Junk DNA not refuted.

[SLP]

Originally posted by s0uljah
That is why he cited over 700 studies by experts.

Considering the fact that you seemed to misinterpret what your MD. expert wrote, it really doesn't matter how many sources were cited.

Have you looked at the data I linked to yet?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by wildernesse
The extraneous DNA is not worthless--it has a function in structure, therefore not being "junk" in souljah's definition. But it is extraneous to the needs of the organism as DNA is normally used--thereby getting the "junk" label in the first place. So I think the paper is about how the "junk DNA"--which is useless for DNA purposes--has another use in the structure of the nucleus.

I almost agree.

The problem is with your wording is that you say a gene could be "useless for DNA purposes". This implies that scientists know what all of the "normal" purposes are for DNA, and this isn't one of them. Perhaps it is one of them, in which case, it serves its normal and intended purpose even when it doesn't fit into the model of how we previously understood DNA.

 

[wildernesse]

Ok. So now if I'm understanding souljah correctly, he would be comfortable with calling "junk DNA" "secondary DNA"--even though Rufus still stands by calling it junk and it being useful (in the sense that everyday junk is useful--but not always for its original purpose).

Npetreley: I think that your point is valid for we laymen--although since I don't study DNA, I will have to rely on those who do. Would you agree with me if I said that the "secondary DNA" is extraneous for the uses that we consider normal for DNA (storing genetic info being the normal use). As always, our ideas of normal use may be changed with further research and study.

Souljah, I think that the reason Rufus is having such a problem with your expert is that you're arguing from information that you don't truly have. Even if the MD did cite all of those papers, why should you believe him if he's not an expert on the issue? If you don't know the information first-hand, it's much easier to attack your argument (even falsely attack it--although I don't think that's Rufus is doing that here).

Personally, I don't think that most people are discussing this with an eye to explaining the paper anymore--they're more interested in proving the other team wrong. That goes for everyone (except me of course, I'm always completely objective about everything ). But maybe no one was interested in this paper to begin with.

--tibac

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by wildernesse
The extraneous DNA is not worthless--it has a function in structure, therefore not being "junk" in souljah's definition. But it is extraneous to the needs of the organism as DNA is normally used--thereby getting the "junk" label in the first place. So I think the paper is about how the "junk DNA"--which is useless for DNA purposes--has another use in the structure of the nucleus.

The paper finds a use for DNA. The function isn't specific to secondary DNA (parasitic, junk, selfish, etc). Thus there still isn't a reason why an Intellegent Designer, who could have used altuistic DNA and go the same results, chose to use secondary DNA instread.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Well then, I guess you have 700 potential papers with which to respond to me. You better start reading.

Why?  You are the one interested in the topic, and apparently in making me "concede."  My faith isn't dependant on worldly knowledge anyway, heh.

Nevertheless, it is obvious to an objective party that we don't know what secondary DNA really does and calling it junk is irresponsible in light of modern knowledge.

 

[wildernesse]

I do think that it would be interesting to discuss a peer-reviewed journal article that is related to evolution/young earth/geology/etc. periodically. I think that there are enough people here who either have expertise to help others understand the technical stuff or who are willing to learn. Since there are so many journals online, it would be easy to choose one with a link.

Hmm. I'll see if I can rustle one up that I'm interested in discussing.

--tibac

 

[wildernesse]

What, again, is the purpose of the Intelligent Designer in this case? Is anyone interested in It?

--tibac

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Thus there still isn't a reason why an Intellegent Designer, who could have used altuistic DNA and go the same results, chose to use secondary DNA instread.

That is a huge assumption based in incomplete knowledge. (Not yours, the field's)

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Why?  You are the one interested in the topic, and apparently in making me "concede." 

If you are not interested in this topic, why did you start it with the former thread? Why are you so reluctant to actually back up your position using the primary literature? Are you not willing to do the work?

My faith isn't dependant on worldly knowledge anyway, heh.

Since when is this a discussion about your faith?

Nevertheless, it is obvious to an objective party that we don't know what secondary DNA really does and calling it junk is irresponsible in light of modern knowledge.

Calling it "useless" would be irresponsible. Calling it Junk DNA is not.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

If you are not interested in this topic, why did you start it with the former thread? Why are you so reluctant to actually back up your position using the primary literature? Are you not willing to do the work?

I am interested enough to talk to you about it, but not enough to read through 700 studies.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
That is a huge assumption based in incomplete knowledge. (Not yours, the field's)

I think that the huge assumption is scratching ones head and proclaiming that "God did it," especially if the only reason to do so is to distance yourself from atheists.

 

[wildernesse]

Souljah:

So if saying that there's no reason for an ID is based on incomplete knowledge, do you have a reason for thinking that this is the work of an ID?

--tibac

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I am interested enough to talk to you about it, but not enough to read through 700 studies.

I'll give you that. But you can surely find one or two review articles in the bunch to read.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Souljah:

So if saying that there's no reason for an ID is based on incomplete knowledge, do you have a reason for thinking that this is the work of an ID?

--tibac

Hey-

Yes, I see programming, in the form of DNA code.  I am a programmer myself.  I can't look at a program and say, "Oh, it just appeared by chance," instead I say, "Where is the programmer?"

 

 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Hey-

Yes, I see programming, in the form of DNA code.  I am a programmer myself.  I can't look at a program and say, "Oh, it just appeared by chance," instead I say, "Where is the programmer?"

You should read up on genetic algorithms. Seriously; it's awesome stuff.

 

[LadyShea]

Souljah, I understand you an Morat don't get along. But since you brought the topic up you really should listen to what Rufus has to say and refute his POINTS not the person making the point. He obviosuly did put some time and thought into it, don't you think it deserves a real debate?

 

[MSBS]

s0uljah- So God is a bad programmer now? Speghetti code, horrible hacks, and the sin of all sins, failure to comment. Luckily there was no date code or we could have had a real problem in y2k.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Hey-

Yes, I see programming, in the form of DNA code.  I am a programmer myself.  I can't look at a program and say, "Oh, it just appeared by chance," instead I say, "Where is the programmer?"

 

 

I'm a programer too. I can't look at machine code and tell if it was generated by evolutionary computing or a compiler under the direction of a designer.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I'm a programer too. I can't look at machine code and tell if it was generated by evolutionary computing or a compiler under the direction of a designer.

So I guess that means you can't look at DNA and tell if it evolved or was designed.

Case closed.

(Actually, evolutionary computing is practically an oxymoron, but you left yourself wide open for that so I went for it.)

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
So I guess that means you can't look at DNA and tell if it evolved or was designed.

Case closed.

Nope, given a single sequence of DNA it is impossible to distinguish between design by evolution and design by fiat. However, given a population of such sequences, it is possible to test between evolution and fiat. Furthermore, there is one fundemental difference between machine code and DNA. We know that computer programers exist and produce machine code. Such designers are observable. However, we have yet to find any evidence that any designers, other than evolution, were responsible for the diversity of life as we see it today.