Replies

Danny Denier: "The 2012 ENCODE report stated 80% is functional, which means 80% is constrained."

Says Danny Denier, but not ENCODE.
According to your own quotes, ENCODE says no more than ~10% of human DNA is "constrained" by... by... by... what?
By evolution.

And Danny Denier tells us this is proof positive there is no evolution.

Danny Denier: "Of course my statements agree with ENCODE.
I quote them directly to make certain there is no misunderstanding among scientists.
If you were a scientist you would know that."

And yet you've never posted quotes from ENCODE agreeing with you that 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by... by... right, by evolution!

Danny Denier: "If it is functional, it is constrained."

A claim not supported by any quote from Danny Denier.

Danny Denier: "Why do you continue to obsfuscate, Alinsky Joe?
You have already been exposed as scientifically-challenged?"

Why do you continue to lie, Danny Denier?
You have already been exposed as truth-challenged.

Danny Denier: "LOL! Think of the two as your arm and fingers, Joey. "

I'll have to add your response here as yet another Denier Rule, Danny's 3 D's: divert, distract & dissemble.

Danny Denier: "Functional means constrained, or conserved, or restrained.
Non-functional means it is free to evolve.
Pouyet found that only 5% can randomly evolve.
Doing the math, we find that 100% - 5% = 95% that cannot evolve = 95% is constrained."

Nowhere does any Denier quote necessarily equate "functional" and "constrained", they are two separate issues.
Further the claim of 95% "functional" is totally bogus because the quote actually says 95% in some way "influenced by" "functional" DNA which itself is circa 10%.

"This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes"

No Danny Denier quote has claimed 95% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by evolution, or that this would somehow make evolution impossible.

Danny Denier: "Did you miss the Fay & Wu article I quoted?

"Functional DNA sequences should be conserved over time..."

First, "should be" means theoretically, not what's actually been observed.
Second, that quote does not say 95% of DNA is either "functional" or "conserved" by evolution and Danny's failure, after all this time, to post such a quote suggests you are drawing conclusions far beyond what the data allows.

Further, we now have a whole menagerie of Danny-terms which may, or may not apply to the same physical conditions:

"evolutionary constraint"
"selective restraint"
"highly conserved"
"conserved in a lineage dependent manner"
"influenced"
"non-neutral"
"background selection"
"biased gene conversion"
"bias demographic inferences"

Nowhere in Danny's quotes are such terms defined or necessarily equated.

Danny Denier: "As any normal person can see, I agree 100% that ENCODE is right and evolution is wrong, but that is not Graur's context.
Graur believes ENCODE is wrong, therefore I am not in agreement with him; and anyone claiming I agree with Graur on that point is lying (hint, Alinsky Joe.)"

Nonsense, your dissembling here notwithstanding, you agree 100% with Graur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution is wrong.
But you also claim ENCODE said 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by evolution, though no quote you've posted supports that directly.

Then Pouyet's Swiss Institute report found that 95% of DNA is "influenced" by what... by evolution?
No, not by evolution, they said, but rather by other functional DNA, which itself makes up circa 10%.

Seriously, Danny boy, for all I know you may well have legitimate quotes which say exactly what you claim here.
But so far I haven't seen them.

Danny Denier: "For the record, evolution is 100% false, with our without the ENCODE data."

Right, for the record, Danny boy agrees with Graur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be false, but disagrees with ENCODE that evolution is right.

Got that?

Danny Denier: "LOL! You are a hopeless case, Joey."

That is DD's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier: "Joe's theology is similar to that of the constitutional usurpers Jefferson warned us about::"

That's nothing more than DD's use of Denier Rule: divert, distract & dissemble.

Danny Denier: "Joey's version of science must be squeezed out of the biblical text, or invented against it.
The actual words of the Bible, themselves, are meaningless, to Joey."

Just more of DD's use of Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

>>Danny Denier: "The 2012 ENCODE report stated 80% is functional, which means 80% is constrained."
>>Delusional Joey said, "Says Danny Denier, but not ENCODE. According to your own quotes, ENCODE says no more than ~10% of human DNA is "constrained" by... by... by... what? By evolution. And Danny Denier tells us this is proof positive there is no evolution. >>Danny Denier: "Of course my statements agree with ENCODE. I quote them directly to make certain there is no misunderstanding among scientists. If you were a scientist you would know that."
>>Delusional Joey said, "And yet you've never posted quotes from ENCODE agreeing with you that 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by... by... right, by evolution!

I see you are going to beat this dead horse flat unless you understand my point, so let's try another way.

In 2012, ENCODE claimed 80% of the genome is biochemically functional, which means 80% is constrained, which means 80% cannot evolve because it is necessary for the operations of the organism, in one manner or another. The following statement is from a report on the ENCODE report by Ed Yong of Discover Magazine:

"According to ENCODE's analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a 'biochemical function'. More on exactly what this means later, but the key point is: It's not 'junk'. Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function, and more and more solid examples have come to light [edited for clarity – Ed]. But, many maintained that much of these sequences were, indeed, junk. ENCODE says otherwise. 'Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more,' says Tom Gingeras, one of the study's many senior scientists. And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described 'cat-herder-in-chief'. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. 'It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,' says Birney. 'We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful.'" [Ed Yong, "ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome." Discover Magazine, Sept 5, 2012]

So, in 2012, ENCODE's Lead Analysis Coordinator, Ewan Birney, claimed 80% of the genome was functional, and will probably go to 100%. Perhaps the confusion lies in the definition of "functional", which is mentioned later in Yong's report, as follows:

"To get from 20 to 80 percent, we include all the other elements that ENCODE looked for – not just the sequences that have proteins latched onto them, but those that affects how DNA is packaged and those that are transcribed at all. Birney says, '[That figure] best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity.'

"That 80 percent covers many classes of sequence that were thought to be essentially functionless. These include introns – the parts of a gene that are cut out at the RNA stage, and don't contribute to a protein's manufacture. 'The idea that introns are definitely deadweight isn't true,' says Birney. The same could be said for our many repetitive sequences: small chunks of DNA that have the ability to copy themselves, and are found in large, recurring chains. These are typically viewed as parasites, which duplicate themselves at the expense of the rest of the genome. Or are they?

"The youngest of these sequences – those that have copied themselves only recently in our history – still pose a problem for ENCODE. But many of the older ones, the genomic veterans, fall within the 'functional' category. Some contain sequences where proteins can bind, and influence the activity of nearby genes. Perhaps their spread across the genome represents not the invasion of a parasite, but a way of spreading control. 'These parasites can be subverted sometimes,' says Birney.

"He expects that many skeptics will argue about the 80 percent figure, and the definition of 'functional'. But he says, 'No matter how you cut it, we've got to get used to the fact that there's a lot more going on with the genome than we knew.'"

[Ed Yong, "ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome." Discover Magazine, Sept 5, 2012]

My understanding of the genome is similar to Birney's: if it is actively involved, then it is functional.

Now, from the report by the Swiss team, 6 years later, which conveys a different definition of functionality, sorta:

"The frequencies of some genetic variants can change over time, which makes human populations diverge genetically and physically. This can happen through different mechanisms. Positive selection keeps variants that are beneficial in specific environments, while negative selection removes genetic changes that are detrimental, for example because they cause disease. Transmission bias favors one of the two variants from our two parents. Chance alters the frequencies of neutral variants, which are neither good nor bad for the individual.

"It is important to distinguish between these different scenarios, as they inform us about the forces that act on human evolution. For example, neutral variants tell us about the demography and migration patterns between populations. Variants under negative selection reveal which genetic areas are under pressure to stay the same because they are important for the organism to function correctly. Until now, it was unclear how we could best identify the variants affected by different evolutionary pressures, and how much of the genome was under negative selection.

"Pouyet, Aeschbacher et al. created a measure of genetic diversity that is only affected by selection or transmission bias. The results showed that negative selection influences as much as 85 percent of our genome, whereas transmission bias affects a majority of the rest of the genome. After removing these two biases, less than 5 percent of the human genome is found to evolve by chance. This suggests that while most of our genetic material is formed of non-functional sequences, the vast majority of it evolves indirectly under some type of selection.

[Pouyet et al, "Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences." eLife, Aug 20, 2018]

As you can see, the part that ENCODE labels as "functional," the Swiss labels mostly as either "variants under negative selection", or "variants under transmission bias". The result is the same. The last sentence essentially states, "we haven't a clue how the vast majority of the genome evolves."

The report that seemed to confuse you was this one:

"'What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as"neutral', says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. "This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome", she concludes. These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation." ["A Genome Under Influence: The faulty yardstick in genomics studies and how to cope with it." Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, October 9, 2018]

Don't let the evolutionism mumbo-jumbo fool you, Joey. If a part of the genome is influenced by functional sites, it is also functional in one manner or another, which you can deduce from this statement:

"Variants under negative selection reveal which genetic areas are under pressure to stay the same because they are important for the organism to function correctly."

That, in itself encompasses as much as 85% or the genome. That is essentially what ENCODE was trying to tell you.

A followup report on that report explains some of the previously unexplained:

"According to the popular neutral model of evolutionary theory, much of the human genome is nothing but randomly evolving junk. All of this so-called neutral DNA that is allegedly not under any'selective restraint' only serves as fodder for functional new genes and traits to somehow magically arise and thus provide the engine of evolution... Global data among diverse people groups for DNA sequence variability across the human genome was inputted into a statistical model of neutral evolution. It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, 'What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as 'neutral.'' Oops, so much for human evolution! ... This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions." [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "95% of Human Genome Can't Evolve." Institute for Creation Research, Oct 25, 2018]

In summary, the constrained part of the genome, the part that cold not randomly evolve, went from 80% in 2012, to more than 95% in 2018.

I hope that helps.

Mr. Kalamata