Exons, Introns, and ID

[Loudmouth]

Some users here at CF have made the claim that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the observations made in biology.

Those observations include the base to base comparison of genes between species. This comparison doesn't require the assumption that two species share a common ancestor. We also don't have to assume evolution or common ancestry to understand that eukaryotic genes are made up of exons and introns. Exons hold the sequence used to transcribe messenger RNA which is then translated into protein. Introns are also transcribed into RNA, but they are clipped out during the maturation process for messenger RNA.

So what does ID predict? What should we see when we compare a gene shared between the human and mouse genome? Should we see more shared bases in the introns than the exons? Should we see the same amount of shared bases in the introns and exons? Should there be more shared bases in the exons? If ID does make a prediction, why does it make that prediction and not another?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know why, but clear at the bottom of that picture, where it shows mRNA breaking through the Nucleus into the Cytoplasm, I immediately thought of this:

Spoiler: this

 

[Loudmouth]

I find it interesting that no ID/creationist can discuss the relationship between exons and introns. I keep hearing that ID/creationism is the best explanation for the observations made in genetics, yet I see no explanation here. Why is that?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

 

[Loudmouth]

Apparently, it's a lot easier for ID/creationists to claim that ID/creationism is the best explanation for observations made in genetics, but it is an entirely different matter to actually do it.

 

[AirPo]

Bueller ... Bueller ...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One of the problems with Intelligent Design is that there are actually no arguments for it. The arguments that are presented are either "this small thing is wrong with the theory of evolution, therefore Intelligent Design is true" or variations on "if you found a watch...". It's either an argument from incredulity, or any arguments which are presented as if they were for it are actually against evolution.

Which isn't how science works. Einstein didn't convince the world that General Relativity was true by pointing out minor flaws in Newtonian gravity. He actually had to come up with hypotheses of his own and do a lot of maths.

Well, to be more precise I suppose I should say that I've never seen any arguments for it. They may actually exist, I have just yet to see any evidence for them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which isn't how science works. Einstein didn't convince the world that General Relativity was true by pointing out minor flaws in Newtonian gravity. He actually had to come up with hypotheses of his own and do a lot of maths.

More importantly, Einstein made positive predictions about what one should see if Relativity is true. I am asking ID/creationists to do the same with exons and introns. This is how science is done.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

More importantly, Einstein made positive predictions about what one should see if Relativity is true.

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:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

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.

 

[Radrook]

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

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

What predictions does it make about exons and introns?

 

[pgp_protector]

I don't know why, but clear at the bottom of that picture, where it shows mRNA breaking through the Nucleus into the Cytoplasm, I immediately thought of this:

Spoiler: this

Pareidolia

 

[Vaccine]

Some users here at CF have made the claim that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the observations made in biology.

Those observations include the base to base comparison of genes between species. This comparison doesn't require the assumption that two species share a common ancestor. We also don't have to assume evolution or common ancestry to understand that eukaryotic genes are made up of exons and introns. Exons hold the sequence used to transcribe messenger RNA which is then translated into protein. Introns are also transcribed into RNA, but they are clipped out during the maturation process for messenger RNA.

So what does ID predict? What should we see when we compare a gene shared between the human and mouse genome? Should we see more shared bases in the introns than the exons? Should we see the same amount of shared bases in the introns and exons? Should there be more shared bases in the exons? If ID does make a prediction, why does it make that prediction and not another?

I'll bite, what about intron and exons presents a challenge to ID theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll bite, what about intron and exons presents a challenge to ID theory?

The challenge to ID is to predict, from first principles, the pattern of differences in exons and introns. It is all contained in the opening post:

"What should we see when we compare a gene shared between the human and mouse genome? Should we see more shared bases in the introns than the exons? Should we see the same amount of shared bases in the introns and exons? Should there be more shared bases in the exons? If ID does make a prediction, why does it make that prediction and not another?"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'll bite, what about intron and exons presents a challenge to ID theory?

That's not what the OP says.

 

[HitchSlap]

Apparently, it's a lot easier for ID/creationists to claim that ID/creationism is the best explanation for observations made in genetics, but it is an entirely different matter to actually do it.

Yep. Once they get past their incredulity, they've got nothin'.

 

[Vaccine]

The challenge to ID is to predict, from first principles, the pattern of differences in exons and introns. It is all contained in the opening post:

"What should we see when we compare a gene shared between the human and mouse genome? Should we see more shared bases in the introns than the exons? Should we see the same amount of shared bases in the introns and exons? Should there be more shared bases in the exons? If ID does make a prediction, why does it make that prediction and not another?"

Asking qestions like why would a designer make it this way instead of that way is a philosophical one. ID theory is about identifying a cause, not what was the thought process behind human or mouse intron and exons.
We might look at the pattern of differences between word and open office. The differences may speak of how microsoft or oracle do things diffwrently but it hardly says "no design".
ID theory predicts specified complexity. Rules of syntax such as introns and exons is a hallmark of design.

 

[Loudmouth]

Asking qestions like why would a designer make it this way instead of that way is a philosophical one. ID theory is about identifying a cause, not what was the thought process behind human or mouse intron and exons.
We might look at the pattern of differences between word and open office. So what? The differences may speak of how microsoft or oracle do things diffwrently but it hardly says "no design".
ID theory predicts specified complexity. Rules of syntax such as introns and exons is a hallmark of design.

Then ID can't explain the observations made in genetics and molecular biology. Evolution can explain the pattern of similarities and differences in exons and introns. That makes evolution the better explanation.

 

[Vaccine]

Then ID can't explain the observations made in genetics and molecular biology. Evolution can explain the pattern of similarities and differences in exons and introns. That makes evolution the better explanation.

How exactly?