Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Discovery Institute ^ | June 15, 2007 | Casey Luskin

Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last
Another great article from the Discovery Institute.
1 posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:20 AM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: balch3

Excellent read.


2 posted on 06/16/2007 1:28:28 AM PDT by Dustbunny (The BIBLE - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

So they predicted that there are things that we don’t know and offered no clue as to what they were?...

That’s a brilliant prediction.


3 posted on 06/16/2007 1:32:34 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
[A] surprising group is embracing the results: intelligent-design advocates.
_________________________________________________________

Please tell me how, how does one "embrace a result"?
Agree with, yes I'll go with that, but embrace?? come on...

You embrace your wife, your child, your mother/father not a freakin idea/result/(fill in the blank)

4 posted on 06/16/2007 1:34:01 AM PDT by ThreePuttinDude ()... Hey Lindsay ...I'm one of the Loud ones...and pretty proud of it....()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

In case anyone is curious. A functional definition of Junk DNA is “a section if DNA for which no function is known”.

In other words to “predict” that some of it might do something is not a prediction at all.


5 posted on 06/16/2007 1:47:41 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3; gcruse
Definition of ‘Junk DNA’

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13535

Junk DNA: Noncoding regions of DNA that have no apparent function.

The term “junk DNA” is a disparaging one, expressing some of the disappointment felt by geneticists when they first gazed upon sizable segments of the genetic code and, instead of seeing one wonderful gene after another, they saw a few exons surrounded by vast stretches of “junk DNA.”

Exons are the regions of DNA that contain the code for producing the polypeptide molecules that make up protein. Each exon codes for a specific portion of the complete protein. In humans and some other species, the exons are separated by long regions of junk DNA.

However, junk DNA has been found to be even more conserved than protein-coding regions of the DNA in humans and other mammalian species. The extent of conservation indicates that there is some function for junk DNA that remains to be determined. Junk DNA may prove not to be junk.

6 posted on 06/16/2007 2:28:18 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Typical behavior of the high priests of Evolutionism. Dissenting voices, even from acredited scientists, are not welcome if they aren't drinking the kool-aid.
7 posted on 06/16/2007 3:11:15 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt

Not really, the evo answer to the following question is: JUNK

The question: What is this apparently useless chain of DNA?

Evolutionary theory relied on this being true for 50 years now

Creationism never did.

It is another example of genuine science once again proving evolutionary science is JUNK.


8 posted on 06/16/2007 3:21:30 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

More desperate babbling by the ID-iot crowd. “Junk DNA” is a journalists term.


9 posted on 06/16/2007 4:04:24 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Consider the odds, of randomly occurring, a thousand stars in the universe accurately arranged to spell out a sentence in English, or a billion bits of mater accurately arranged to form a human DNA string.

I just cant help but lump evolutionist together with global warming believers, they have their own religion going.

10 posted on 06/16/2007 4:45:33 AM PDT by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Quite frankly, this article is stupid. Despite what is posted, no one seriously thought that "Junk" DNA was never going to be found to have a function. In fact, there are many, many theories as to what it was, and what it did. We simply didn't know, so a flippant name for it "Junk DNA" was coined, and it caught on because the name was kinda cool. I don't know ANY geneticist that thought it was really Junk, every one I ever talked to about it, had a different idea about what its true purpose was. I had/have my own ideas, but that is based more one some ideas by a Greg Bear, a speculative fiction author (very, very smart guy for just a layman).

But I guess its simply easier to say "Look, the Scientists were wrong, therefore, it was Adam and Eve afterall!"

11 posted on 06/16/2007 4:54:08 AM PDT by Paradox (Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

All I want to know is, am I their father or not their father!


12 posted on 06/16/2007 5:00:20 AM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (This Tagline has been temporarily suspended by order of Col. Chavez.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

When I saw “Junk-DNA” in the title I thought that it was an article about the Houston Crime Lab.


13 posted on 06/16/2007 5:00:20 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude
From the American Heritage Dictionary:

em·brace

..............
4. To take up willingly or eagerly: embrace a social cause.
5. To avail oneself of: "I only regret, in my chilled age, certain occasions and possibilities I didn't embrace" (Henry James).

14 posted on 06/16/2007 5:14:54 AM PDT by Banjoguy (Don't buy Chinese.....you can do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude

“Please tell me how, how does one “embrace a result”?
Agree with, yes I’ll go with that, but embrace?? come on...”

I believe it’s an example of analogous predication. In other words, you don’t literally “embrace a result”, rather you assume a relationship with respect to a result that is analogous in some way to the relationship you assume when you physically embrace a loved-one.


15 posted on 06/16/2007 6:04:33 AM PDT by Ozone34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

I am not an expert in this, but I was always disturbed by the term “junk DNA.” We are only just beginning to understand DNA. It seems presumptous to call a sequence “junk” just because you don’t see its function. To determine that something is useless you first have to know that which is useful. Are the spaces between these words something useful or are they useless? Would someone who was never exposed to reading and writing understand the usefulness of empty spaces between words? Or would the spaces be seen as useless “junk?”


16 posted on 06/16/2007 6:06:27 AM PDT by Wilhelm Tell (True or False? This is not a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell
It seems presumptous to call a sequence “junk” just because you don’t see its function. To determine that something is useless you first have to know that which is useful. Are the spaces between these words something useful or are they useless? Would someone who was never exposed to reading and writing understand the usefulness of empty spaces between words? Or would the spaces be seen as useless “junk?”

Hear! Hear!

17 posted on 06/16/2007 6:14:10 AM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Journalists did not invent the concept of “junk’ DNA. Journalists only repeated what the keepers of the false religion of evolution told them. :)


18 posted on 06/16/2007 7:50:22 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Another great article from the Discovery Institute.

Another steaming pile from the anti-science Discovery Institute.

If anyone is laboring under the delusion that the Discovery Institute has the furtherance of science anywhere in their thoughts, all they need to do is read the Institute's Wedge Strategy.

And one of the greatest lies is that ID is science. Here is what the wedge document says:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Get that part, "replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions?" Just think of all the sciences that would be "replaced" under such a system:


Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.
19 posted on 06/16/2007 8:01:52 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
My my. Aren't we in a tizzy. Your atheistic religious beliefs have been offended.

Get used to it. Here is a news flash for you: Science is not defined as that which confirms atheistic materialism.

20 posted on 06/16/2007 8:16:20 AM PDT by ofwaihhbtn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: balch3
a prediction of intelligent design

Wow! That makes ID a science! BTW, if a watchmaker makes a watch and leaves it on a beach is it a watch before somebody who knows what a watch is finds it?

21 posted on 06/16/2007 8:20:29 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
"The question: What is this apparently useless chain of DNA? Evolutionary theory relied on this being true for 50 years now"

You are saying that science relied on "what is X" being true. That makes no sense by he rules of English grammar much less science.

Are yo sure you wrote that correctly?
22 posted on 06/16/2007 8:24:09 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: balch3
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.

William Dembski, Intelligent Design,1999

23 posted on 06/16/2007 8:43:49 AM PDT by mjp (Live & let live. I don't want to live in Mexico, Marxico, or Muslimico. Statism & high taxes suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt

No, because no one on the side of sanity believed in ‘junk’ DNA, but the evolutionary religion sure did.


24 posted on 06/16/2007 9:03:20 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ofwaihhbtn; Coyoteman

==My my. Aren’t we in a tizzy. Your atheistic religious beliefs have been offended.

He’s not an atheist. He worships the Natural Selection god, and Darwin is his prophet.


25 posted on 06/16/2007 9:12:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"The Wired Magazine article openly and unashamedly confuses intelligent design with creationism,"

They're the same thing. Nothing to be ashamed of here. The article also sounds like talking about it is something that should be in the closet like homosexuality. I guess I'm "outed" every time I talk about ID being the same as creationism.

26 posted on 06/16/2007 9:18:57 AM PDT by DaGman (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Evolution is a theory

G-d is a hypothesis

27 posted on 06/16/2007 9:19:13 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==Geology—those fools can’t get the age of the Grand Canyon right. GONE!

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

==Radiometric dating—those fools can’t get the dating right either. GONE!

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html


28 posted on 06/16/2007 9:20:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
"No, because no one on the side of sanity believed in ‘junk’ DNA, but the evolutionary religion sure did."

The definition of Junk DNA is "a section of DNA for which there is no known function"

Unless you can specify the function of every single piece of DNA, then by definition it is unknown.

I don't think you really understand the words you are using.

I recommend reading through this overview and trying again.
29 posted on 06/16/2007 9:23:54 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: balch3

It’s impossible to read phrases like “Neo-Darwinian Paradigm” and take the author seriously.


30 posted on 06/16/2007 9:24:12 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (When's MY turn? What crimes may I commit and recieve amnesty for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==Biology—they started that evilution stuff and figured out how the eye really developed. GONE!

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

==Biology—they started that evilution stuff and figured out how the eye really developed. GONE!

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html


31 posted on 06/16/2007 9:24:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"==Geology...GONE!...==Radiometric dating...GONE!...==Biology...GONE!"

OK, so you have now dismissed Biology, Geology and Chemistry.

Is there any science you do accept?
32 posted on 06/16/2007 9:28:46 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ndt

then why has it been labeled junk? Now scientists are seeing that there is some function to that part of the dna. In many cases darwinists assume they know and then go out and teach that mislead assumption only to find that they don’t know. Some of the trully most stupid people are those who think they know so much and it has become a way to deny their wordless conscience.


33 posted on 06/16/2007 9:30:46 AM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==Paleontology—millions of inconvenient fossils that are all fakes. GONE!

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html

==If anyone is laboring under the delusion that the Discovery Institute has the furtherance of science anywhere in their thoughts, all they need to do is read the Institute’s Wedge Strategy.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/truthscienceevolution.html


34 posted on 06/16/2007 9:32:24 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ThreePuttinDude

Please tell me how, how does one "embrace a result"? Agree with, yes I'll go with that, but embrace?? come on...

It's the touchy-feely cult.

35 posted on 06/16/2007 9:35:34 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fabian
"then why has it been labeled junk?"

It is labeled "Junk DNA" and that has a specific definition and is not synonymous with "junk", although admittedly it is sometimes referred to as "junk" because the author assumes (it appears incorrectly) the reader understands the meaning of "Junk DNA".

In science it is impossible to say something "can't possibly" do something. There is always the assumption that a new discovery will change things.

"Now scientists are seeing that there is some function to that part of the dna. "

Not only have they suspected that some of it does something, I personally have been involved in projects trying to figure out what some of it does and that was 6-7 years ago.
36 posted on 06/16/2007 9:37:32 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ndt
I didn’t say that, Coyoteman said it. Far from throwing these scientific disciplines out, I posted links demonstrating that there is a growing body of evidence that contradicts the Church of Darwin in virtually every one of Coyoteman’s faith-based assertions.
37 posted on 06/16/2007 9:37:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ndt

OK, so you have now dismissed Biology, Geology and Chemistry.

Is there any science you do accept?

Sort of confirms my point, eh? If fundamentalists ever take over significant control of this country, I believe many or most sciences will be trashed.

Remember, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."


Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.


38 posted on 06/16/2007 9:38:07 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ndt
"So they predicted that there are things that we don’t know and offered no clue as to what they were?... That’s a brilliant prediction."

Sounds to me as though they predicted that the things we don't know are just as important as the things we think we do know.
That it is foolish, in fact dangerous, to ignore them.
And that it is disingenuous to ignore them because the prevailing bias has relegated them to 'junk'.

It might not be brilliant, but it certainly is appropriate.

39 posted on 06/16/2007 9:41:57 AM PDT by norton (apologies in advance if this is a double post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
...Coyoteman said it. Far from throwing these scientific disciplines out, I posted links demonstrating that there is a growing body of evidence that contradicts the Church of Darwin in virtually every one of Coyoteman’s faith-based assertions.

I have examined a lot of those links, especially in fields I know well. They do not stand up to critical examination.

You are aware, I assume, that many creation "scientists" calibrate the radiocarbon method by reference to a global flood? Some even assume wildly changing rates of beta decay before and after the fall? I am not impressed by that kind of "science."

40 posted on 06/16/2007 9:43:19 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: norton
"Sounds to me as though they predicted that the things we don't know are just as important as the things we think we do know."

If scientists didn't already think that they would not be working so hard to discover new things. It's wasn't a prediction, it was a statement of accepted fact.
41 posted on 06/16/2007 9:55:27 AM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

Actually, if life is designed, then true science is by definition consonant with theistic convictions. Even Richard Dawkins is forced to admit that living things “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design.” In short, ID merely seeks to apply science to the investigation of Dawkin’s very own admission.

42 posted on 06/16/2007 9:55:55 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I believe this thread is about ID, not Creation Science. And if the links I posted do not stand up to critical examination, feel free to critically examine them.


43 posted on 06/16/2007 9:58:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ndt

well, junk is a very predjudiced and inaccurate description of something that scientists are still searching for the function of.


44 posted on 06/16/2007 10:03:57 AM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ndt

I don’t need to read anymore, actually, for a simple textbook definition can be rewritten by whoever holds the typewriter, and the use of the term has always been more than the simple phrase of “ DNA that exists that we do not know the usage for”, it has always had the context that it is an evolutionary leftover.

Just like the Appendix used to.

And Tonsils, too.


45 posted on 06/16/2007 10:04:32 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Oh, here’s another inconvenient fossil that has the Church of Darwin’s collective panties in a twist (also see the Carbon 14 link at the bottom...the Darwinist assumptions are piling up faster than geocentric epicycles):

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html


46 posted on 06/16/2007 10:13:43 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I believe this thread is about ID, not Creation Science. And if the links I posted do not stand up to critical examination, feel free to critically examine them.

I have posted critiques on many occasions, particularly regarding radiocarbon dating. I have convinced nobody here because in spite of what is claimed, ID is creation "science" with the serial numbers filed off in an attempt to sneak it into science classes.

If ID and creation "science" were about science, then facts, logic, and reason -- scientific evidence -- would prevail. What shows that ID and creation "science" are both religion is that belief (scripture or revelation) prevails over scientific evidence.

Those links you posted are good evidence of this, as are several creationist/creation "science" websites. Look up the Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Studies Institute, and Answers In Genesis and see what their Statement of Belief, Tenets of Scientific Creationism, Mission, and Statement of Faith are (respectively). I can provide links if you need.

This is good evidence that they are doing religion, not science. They state clearly that religious belief supersedes science.

That is not science, and a critical examination of their writings confirms this.

47 posted on 06/16/2007 10:14:28 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"If fundamentalists ever take over significant control of this country, I believe many or most sciences will be trashed."

Fundamentalists take many shapes. Orthodox Environmentalists already control Europe. Radical Darwinists still rule universities and many "respected" publications worldwide, too.

The poor scientist who dares publish DNA code skipping (the death of Evolutionary Theory) will be trashed, just as you predict above, by those entrenched fundamentalists.

48 posted on 06/16/2007 10:21:21 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: balch3
First

intelligent design has made successful predictions on the question of "junk-DNA."

then

A physicist demonstrates that God is consistent with laws of physics.

49 posted on 06/16/2007 10:28:16 AM PDT by mjp (Live & let live. I don't want to live in Mexico, Marxico, or Muslimico. Statism & high taxes suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ndt
"It's wasn't a prediction, it was a statement of accepted fact."

Thank you:

I will accept
"Sounds to me as though they predicted that the things we don't know are just as important as the things we think we do know. That it is foolish, in fact dangerous, to ignore them. And that it is disingenuous to ignore them because the prevailing bias has relegated them to 'junk'."
as fact and be quite happy to do so.

50 posted on 06/16/2007 10:42:38 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson