Exons, Introns, and ID

[KCfromNC]

How exactly?

By making testable predictions rather than retreating into theology when confronted with questions about how reality works.

 

[Loudmouth]

How exactly?

When the data matches the predictions of one theory while the other theory doesn't even make predictions, the theory with the accurate predictions is the better explanation. That's how reason, logic, and science work.

 

[Radrook]

When the data matches the predictions of one theory while the other theory doesn't even make predictions, the theory with the accurate predictions is the better explanation. That's how reason, logic, and science work.

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

 

[pgp_protector]

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

Maybe you've got them blocked. but
as Squeegee Beckenheim pointed out.

If you look at the post immediately above yours, you'll see that that's the same page that I linked to in that, and you'll also notice that I critiqued all of the 4 predictions that ID is supposed to make.

This was covered in this post.

Yes, I was assuming predictions as part of the hypotheses.

And the thing that's really cool is that not all the predictions could even be tested straight away. Heck, gravity waves were only detected last year.

Where are the equivalent predictions of ID?

This is all I can find:



Firstly, I don't see much information there. I see no data, I see no reasoning, just statements.

Secondly:

(1) No definition of "irreducibly complex", the "evidence" ignores the thorough debunking of the flagellum as being "irreducibly complex".
(2) No quantification of the term "suddenly", the "evidence" misrepresents the Cambrian explosion.
(3) No explanation as to why this should be the case rather than the opposite, and does not distinguish ID from evolution.
(4) No explanation as to why any junk DNA should be expected, no quantification of the term "much", does not distinguish ID from evolution.

And that's it. 4 "predictions" for an entire theory of a complex tapestry of life, none of which can actually be tested because they use vague and unquantified terminology.

So will you just keep posting that link thinking it will magically solve the issues?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

That's the second time you've posted that in this thread, and both times you've ignored the critique I made of that same link in post #9.

 

[Radrook]

Maybe you've got them blocked. but
as Squeegee Beckenheim pointed out.



This was covered in this post.



So will you just keep posting that link thinking it will magically solve the issues?

Nope! In fact, I don't think anything that I might say or post or that anyone else might say or post is capable of solving their issues.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Nope! In fact, I don't think anything that I might say or post or that anyone else might say or post is capable of solving their issues.

That's fairly witty, as cheap shots go. But it still leaves the critique unanswered, so it's not effective as a debating technique.

It is, as always, up to you whether you're interested in making a cogent argument, or whether you're content to just copy-and-paste or link to things without applying any actual thought.

 

[Vaccine]

By making testable predictions rather than retreating into theology when confronted with questions about how reality works.

They predicted function would be found for non-coding dna and that junk dna was a misnomer.

 

[Vaccine]

When the data matches the predictions of one theory while the other theory doesn't even make predictions, the theory with the accurate predictions is the better explanation. That's how reason, logic, and science work.

Darwin didn't even know what gene was, yet you have him making predictions about exons and introns?
The pattern of exons and introns are accounted for by either theory, it's a non starter.
Assuming a shared gene between humans and mouse should have a 1 to 1 match otherwise intelligent agent is not at work, is arbitrary.
As I already pointed out, that there is more than one way to accomplish the same task with c+, doesn't mean no design.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They predicted function would be found for non-coding dna and that junk dna was a misnomer.

Did they? Can you provide a citation for that?

I've seen it said now*, but that's after the research has already been done by scientists. It's easy to look at something that exists and say "I predicted that". That's not terribly convincing, though. What is needed is a publication of some kind from before the idea of "junk DNA" was abandoned by mainstream science in which ID proponents say "if ID is correct, then junk DNA will be found to have a function. If it is found not to have a function, then ID will be falsified".

You can maybe skip the last sentence, as I'm doubtful that any ID source would admit to the possibility of it being falsified (although that's what's required to be an actual scientific theory - not just to make predictions, but for those predictions to have the power to falsify it), but you certainly do need a published, verifiable source which makes that prediction before the idea of "junk DNA" was abandoned by mainstream science.

*Or, at least, I've seen a reasonably close approximation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Darwin didn't even know what gene was, yet you have him making predictions about exons and introns?

Since you've recently posted a link to an article about some evolutionary research, I know for a fact that you don't believe that no research on evolution has been done since Darwin published On The Origin Of Species.

The pattern of exons and introns are accounted for by either theory, it's a non starter.

Can you link to any published ID research on the subject? Or, indeed, answer the questions in the OP as to the specifics of the predictions ID makes about exons and introns?

 

[Vaccine]

Since you've recently posted a link to an article about some evolutionary research, I know for a fact that you don't believe that no research on evolution has been done since Darwin published On The Origin Of Species.

Are you saying Darwin made predictions about patterns of gene sequences??

Can you link to any published ID research on the subject? Or, indeed, answer the questions in the OP as to the specifics of the predictions ID makes about exons and introns?

Kinda hard to make a prediction about a pattern of introns or exons when Darwin was long dead when they were discovered. Also kinda hard to make a prediction about something already known about. ID theory was formally proposed after intron and exons were characterized by scientists.
The pattern of introns and exons is consistent with either theory.

 

[Vaccine]

Did they? Can you provide a citation for that?

I've seen it said now*, but that's after the research has already been done by scientists. It's easy to look at something that exists and say "I predicted that". That's not terribly convincing, though. What is needed is a publication of some kind from before the idea of "junk DNA" was abandoned by mainstream science in which ID proponents say "if ID is correct, then junk DNA will be found to have a function. If it is found not to have a function, then ID will be falsified".

You can maybe skip the last sentence, as I'm doubtful that any ID source would admit to the possibility of it being falsified (although that's what's required to be an actual scientific theory - not just to make predictions, but for those predictions to have the power to falsify it), but you certainly do need a published, verifiable source which makes that prediction before the idea of "junk DNA" was abandoned by mainstream science.

*Or, at least, I've seen a reasonably close approximation.

From their frequently raised but weak objections page:

Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

These Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed. e.g., ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk” DNA regions, including pseudogenes.

In short, it is a matter of simple fact that scientists working in the ID paradigm – despite harassment, slander and even outright career-busting — carry out and publish research, and that they have made significant and successful ID-based predictions.
Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

 

[Loudmouth]

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

Anything about exons and introns in that link? If not, it is off topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

From their frequently raised but weak objections page:

Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

These Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed. e.g., ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk” DNA regions, including pseudogenes.

In short, it is a matter of simple fact that scientists working in the ID paradigm – despite harassment, slander and even outright career-busting — carry out and publish research, and that they have made significant and successful ID-based predictions.
Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

Still not seeing anything that answers the questions in the opening post.

If ID says that introns are not junk DNA then use that information to make predictions about exons and introns.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwin didn't even know what gene was, yet you have him making predictions about exons and introns?

No.

The pattern of exons and introns are accounted for by either theory, it's a non starter.

Then what patterns does ID predict for introns and exons when comparing the mouse and human genomes? Does it make the same predictions when comparing the human and chimp genomes?

You claim that it makes predictions about exons and introns, yet conveniently fail to say what those predictions are.

Assuming a shared gene between humans and mouse should have a 1 to 1 match otherwise intelligent agent is not at work, is arbitrary.

Then don't assume a 1 to 1 match. Answer the questions in using your understanding of ID.

When comparing the human and mouse genomes, what should you see and why should you see it:

1. More differences in the exons.
2. More differences in the introns.
3. About equal number of differences in the exons and introns.

When comparing the human and chimp genomes, what should you see and why should you see it:

1. More differences in the exons.
2. More differences in the introns.
3. About equal number of differences in the exons and introns.

As I already pointed out, that there is more than one way to accomplish the same task with c+, doesn't mean no design.

So ID makes no predictions?

 

[Loudmouth]

They predicted function would be found for non-coding dna and that junk dna was a misnomer.

Then use that information to answer the questions I have been posing.

 

[KCfromNC]

They predicted function would be found for non-coding dna and that junk dna was a misnomer.

So?

 

[Radrook]

Anything about exons and introns in that link? If not, it is off topic.

That's a refreshing and commendable change from:

"Ï cain't see!" to the more honest "I don't wanna see!"

 

[KCfromNC]

That's a refreshing and commendable change from:

"Ï cain't see!" to the more honest "I don't wanna see!"

Are these actual quotes or are you just making them up to dodge the question?