Comments on: Is most of the human genome functional? http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-human-genome-functional/ Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:46:45 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jud http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-human-genome-functional/comment-page-1/#comment-582 Jud Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:31:00 +0000 http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-the-human-genome-functional/#comment-582 "Why intelligent design proponents, who purport to take a strictly scientific view of the question, also assume that non-coding DNA cannot be non-functional remains unstated."<br/><br/>Certainly "unstated" in any scientific sense, but then what in ID has been "stated" in rigorous scientific terms?<br/><br/>There have been plenty of statements from ID proponents in typical innuendo-and-out-the-other style. Chris alluded to the "front loading" argument that was beloved for some time on UD (and may be still - I've tired of reading the site). Chris has also noted the ID argument that anything that's truly non-functional is evidence of the exclusively destructive results of mutation, leaving the functional stuff for the Designer. These two arguments are at least to some extent contradictory (is anything currently non-functional a Designer's preparation for the future or truly junk that results from destructive processes?). If one indulges sloppy argumentation, that "explains" virtually any proportion of functional vs. non-functional DNA.<br/><br/>As for why ID proponents would assume there is no non-functional DNA, or at least assume a need to explain away non-functional DNA in terms that allow a supremely competent Designer, we all know the Designer's identity is the Mother of All ID Innuendoes. “Why intelligent design proponents, who purport to take a strictly scientific view of the question, also assume that non-coding DNA cannot be non-functional remains unstated.”

Certainly “unstated” in any scientific sense, but then what in ID has been “stated” in rigorous scientific terms?

There have been plenty of statements from ID proponents in typical innuendo-and-out-the-other style. Chris alluded to the “front loading” argument that was beloved for some time on UD (and may be still – I’ve tired of reading the site). Chris has also noted the ID argument that anything that’s truly non-functional is evidence of the exclusively destructive results of mutation, leaving the functional stuff for the Designer. These two arguments are at least to some extent contradictory (is anything currently non-functional a Designer’s preparation for the future or truly junk that results from destructive processes?). If one indulges sloppy argumentation, that “explains” virtually any proportion of functional vs. non-functional DNA.

As for why ID proponents would assume there is no non-functional DNA, or at least assume a need to explain away non-functional DNA in terms that allow a supremely competent Designer, we all know the Designer’s identity is the Mother of All ID Innuendoes.

]]> By: Chris Harrison http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-human-genome-functional/comment-page-1/#comment-578 Chris Harrison Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:29:00 +0000 http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-the-human-genome-functional/#comment-578 Yes, I see what you mean. It seems quite arbitrary for IDists to say "we should not expect irrational deign from life’s designer."<br/><br/>In Mike's case, he suggest front loaded evolution which he later claimed in our discussion "does not entail the non-existence of junk DNA."<br/><br/>In other words, all the "non-rational" design is clearly due to blind, mechanistic processes. The more rational the design, the more it casts doubts on the mechanistic prowess of ateleological mechanisms (mutation, selection, drift, cooption etc.) <br/><br/>Yeah, not very persuasive to me either. Yes, I see what you mean. It seems quite arbitrary for IDists to say “we should not expect irrational deign from life’s designer.”

In Mike’s case, he suggest front loaded evolution which he later claimed in our discussion “does not entail the non-existence of junk DNA.”

In other words, all the “non-rational” design is clearly due to blind, mechanistic processes. The more rational the design, the more it casts doubts on the mechanistic prowess of ateleological mechanisms (mutation, selection, drift, cooption etc.)

Yeah, not very persuasive to me either.

]]> By: TR Gregory http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-human-genome-functional/comment-page-1/#comment-577 TR Gregory Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:12:00 +0000 http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-the-human-genome-functional/#comment-577 Well, irrational aspects of design may be arguments against a divine designer, but not against design itself, as many human-designed objects have suboptimal or irrational aspects. I do not take suboptimality alone as evidence for evolution, but rather suboptimal characters that <i>are best explained by historical processes</i>. I am still waiting for an unambiguous accounting for why intelligent design proponents assume that design must be perfect if they do not and can not determine the identity, motives, or method of any designer. Well, irrational aspects of design may be arguments against a divine designer, but not against design itself, as many human-designed objects have suboptimal or irrational aspects. I do not take suboptimality alone as evidence for evolution, but rather suboptimal characters that are best explained by historical processes. I am still waiting for an unambiguous accounting for why intelligent design proponents assume that design must be perfect if they do not and can not determine the identity, motives, or method of any designer.

]]> By: Chris Harrison http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-human-genome-functional/comment-page-1/#comment-576 Chris Harrison Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:59:00 +0000 http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/01/is-most-of-the-human-genome-functional/#comment-576 ""Why intelligent design proponents, who purport to take a strictly scientific view of the question, also assume that non-coding DNA cannot be non-functional remains unstated""<br/><br/>I've been having a discussion on a facebook group with ID proponent Mike Gene (of telicthoughts.com fame, and the author of "A Consilience of Clues") about this very subject. Mike stated that IDists should "acknowledge that irrational design counts against the ID hypothesis" because "we should not expect irrational deign from life’s designer".<br/><br/>So I asked him "What do we do about the ~19,000 pseudogenes in the human genome?" <br/>To which he responded:<br/><br/>"It is best explained by evolution. Their lack of any function is inconsistent with design."<br/><br/>And speaking to non-coding DNA/functionality, but ignoring ID, I find that this topic generates confusion for people who are pro-ev/anti-ID. Take this link for example:<br/>http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/index.html<br/><br/>In the section "Dead code, bloat, comments ('junk dna')", the author states that 97% of the human genome is composed of introns which are spliced out, and that the remaining 3% are the exons. Later, still talking about non-coding DNA, the author says the existence of this non-coding DNA could be explained by its impact on folding propensity. Again the author's confusion that all non-coding DNA is intronic causes him to slip up here as well.<br/><br/>Larry Moran would cry if he read the section about the central dogma of molecular biology, incidentally. “”Why intelligent design proponents, who purport to take a strictly scientific view of the question, also assume that non-coding DNA cannot be non-functional remains unstated”"

I’ve been having a discussion on a facebook group with ID proponent Mike Gene (of telicthoughts.com fame, and the author of “A Consilience of Clues”) about this very subject. Mike stated that IDists should “acknowledge that irrational design counts against the ID hypothesis” because “we should not expect irrational deign from life’s designer”.

So I asked him “What do we do about the ~19,000 pseudogenes in the human genome?”
To which he responded:

“It is best explained by evolution. Their lack of any function is inconsistent with design.”

And speaking to non-coding DNA/functionality, but ignoring ID, I find that this topic generates confusion for people who are pro-ev/anti-ID. Take this link for example:
http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/index.html

In the section “Dead code, bloat, comments (‘junk dna’)”, the author states that 97% of the human genome is composed of introns which are spliced out, and that the remaining 3% are the exons. Later, still talking about non-coding DNA, the author says the existence of this non-coding DNA could be explained by its impact on folding propensity. Again the author’s confusion that all non-coding DNA is intronic causes him to slip up here as well.

Larry Moran would cry if he read the section about the central dogma of molecular biology, incidentally.

]]>