Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3
Two recent news articles are discussing the death of the junk-DNA icon of Neo-Darwinism. Wired Magazine has an article pejoratively titled "One Scientist's Junk Is a Creationist's Treasure" that emphasizes the positive point that intelligent design has made successful predictions on the question of "junk-DNA." The article reports:
[A] surprising group is embracing the results: intelligent-design advocates. Since the early '70s, many scientists have believed that a large amount of many organisms' DNA is useless junk. But recently, genome researchers are finding that these "noncoding" genome regions are responsible for important biological functions.
The Wired Magazine article then quotes Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer explaining that this is a prediction of intelligent design that was largely unexpected under neo-Darwinian thought:
"It is a confirmation of a natural empirical prediction or expectation of the theory of intelligent design, and it disconfirms the neo-Darwinian hypothesis," said Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
The Wired Magazine article openly and unashamedly confuses intelligent design with creationism, but it does admit that ID proponents are making positive predictions about the scientific data:
Advocates like Meyer are increasingly latching onto scientific evidence to support the theory of intelligent design, a modern arm of creationism that claims life is not the result of natural selection but of an intelligent creator. Most scientists believe that intelligent design is not science. But Meyer says the opossum data supports intelligent design's prediction that junk DNA sequences aren't random, but important genetic material. It's an argument Meyer makes in his yet-to-be-published manuscript, The DNA Enigma.
Another article in the Washington Post similarly discusses the death of the junk-DNA paradigm of Neo-Darwinism:
The first concerted effort to understand all the inner workings of the DNA molecule is overturning a host of long-held assumptions about the nature of genes and their role in human health and evolution. ... The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion "letters" of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.
(Rick Weiss, "Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle," Washington Post, June 14, 2007)
The Washington Post article explains that scientists are finally "being forced to pay attention to our non-gene DNA sequences." What were the consequences of their failure to suspect function for junk-DNA? The article explains how there may be real-world medical consequences of the failure to presume function for non-coding DNA:
But much of it seems to be playing crucial roles: regulating genes, keeping chromosomes properly packaged or helping to control the spectacularly complicated process of cell division, which is key to life and also is at the root of cancer. .... [S]everal recent studies have found that people are more likely to have Type 2 diabetes and other diseases if they have small mutations in non-gene parts of their DNA that were thought to be medically irrelevant.
Could neo-Darwinism have stopped science from investigating the causes of these medical problems?
Intelligent Design has Long Predicted This Day Proponents of intelligent design have long maintained that Neo-Darwinism's widely held assumption that our cells contain much genetic "junk" is both dangerous to the progress of science and wrong. As I explain here, design theorists recognize that "Intelligent agents typically create functional things," and thus Jonathan Wells has suggested, "From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk'." [4] Design theorists have thus been predicting the death of the junk-DNA paradigm for many years:
As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this sentiment in First Things:
[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.
(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))
In 2002, Dr. Richard Sternberg surveyed the literature and found extensive evidence for function of certain types of junk-DNA and argued that "neo-Darwinian 'narratives' have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes."[1] Sternberg concluded that "the selfish DNA narrative and allied frameworks must join the other ‘icons’ of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that, despite their variance with empirical evidence, nevertheless persist in the literature.”[2]
Soon thereafter, an article in Scientific American explained that “the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes ... ‘were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.’” John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia was then quoted saying this might have been “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”[3]
The next year, in 2004, pro-ID molecular biologist Jonathan Wells argued that "The fact that ‘junk DNA’ is not junk has emerged not because of evolutionary theory but in spite of it. On the other hand, people asking research questions in an ID framework would presumably have been looking for the functions of non-coding regions of DNA all along, and we might now know considerably more about them."[4]
Then in 2005, Sternberg and leading geneticist James A. Shapiro conclude that “one day, we will think of what used to be called ‘junk DNA’ as a critical component of truly ‘expert’ cellular control regimes.”[5] It seems that day may have come.
It seems beyond dispute that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm led to a false presumption that non-coding DNA lacks function, and that this presumption has resulted in real-world negative consequences for molecular biology and even for medicine. Moreover, it can no longer seriously be maintained that intelligent design is a science stopper: under an intelligent design approach to investigating non-coding DNA, the false presumptions of Neo-Darwinism might have been avoided.
Citations:
[1] Forrest Mims, Rejected Letter to the Editor to Science, December 1, 1994.
[2] Richard v. Sternberg, "On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic– Epigenetic System," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 981: 154–188 (2002).
[3] Wayt T. Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk,” Scientific American (Nov. 2003).
[4] Jonathan Wells, “Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, 3.1.2 (Nov. 2004).
[5] Richard v. Sternberg and James A. Shapiro, “How Repeated Retroelements format genome function,” Cytogenetic and Genome Research, Vol. 110: 108–116 (2005).
AKA brainwashing. That is precisely what Richard Dawkins et al are doing when they use our public schools to brainwash OUR children into believing that the very living things that “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design” are but an illusion. If that isn’t false religion, I don’t know what is!
Oh, yeah, preventing IDers from doing actual, original and relevant scientific research advancing ID. The gatekeepers we evilutionists assign to this task is based on the difficulty. Currently we have one small boy and his puppy dog handling this. Part time.
I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.
If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.
That would make it even harder for ID to replace the new theory of evolution.
The one thing that is preventing ID from "becoming a mainstream scientific research project" is that it is inspired by religious belief, not science! The vast majority of ID proponents are Christian creationists, who believe the Bible is the ultimate authority. When they try to do science it is transparently obvious where their beliefs lie, and their beliefs are not in the scientific method.
Look at your own FR name: GodGunsGuts. It is not IDGunsGuts, or ScienceGunsGuts.
A significant percentage of folks who argue for ID also quote scripture, suggest those who support the theory of evolution are destined to hell, and exhibit other characteristics which suggest that it is not science, but pushing religion, that is their primary motivation.
Why should we believe for a minute that ID is anything more than creation "science" warmed over after the Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s?
==And if there was so much scientific evidence for ID, the Discovery Institute would not be running a PR campaign instead of conducting scientific research.
I hate to break it to you, but that’s the way the real world works. Both sides are engaged in intense PR campaigns. One side is holding on for dear life, while the other side is trying to become mainstream. What do you think “Darwin’s bulldog” was doing when he was going around trying to sell Darwin’s theory of origins?
==If the theory of evolution is disproved, it will be by another scientific theory. That is unlikely, but possible.
Not true. It is possible to falsify bad science with good science without ever having to provide an explanation of the same. For instance, there have been a number of diseases that were thought to be contagious that were proved to be non-contagious without knowing the underlying cause of the disease (ie scurvy, pallegra, beri-beri, etc). This kind of thing happens all the time in science. And in many cases, science cannot provide the explanation until much later.
Not true. It is possible to falsify bad science with good science without ever having to provide an explanation of the same. For instance, there have been a number of diseases that were thought to be contagious that were proved to be non-contagious without knowing the underlying cause of the disease (ie scurvy, pallegra, beri-beri, etc). This kind of thing happens all the time in science. And in many cases, science cannot provide the explanation until much later.
Causes for specific diseases are not well-supported theories, as is the theory of evolution. Your comparison is not accurate.
To overturn the theory of evolution, it will require a competing scientific theory with more explanatory power, power to explain facts which the theory of evolution cannot explain. It will require a theory with better predictive power.
Hint: ID is not even close to being a scientific theory. For the most part it is not even science.
Lets try a test! What is the opinion of ID on these questions: How may IDers where there, and what is the basis for your answer? When did ID occur, and what is the basis for your answer?
My screenname is DESIGNED to emphasize that God, guns and guts made America free—and that includes the freedom to pursue science. And while there are many benefits of science, science did not make America free. Science is but a tool used to investigate the nature of things, and thus infinitely inferior to nature’s God.
==To overturn the theory of evolution, it will require a competing scientific theory with more explanatory power, power to explain facts which the theory of evolution cannot explain. It will require a theory with better predictive power.
Wrong again. All you need to do is falsify Darwin’s theory of origins. There’s no need to replace it. Although, it would by definition mean that we are closer to replacing it if only by process of elimination.
My screenname is DESIGNED to emphasize that God, guns and guts made America free—and that includes the freedom to pursue science. And while there are many benefits of science, science did not make America free. Science is but a tool used to investigate the nature of things, and thus infinitely inferior to nature’s God.
Exactly! I realize that this where your belief lies. That is why I can't accept that you really support ID as a scientific study separate from creationism.
You realize that for IDers, intelligent aliens are equal to some "unnamed designer" or the Christian Deity, don't you? That is what they tell us! "We're looking for design, but we don't know (wink, wink) who the designer is!"
Do you begin to see why those of us who actually study the theory of evolution can't take ID seriously? It's religion in a new package, trying to sneak into the science classes where creationism and then creation "science" failed.
==Hint: ID is not even close to being a scientific theory.
Again, there is no need for ID to comprehensively explain the origin of life. If all ID does is find incidences of design in nature, that’s enough. SETI does not seek to to explain the origin of species, and yet it is considered a scientific research project. And besides, ID disproves Darwinian evolution every time it shows that design is a better explanation for any given biological phenomena.
I agree. The theory of evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life either.
If all ID does is find incidences of design in nature, that’s enough.
False! Finding design in nature is easy. Look at snowflakes! That does not prove a designer. You have a major step to fill in there.
SETI does not seek to to explain the origin of species, and yet it is considered a scientific research project.
?????? That is a pretty disconnected statement. Why should SETI explain the origin of species when the theory of evolution handles that quite well? SETI is just looking for signals of a kind that are known to associate with our own civilization, under the assumption that those signals would signify intelligent civilizations elsewhere. What does that have to do with the origin of species?
And besides, ID disproves Darwinian evolution every time it shows that design is a better explanation for any given biological phenomena.
And it has yet to come even close. ID is simply religion lite, and it's not fooling anybody.
When you resort to personal insults, you pretty much admit that you cannot argue the facts on their merits. So much of Evolution has been exposed as fraud and charlatanry that I'm surprised anyone still arguing its validity would dare pose as an academic at all.
While there is ample evidence for Creation, there exists no evidence whatever for Evolution. None.
;-/
Wrong. The theory of evolution has been extended to attempt to explain the origin of life. Ever hear of the so-called pre-biotic soup?
==False! Finding design in nature is easy. Look at snowflakes! That does not prove a designer. You have a major step to fill in there.
I’m not even going to dignify your sophomoric example with an answer. I suggest you study up on ID before attempting to link non-informational order with the requirements of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
==SETI is just looking for signals of a kind that are known to associate with our own civilization, under the assumption that those signals would signify intelligent civilizations elsewhere.
They are looking for evidence of intelligence in the universe in much the same way that ID searches for intelligence in nature. Again, study up on ID before making such claims.
==And it has yet to come even close. ID is simply religion lite, and it’s not fooling anybody.
I’m not sure what planet you flew in from, but by my count ID (and Creation Science) is disproving Darwinian evolution left and right.
When "Nova" showed up to film the discovery, the producers scrapped the footage because it so plainly disproved any notion of Evolution being credible.
Kind of makes Evolutionists look silly, since it is an unimpeachable geoligical record of humans existing right alongside the same creatures which The Theory of Evolution insists all died out "over 60 million years ago..."
Get a grip. Your religion (Evolution) is built upon lies. The Biblical record is unbroken and accurately goes back to the beginning of all time (between 8,000-10,000 years).
;-/
After your last post it is clear we have no rational basis for discussion. Good night.
Correction: “geological”
You've got that right! Good night.
;-/
exactly.
As I said before, may your night be as peaceful as the night Guillermo Gonzalez learned his tenure was denied by the Church of Darwin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.