Life's Irreducible Structure (DEBATE THREAD)

CMI ^ | Alex Williams

[metmom]

One good way was that creationists predicted that *junk DNA* would be found to not be junk after all.

And so it has.

[GodGunsGuts]

Another brilliant piece of writing, BP!

==I don’t think the theory at all “disallows” evolution.

Not evolution per se, but certainly naturalistic evolution. I am a Young Earth Creationist myself, and I will be the first to admit that Williams’ argument doesn’t rule out intelligently designed evolution.

==Special creations would require that absolutely everything that exists has to be uniquely fashioned, one at a time.

Actually, special creation, at least as it is understood by modern creationists, does not require that each living system we see today had to be uniquely fashioned. Rather, YECers believe that God created the original created kinds, which have the capacity to change over time *within* the boundaries of that which consitutes the biblical kind. The idea is that the “dog kind” encompasses all dogs, from wolves to chijuajas. Every cat kind encompasses everything from a house cat all the way up to a saber tooth tiger, etc, etc.

[js1138]

Most junk DNA is still junk DNA.

But that isn’t the question under discussion.

You have proposed a couple of things: that some plasticity is front loaded into the genomes of created types — enough to allow some range of adaptation, but not not, as Wallace suggested, “indefinite” adaptation.

There’s a fair bit of work to be done to make this a scientific hypothesis. We know, and have known for a long time, that populations are not infinitely malleable. If they were, there would be no extinction.

So what you need is a description of how front loading works, along with some projection about how current species will respond to change. If the code for adaptation is front loaded, you could perhaps uncover the biochemistry that produces the necessary mutation at the necessary time.

And while you are at it, you could find the mechanism that causes this front loaded adaptation to take hundreds of thousands of generations to appear.

[betty boop]

YECers believe that God created the original created kinds, which have the capacity to change over time *within* the boundaries of that which consitutes the biblical kind. The idea is that the “dog kind” encompasses all dogs, from wolves to chijuajas. Every cat kind encompasses everything from a house cat all the way up to a saber tooth tiger, etc, etc.

Sounds like YECers should find it very easy to accept the Platonic "doctrine" of universal (mathematical) forms. :^) Do you know whether this is the case GGG?

[tacticalogic]

Over 600 posts. And not a single one pulled.

[tpanther]

Are you claiming that Intellegent Design isn't a religious theory? Then can you provide any evidence at all that supports it?

It baffles me to no end you're still asking for "evidence that supports it", when throughout this thread evidence is all around you.

I think the question for many of us now is: "How can one NOT see the evidence"!

[count-your-change]

Junk DNA? Probably not!

“Not ‘Junk DNA’ After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes
ScienceDaily (Oct. 26, 2007) — A study by researchers at the Yale Stem Cell Center for the first time demonstrates that piRNAs, a recently discovered class of tiny RNAs, play an important role in controlling gene function.”

Worth a look.

[js1138]

Get back to me when you have looked up the percentage of non-coding DNA involved in regulation. Most junk is junk.

[js1138]

There’s no such thing a “locally violating the second law of thermodynamics. Work is not a violation of the second law.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Like I said, Williams is obviously not interested in Polanyi’s speculations.

He seems interested in Polanyi's thoughts when he thinks they support his claims.

He focused in on one thing, and one thing only—namely, Polanyi’s contention that:

“The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction.”

And the right direction, says Williams, is intelligent design, because it is the only explanation for life’s origin that “meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.”

I know what Williams says--I read the article, and I've referred back to it several times during this discussion. In my opinion, he hasn't made his case. That statement of Polanyi's certainly doesn't demand ID as an answer.

[ElayneJ]

I think the complexity argument is absolutely convincing - and it just makes sense. I haven’t heard a reasonable argument against it. An illusory construct? I’m trying to understand how that could be. :)

[GodGunsGuts]

==One good way was that creationists predicted that *junk DNA* would be found to not be junk after all...And so it has.

You are absolutely correct. May I suggest reading the following (also written by Alex Williams, as it turns out). Not only does it do away with the neo-Darwinist notion of “junk DNA”, but it would seem that new research is rendering natural selection irrelevant with respect to the vast majority of mutations. You will also be blown away by the startling complexity of DNA, which goes way beyond anything the neo-Darwinists ever dreamed of. Give it a read...I promise, you won’t be disappointed!

A PS to Allmendream, if you recall, I predicted something similar to this would turn out to be the case a couple of years ago. Remember?

“Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism”

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf

[js1138]

I have no answer. There’s no requirement for science to answer every question right now.

[js1138]

It took 200 years from Galileo for Newton to find a general equation describing gravity.

It took another 200 years before Einstein found a more precise description of gravity.

Science is not for the short attention spanned.

[js1138]

“Work is the measure of a quantity that is capable of accomplishing Macroscopic Motion of a System due to the action of a Force over a Distance.”

This is physics, not philosophy.

I have no personal interest in arguing against the philosophical or religious notion that reality is tuned to allow or even promote phenomena like chemical and biological evolution. I don’t argue for them either.

But within the observed range of phenomena studied by physical sciences, we do not find capriciousness. Not so far, anyway.

[count-your-change]

You don't know what its function is, so it must certainly be junk? Nay not so. A review of so-called vestigial organs will easily expose the error of that idea.
Think of what you call junk DNA as being like all the components in your computer, you don't know what all of them do, but the person who designed the machine did, and they serve their purpose.

You do understand the principle?