Junk DNA not refuted.

[SLP]

Originally posted by Sky77
Morat, not trying to be rude, but can you pleas stop blasting s0uljah and other posters because they might not have as much education as you do. Just because they don't have a PhD in science, doesn't mean that they're stupid and don't deserve respect.

True, but it does mean that if someone without the requisite educational or experiential background is corrected by someone that does, that he or she lacking said background, to be reasonable, should recognize their errors.

Simply reasserting an erroneous statement over and over does not make it true.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Right, so therefore, people claiming that non-coding DNA is "junk," ie, "not useful," then they are incorrect, which was the reason I posted that article in the first place.  I have heard people on here claim that it is a sign of bad design, etc.

souljah,

Please go here:

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm


While 'secondary' DNA may not be 'junk' in the colloqial sense, it is clear - and should be obvious from that link - that much of it is expendable.

If segments of DNA are expendable or can retain their 'function' despite relatively large scale alterations, it stands to reason that its 'function' is not highly specified.

Much of these regions (intergenic DNA, etc.) can be thought of as a stick used to prop a door open. It ain't pretty, but it does its job. And if the stick breaks, you can still use it.

Design?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Of key interest is not necessarily the presence/absence of such regions. What is really interesting - and what you can see at the above url - is the very interesting pattern of mutational change.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by s0uljah
If I "have a problem understanding" and if we want to rely on authorities and "experts", let's actually rely on authorities, shall we?

By Jaan Suurkula M.D.

What qualifies this physician to be an expert on these matters?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
If I "have a problem understanding" and if we want to rely on authorities and "experts", let's actually rely on authorities, shall we?

Okay, but I didn't see any authority in your post. We are discussing a scientific paper. Internet-based news articles are not adequate material for a rebuttal, especially ones written by non scientists. Reminants of syntatic structure is what we expect in secondary-DNA if it had its evolutionary origin in primary-DNA. So the Flam paper does not disprove junk DNA either. The other studies mentioned in the article do not refute the existance of junk DNA but rather that the amount of DNA matters at times. That is exactly what we have been discussing with respect to the Beaton & Cavilier-Smith paper.

No offense, but many other experts disagree with you on this "wasteful," "bad design" viewpoint.

References please. Go did in the primary literature and find me such experts. Quoting news articles are not going to cut it in this thread.

From the paper that we are currently discussing:

We suggest that it is the cost in energy and scarce nutrients, such as phosphate and fixed nitrogen, needed to synthesize extra DNA and histones that would lower cell reproductive rates compared with a competitor with less DNA.

Extra DNA is energetically wasteful, since it takes time, resources, and energy to maintain it. Surely an omniportent and sentient designer can find a more effecient way of enlarging cells than expanding the size of the genome, such as simply making the nucleus bigger.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

The guy is a doctor, you are a grad student. He cites over 700 studies refuting your claims that junk DNA exists. Just the facts man, not an attack on you.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Simply reasserting an erroneous statement over and over does not make it true.

Of course not, but I am stating scientific information contradictory of the claim that DNA shows either bad design, or unguided evolution. Show me specifically what is wrong with the material I cited please.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
The guy is a doctor, you are a grad student. He cites over 700 studies refuting your claims that junk DNA exists. Just the facts man, not an attack on you.

The guy is a medical doctor, not a scientist. The work of his you cited is not from scientific literature. It's an internet article. So it has about as much authority as my two cats. If you want to rebut my understanding of the scientific literature, including the Beaton & Cavilier-Smith paper which started this thread, use scientific literature. Cut and pasting some other person's interpretation off the internet doesn't cut it.

Good luck with the literature search. You might want to start with Entrez-Pubmed.

Of course not, but I am stating scientific information contradictory of the claim that DNA shows either bad design, or unguided evolution. Show me specifically what is wrong with the material I cited please.

Where did you state scientific information? I have yet to see you use primary literature to back up your position or rebut mine.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
The guy is a medical doctor, not a scientist.

You guys should really be clear about the qualifications you'll accept. I think you should just say it honestly once and for all:

"I will only accept the testimony of (and consider to be true scientists) those who agree with everything I say. Everyone else is either not qualified to be called a scientist or is otherwise unqualified to offer an opinion on this topic."

 

[seebs]

I think you guys may be talking at cross-purposes.

S0uljah, Rufus's claim appears to me to be that "what's wrong with what I already posted" is "it's not peer-reviewed scientific study, it's some guy posting stuff on the Internet". That isn't actually a direct attack on the *argument*, admittedly - but it does show why Rufus might be skeptical of the claims.

Rufus: I get the impression that s0uljah's question is not "what might lead you to not give this theory much weight", but rather "which of the premises are wrong, or where does the argument fall apart".

Does this help any? I admit to not being entirely clear on the topic myself, although I think the main problem with "junk DNA" is the question of how exactly we define "useful"; DNA which is not currently coding for anything could later have an effect, and be a substantial part of the process by which substantial changes occur in a life form... so in one way, it's not junk, but until that change happens, it isn't *doing* anything.

I think that, in fact, a good understanding of how DNA works would lead most people to conclude that "junk DNA" is important stuff... not to mention the data it provides to support the theory of common descent.

 

[MSBS]

Hmm, I don't see why you can dismis s0uljah's expert out of hand.  True, the only thing to confirm him as an expert is that he puts an MD behind his name and he edits a website that is the front for an organization that represents scientists and physicians concerned about genetically engineered organisms being used in agriculture.  I see no reason to doubt his bona fides and he does use primary research articles as the basis for his arguments.  What I see is s0uljah trying to use his own expert to counter RA (the expert in this thread).

I'm curious though, as to what s0uljah is trying to accomplish with his arguments-- is it to say that "junk DNA" has a function an is evidence of design?  If so, I would think that quoting from articles that sugest that the non-coding DNA has selected for uses that are irrelevent to its prior use is a bad way to do so.  Even though secondary DNA has been demonstrated as having uses in some cases (discussed in the original article and in the later post by s0uljah), the presence of psuedogenes, LINES, SINES, etc. throughout the "non-coding" sequences gives strong evidence for the production of these regions via evolution.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
You guys should really be clear about the qualifications you'll accept. I think you should just say it honestly once and for all:

"I will only accept the testimony of (and consider to be true scientists) those who agree with everything I say. Everyone else is either not qualified to be called a scientist or is otherwise unqualified to offer an opinion on this topic."

Please, Nick. I made it very clear that Souljah needs to back up his claims by reading the primary literature for himself and not relying on second hand sources. Cut and pasting of internet articles is what lead to this in the first place. Let me roughly refresh your memory.

1. Souljah starts a thread by quoting someone else's interpretation of the paper off the web.
2. Rufus actually reads the paper and finds that it doesn't say what souljah has been lead to think it does.
3. Souljah tries to rebut using more secondary sourses off the internet.
4. Rufus reminds souljah that we are now discussing primary literature and secondary sources are not adequate rebutal material.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

MSBS: I'm curious though, as to what s0uljah is trying to accomplish with his arguments-- is it to say that "junk DNA" has a function and is evidence of design?

Yes. Either evidence of "design" or contradictory to evolution, take your pick. In fact I asked this very question about three weeks ago in the original thread, never received an answer, and consequently gave up after numerous examples of the respondent's characteristic evasiveness and irrational railing, inexplicably, against "atheists."

Perhaps you will have better luck, but that a big "perhaps," as you can clearly see!

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I'm curious though, as to what s0uljah is trying to accomplish with his arguments-- is it to say that "junk DNA" has a function an is evidence of design?

Hi there-

My only purpose is to point out that many people in the field, believe that "junk" DNA is not junk in any sense of the word, and that it is commonly cited by atheists as evidence of bad design and/or unguided evolution.

Personally, I don't care if our physical bodies evolved from space dust, monkeys, bananas, or whatever. I just wanted to provide the other side to the issue, since I had only seen the "junk" side on this forum.

 

[wildernesse]

I think that the main problem here is the definition of "junk"--maybe the two of you can work through what you mean by "junk". I believe that souljah is using the word "junk" to mean absolutely worthless, without any use. Rufus is using the word "junk" to mean non-coding. (I think)

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.

Maybe there should be a little conversation about what "junk" means to each poster, because I don't believe that you're arguing about the same thing really.

And I don't think that most MD's are scientists either--some are who do research--but most hospital doctors are not. Anyway, news sources aren't a good source for this discussion unless someone is trying to show that junk is commonly used to mean utterly worthless, and that scientists aren't linguists. Or something like that.

--tibac

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Of course not, but I am stating scientific information contradictory of the claim that DNA shows either bad design, or unguided evolution. Show me specifically what is wrong with the material I cited please.

I asked you to visit a link with actual data for you to peruse. If you see guided evolution or design, you should be able to point it out. Afterall, you are the one saying that the contrary position (no guidance) in in error.

In addition, your interpretation of the cryptomonad paper is flawed, as Rufus has explained.

Your ref. ois to a medical doctor, by the way. Medical doctors learn from people like Rufus.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by npetreley
You guys should really be clear about the qualifications you'll accept. I think you should just say it honestly once and for all:

"I will only accept the testimony of (and consider to be true scientists) those who agree with everything I say. Everyone else is either not qualified to be called a scientist or is otherwise unqualified to offer an opinion on this topic."

One needs to approach the topic in a rational manner. Despite what those lacking the requisite experience and education will have the lay public believe, credentials - real credentials - DO matter.

Would you take your car to a guy who calls himself an expert on cars by virtue of having seen the Daytona 500 6 times?

Would you go to a physician who earned his medical degree by watching reruns of ER?

Would you have a plumber do your electrical work?

Would you ask a tree-hugger advice about which SUV to buy?

No?

Then why would you get your information on technical scientific issues from someone that is not qualified to give it out?

A medical doctor is no more an expert on evolutionary biology or genetics than a plumber is an expert on electrical outlets.

Unless an MD. has done relevant research in an area, they are no more qualified than anyone else to make pronouncements in that area. To paraphrase Phil Johnson, unless you have the pertinent education and experience, you are just another layman.

Clearly, qualified individuals will have differing opinions on the same subject. However, unqualified individuals, in my opinion, do not even deserve a place at the table.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

That is why he cited over 700 studies by experts.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I think that the main problem here is the definition of "junk"--maybe the two of you can work through what you mean by "junk". I believe that souljah is using the word "junk" to mean absolutely worthless, without any use. Rufus is using the word "junk" to mean non-coding. (I think)

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.

Exactly.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
My only purpose is to point out that many people in the field, believe that "junk" DNA is not junk in any sense of the word, and that it is commonly cited by atheists as evidence of bad design and/or unguided evolution.

If that is your purpose, why haven't you done so? If you know of these people in the field, please reference their papers with an explaination of why they support your claims. Using secondary sources instead of primary sources is not an adequate strategy.

 

[RufusAtticus]

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

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