Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm

Discovery Institute ^ | June 15, 2007 | Casey Luskin

[RightWhale]

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?

[ndt]

"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?

[mjp]

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

[RaceBannon]

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

[GodGunsGuts]

==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.

[DaGman]

"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.

[muir_redwoods]

Evolution is a theory

G-d is a hypothesis

[GodGunsGuts]

==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

[ndt]

"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.

[Psycho_Bunny]

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

[GodGunsGuts]

==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

[ndt]

"==Geology...GONE!...==Radiometric dating...GONE!...==Biology...GONE!"

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

Is there any science you do accept?

[fabian]

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.

[GodGunsGuts]

==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

[Zon]

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.

[ndt]

"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.

[GodGunsGuts]

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.

[Coyoteman]

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.

[norton]

"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.

[Coyoteman]

...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."