary is true.[/B] Evolution labeled genetic treasure as ââ¬Åtrash,ââ¬Â and possibly delayed our understanding of non-coding DNA for years. We shouldnââ¬â¢t let the Darwinists get away with claiming credit for the turnaround.* They caused the delay. If Darwinist Esaus want to continue to treat nature like trash, ID Jacobs will be glad to take possession of their hand-offs.
*Nor should we let them get away with taking back these newly-revalued treasures for trophies in their museums of evolution. Evolutionary theory did not predict highly-conserved regulatory elements that are identical in extremely different organisms: the inexorable force of mutation and selection should have caused wide differences between them. Darwinists are masters of deception, taking every observation, no matter how unexpected, as support. Itââ¬â¢s time to force them to face up to what amounts to a falsification of their beliefs. [/COLOR]
2005-07-16 18:50 | User Profile
This is more proof that extreme Darwinism is essentially a religion.
2005-07-16 21:17 | User Profile
An intelligent-design approach to non-coding DNA would have been entirely different. An ID scientist would say there must be a reason for it. Just because its function is unknown does not mean there is no function. I wonder what the function is behind the birth of twins conjoined at the head, or babies born with ghastly birth defects.
Oh, that's right -- these babies, who have never even committed any acts at all, much less sinned, are being punished for Adam's and Eve's sin. That makes sense. But I guess we weren't meant to understand it, so we just have to take it on faith. :rolleyes:
Anyway, no one claims to understand all of genetics yet. Just because some DNA that wasn't formerly thought to have a function turns out to have some purpose -- if that does turn out to be true -- that hardly disproves evolution. The above piece is typical of creationist pseudoscientists, who continually cite aspects of evolutionary science that aren't yet fully understood as "evidence" that evolution is flawed.
All organisms WERE designed -- by natural selection. No real scientist disputes that. Maybe some God had a hand in it, but it sure wasn't the Jewish Tribal God of the Christians.
2005-07-16 21:24 | User Profile
[url]http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1738195,00.html[/url]
'Science cannot be stopped' George Claassen 15/07/2005 09:03 - (SA)
Real life is sometimes stranger than fiction, yet fiction quite often provides more accessible insight and clarity about human behaviour than scientists can hope to achieve.
The reason is that scientists too regularly forget how to tell the exciting story of their discoveries in laymen's terms.
The sometimes astonishing, even downright rude and uninformed reaction by some readers of this column, who absolutely refuse to believe in reason and scientific findings and rather prefer to continue their faith in pseudoscientific nonsense, has led me to the world of fiction to emphasise the importance of reason in our lives.
We are the only species on Earth possessing the faculty of reason, yet it is the most under-utilised tool and mechanism in our armour to keep superstition and other absurdities at bay.
In Goethe's Faust Mephistopheles disguises himself in Faust's academic attire so that he could answer the questions of a fawning student whom Faust refuses to speak to.
Strange beliefs
Mephistopheles's muttered advice reminds me of all the people still believing in astrology, homeopathy, auras around us that "influence" our moods and actions, telepathy, telekinese, bleeding statues, spoon benders, telephone calls from the dead, abduction by extraterrestrials, numerology, the prophecies of Nostradamus or any other so-called prophet, Big Foot, reiki, people recovering their hidden past lives, comets that can influence our lives, energy fields through which "experts" can heal others, prophets who can cure the blind, deaf and ill, UFO-believers (read Carl Sagan's The Demon-haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark for a more comprehensive list of strange beliefs).
Scoff at all knowledge and despise Reason and science, those flowers of mankind. Let the father of all lies With dazzling necromancy make you blind, Then I'll have you unconditionally. (the translation is that of Carlyle F MacIntyre).
People simply do not believe in accidents when something happens to them.
They must find an obscure reason why it happened to them and quite often give their religious fancy the blame ("it's God's will," is the most often heard explanation), although they have no evidence of it.
The philosopher David Hume said, "In proportion as any man's course of life is governed by accident, we always find that he increases in superstition".
A recent example of this mindset of rejection of scientific findings because it clashes with our pre-conceived beliefs, occurred when scientists from the Digital Evolution Laboratory at Michigan State University in East Lansing used a software programme called Avida to simulate Darwin's evolutionary theory.
Darwin's theory
In a fascinating article, "Testing Darwin", in the February 2005 edition of Discover, Carl Zimmer writes that Avida "makes it possible to watch the random mutation and natural selection of digital organisms unfold over millions of generations. In the process, it is beginning to shed light on some of the biggest questions of evolution."
One of the age-old arguments against evolution is that a complex system such as the human eye or ear could not have evolved from simpler precursors.
"To test Darwin's idea that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors, the Avida team set up rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones.
The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16 000 generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times", writes Zimmer, whose brilliant book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, is one of the best ever written on the subject.
"Avida beat the odds. In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation."
After the Avida researchers, that included biologists, published their findings, creationists tried their utmost to discredit the scientific findings.
One can understand their fears: the Avida results proved once and for all that their arguments that life was designed by an intelligent designer because complex things like the eye could never have evolved, were wrong.
"What we show is that there are irreducibly complex things and they can evolve," one of the scientists, Chris Adami of Caltech, told Zimmer.
His article - and for that matter his book - should be read by every person still clinging to their absurd anti-evolution propagations, despite the evidence scientists produce for evolution every day.
"Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold," wrote one of the most prolific science writers, Isaac Asimov.
Science cannot be stopped, not by superstition, not by fear, not by creationists and pseudoscientists readily providing the security blankets, the thumbs to suck, and the skirts of creationism and unscientific therapies and beliefs to hold on.
It is time reason reclaims its rightful place in human endeavours. Without it, ignorance reigns. Or are we not living in the 21st century?
2005-07-16 21:40 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "A recent example of this mindset of rejection of scientific findings because it clashes with our pre-conceived beliefs, occurred when scientists from the Digital Evolution Laboratory at Michigan State University in East Lansing used a software programme called Avida to simulate Darwin's evolutionary theory."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Oh PUHLEEZE. Yet another [B]computer programme[/B] - a product of [I]highly conscious design [/I] - that is supposed to prove blind, spontaneous evolution!
(and this is the only concrete part of Claassen's, short, blustering piece)
Here is some info on these evolutionist computer-games:
[COLOR=DarkGreen]"The aggressively atheistic biology professor Richard Dawkins, in his very influential book [I]The Blind Watchmaker[/I], describes how he used a very simple 'replicating and mutating' program to get various shapes on the screen. He became very excited that he could evolve 'something like an insect', describing his 'feeling of exultation as I first watched these creatures emerging before my eyes.'
[B]"However, agnostic science journalist Richard Milton, in his recent anti-evolutionary book, points out that these shapes 'do not correspond [I]in any way at all [/I] with living things, except the purely trivial way that he sees some resemblance in their shapes' (emphasis in original).3 [/B] And it is Dawkins who is playing the role of Creator, since he chooses which ones are the most promising. Dawkins admits that he bred each generation 'from whichever child looked most like an insect'. As Milton says, 'That is why they have ended up looking like recognisable images from his memory.'4 [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/computer.asp[/url]
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "His article - and for that matter his book - should be read by every person still clinging to their absurd anti-evolution propagations, despite the evidence scientists produce for evolution every day."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Claassen's own unscientific tone of voice of clearly that of a fanatic. Evo-propagandists like him often have no idea how childish, petty and vindictive they sound.
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "Science cannot be stopped, not by superstition, not by fear, not by creationists and pseudoscientists readily providing the security blankets, the thumbs to suck, and the skirts of creationism and unscientific therapies and beliefs to hold on."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Mere nervous whistling-past-the-graveyard posturing, and once again evolutionist speculation is made synonymous with "science".
Petr
2005-07-16 21:44 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Red][B][I] - "All organisms WERE designed -- by natural selection."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
"Natural selection" does not "design" anything. You are using crudely theleological language about an abstraction.
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "Maybe some God had a hand in it, but it sure wasn't the Jewish Tribal God of the Christians."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Ah, you are blatantly mixing your own subjective theological-emotional preferences into a biological discussion. Shows how you are not nearly as scientifically objective in these issues as you'd like to believe.
Petr