Junk DNA Refuted

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah

The results of this study show that the widely used claim of atheists that "junk" DNA implies randomness is unfounded.

Where does it show that? The paper doesn't even address any randomness of junk DNA. Did you even read it?

They love to claim that it supports unguided evolution or that it shows "bad" design by the Creator, in order to mock Him. This is wrong because non-coding DNA has a function, to support the cell.

Souljah, you are debating a straw man position. The only time "atheists," or more accurately "evolutionist," bring up this topic is to refute creationists who are claiming that there is intelligent design. It is not to mock your god, but rather to show how bankrupt intelligent design is.

In fact, the paper is another example that historical constraint and not intelligent design guides evolution. It is still energetically wasteful to replicate secondary DNA. So then, why is that used as the solution to the nucleus size problem? Why didn't the designer just make a larger nucleus instead of relying on non-coding DNA? Why did the designer design it such that larger cells need larger nuclei?

Furthermore, the function they found is not just for junk DNA, it's for all nuclear DNA. Which brings up the question of why an intelligent designer would use junk DNA over coding DNA?

"The new study examined the genomes of the single-celled photosynthetic organisms know as Crytomonads. These organisms exist as vastly different cell sizes, with the nucleus being proportional in size to that of the cell. Researchers discovered that the amount of non-coding DNA was proportional to the size of the nucleus, suggesting that more non-coding DNA was required in larger nuclei. As an added proof, the nucleomorph, a small piece of DNA contained within the plastid that codes for itself and photosynthetic function, was not changed in size, despite changes in cell size and nuclear content."

Sorry this is inaccurate, which you would know had you read the paper carefully. Read my post, nay read the paper, for an accurate description of the study.

I find it comical that we can talked about coding, but you still don't ackowledge the Coder.

The Coder? I thought there were more than a few coders on this board.

Over 700 studies (over 100 in the last year) have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes. These intronic enhancers have been described for eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), the variable region of the rearranged immunoglobulin mu (IgM) gene, the alpha-globin gene, the activin beta A subunit gene, lambda 2 light chain transgenes, Human CYP1B1, a member of the cytochrome P450 superfamily, immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH), alcohol dehydrogenase, 3 alpha-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases, apolipoprotein A-II, beta1,4-N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase, kappa light chain gene, Alpha-1 acid glycoprotein, the T-cell receptor beta-chain, 2-crystallin, 1 tubulin gene, aldolase B gene, and many others.

Enhancers and transcription sites have been known for a long time and are not considered to be junk DNA. Furthermore, the vast majority of non-mRNA-coding DNA is not control regions. Thus your copied comments do not support your argument. Well, I guess it's yours.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Question: So how does the presence of structural DNA, and in particular, the results of this study, support "design" and/or contradict evolution? Please explain.

s0uljah replies: "The results of this study show that the widely used claim of atheists that 'junk' DNA implies randomness is unfounded."

I have never heard such a "widely used claim," nor does the referenced paper address anything remotely resembling such a "widely used claim" having to do with "randomness." As mentioned in this forum ad nauseam, evolution, and specifically natural selection, is not by any means a random process.

Your statement above neither supports "design" nor contradicts evolution.

s0uljah continues: "They love to claim that it supports unguided evolution or that it shows 'bad' design by the Creator, in order to mock Him."

For future reference, your frequently expressed personal disdain for "atheists" does not interest me in the least. Examples of "bad design" are often cited in rebuttal to the allegedly positive claims made by "design theorists," in order to expose their fraudulent reasoning. Were the "design theorists" to admit the truth that theirs is purely a religious and political campaign and not a scientific one, the references to "bad design" would similarly cease since normative claims about biology are mostly irrelevant and uninteresting.

Your statement above neither supports "design" nor contradicts evolution.

s0uljah continues: "This is wrong because non-coding DNA has a function, to support the cell."

"The presence of structural DNA" was a phrase contained in the original question. Generally, "answers" address the substance of "questions." They do not simply repeat the contents of the question.

Your statement above neither supports "design" nor contradicts evolution.

s0uljah continues, reiterating "his" original post verbatim: "'The new study examined the genomes of the single-celled photosynthetic organisms know as Crytomonads. These organisms exist as vastly different cell sizes, with the nucleus being proportional in size to that of the cell. Researchers discovered that the amount of non-coding DNA was proportional to the size of the nucleus, suggesting that more non-coding DNA was required in larger nuclei. As an added proof, the nucleomorph, a small piece of DNA contained within the plastid that codes for itself and photosynthetic function, was not changed in size, despite changes in cell size and nuclear content.'"

If I thought this answered my question, I wouldn't have posed it in the first place. Thanks, but I didn't need to see this again.

Once again, "your" re-statement above neither supports "design" nor contradicts evolution.

s0uljah concludes: "I find it comical that we can talk about coding, but you still don't acknowledge the Coder."

The original question was related to structural DNA, and especially to the conclusion of the referenced paper; so if there's anything to acknowledge, it's the "non-Coder."

While your "response" is a minor tour de farce of evasion and goalpost shifting, you utterly and completely failed to address the original question. Whether anyone finds your tactics comical or simply pathetic (or both) will be left to the discretion of the observer.

 

[Shane Roach]

Design theory may be religiously and politically motivated, but it is also philosophically founded. And anyone who thinks scientists are immune to religious or political motivation I think is unfamiliar with the history of science.

Folks, ALL people in every walk of life engage in the process of observation, categorization and analisis for the purpose of discovering reliable repeatability. Even *gasp* theologians and philosophers.

The article all on its own is nothing. It, like pretty much anything else, can be argued both ways in the ongoing debate of materialism vs idealism. The schism I see in todays world concerning these is rather confusing to me. Apparently both are true within limits, and there needs to be a truce called on the war between the two so that they can be properly reconciled. I don't see how we can continue on pretending that our own experience of our ideas causing us to decide things which do indeed impinge themselves on the material world is not a direct refutation of deterministic materialism.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

While your "response" is a minor tour de farce of evasion and goalpost shifting, you utterly and completely failed to address the original question. Whether anyone finds your tactics comical or simply pathetic (or both) will be left to the discretion of the observer.

If you are not interested in my answers, I suggest you don't ask me questions. Personally, I find it interesting that you attack the reputations and personalities of those that disagree with you, instead of actually putting forth your own posts.  Have you ever posted anything of your own, or do you like post sniping in your usual sarcastic manner?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

If you are not interested in my answers, I suggest you don't ask me questions.

I'm quite sure all indications in this thread point to the fact I was very interested in your answer, despite your rash assumption. In fact I replied to your response, which clearly shows I was interested in it. What I said I'm not interested in are your continual attempts to drag "atheists" into the issue, which, predictably, you did here.

The overarching point, however, is that the article you cited neither supports "design" nor contradicts evolution. That has been shown fairly conclusively, at least thus far, not least by your own "long awaited response."

In future should you decide to put forth similarly outrageous suggestions, then you, and anyone else, should be prepared to defend and support them.

Personally, I find it interesting that you attack the reputations and personalities of those that disagree with you, instead of actually putting forth your own posts.

I have never attacked anyone's reputation or personality. I have attacked, or more properly questioned, bogus claims and subjective opinions being put about as objective fact.

I recently had an exchange with Ben Reid, who took the time to compose several extremely interesting, well informed, and thought-provoking messages. Apparently I disagree with Ben Reid on several issues but I certainly didn't "attack" his reputation or his personality. Nor have I "attacked" your reputation or personality. In fact I can't imagine many things that concern me less than your reputation or personality. So you are, shall we say, assuming a fact not in evidence.

On the other hand, given your apparent fondness for maligning "atheists" as a matter of course, I have to wonder who is attempting to "attack" personalities and reputations, since there are several Christians participating in this forum that also reject the creationist position.

Have you ever posted anything of your own …

Most of the time. It's funny you should ask that, since the original post in this thread was completely a cut and paste job, which you subsequently referred to as "my post." I'm a big fan of irony, and I must say the foregoing was a fine example.

… or do you like post sniping in your usual sarcastic manner?

I like that too, and I appreciate your affording me the opportunity to do so. Since you completely failed to answer my question, I feel an obligation to at least salvage some cheap entertainment from this thread.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

What I said I'm not interested in are your continual attempts to drag "atheists" into the issue, which, predictably, you did here.

Dragging you into the issue? Um, this is a debate forum on ChristianForums.com, where many atheists like to try and use science to disprove God. Do you claim otherwise?

In future should you decide to put forth similarly outrageous suggestions, then you, and anyone else, should be prepared to defend and support them.

Of course, as I did.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Souljah,

Have you mananged to read the paper yet? I'm interested on your comments on the paper, not some webpage's you found on the internet.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Dragging you into the issue?

Not me. "Atheists." What did the Beaton and Cavalier-Smith paper have to do with "atheists"? Nothing. Who mentioned "atheists"? You did.

Your response consisted of four sentences, plus a cut and paste job from the OP, which itself was a cut and paste job. Two of those four sentences were about "atheists" and what "atheists love to claim." Your third sentence informed us that the strawman assertions contained in your first two sentences were "wrong." Finally, you found something comical which had nothing to do with structural DNA.

That was it. That was your response. And that's what I call "dragging atheists into the issue." To sum up: "atheists" have nothing to do with this. Capite?

Um, this is a debate forum on ChristianForums.com, where many atheists like to try and use science to disprove God.

Do they? I hadn't noticed. Did I? No. But keep stuffing that strawman.

Do you claim otherwise?

I claim science is not necessarily a suitable method with which to "disprove" god, or gods, or the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny, or whatever metaphysical figment you care to conjure. Is that "otherwise"? Because I have no idea what you're jabbering about anymore.

Anyway, not surprisingly, this has grown entirely tedious. If you have nothing of relevance to either "design theory" [sic] or evolution to impart, I will bid this thread a fond adieu.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Bumping, see post #47.

 

[RufusAtticus]

// bump.exe 1.2.4

#include <rac.h>
#include <iostream>

using namespace rac;
using namespace std;

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    cout << "Beginning bump...." << endl;
    if (bump(get_thread(NULL))!=BUMPOK)
         return 1;
   return 0;
}

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I'm not interested in pointless arguments, so you may want to save your fingers the effort.

 

[Sky]

This has turned from a discussion into a pointless argument. Please stay on topic and stop arguing.

 

[Morat]

  So, Souljah, is that an admission of error I see?

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I'm not interested in pointless arguments, so you may want to save your fingers the effort.

So I guess you never intended to read the paper and provide us with your own comments. Why did it take over two weeks of bumping to get you to admit that? Why then did you even start this thread, if you were not willing to read the primary literature? I guess this is a harder crowd than you expected.

Next time, please save us the trouble and admit this in the beginning. It would save us alot of effort.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
So I guess you never intended to read the paper and provide us with your own comments. Why did it take over two weeks of bumping to get you to admit that? Why then did you even start this thread, if you were not willing to read the primary literature? I guess this is a harder crowd than you expected.

Next time, please save us the trouble and admit this in the beginning. It would save us alot of effort.

Not at all.  I simply don't want to be involved in argumentative threads.  Perhaps if I was approached differently, I would read whatever papers you want me to read.  But as it is, this thread is only going to breed quarrels.

 

[Morat]

  So what did you expect? "Geez, guys, I'll post this abstract that I don't understand, and make it imply something. I never thought you fellows would correct me. And then, when I told you you were wrong about it, you had the gall to argue with me".

   I can only imagine you were looking for drooling acceptance of your intellectual triumph, not people pointing out your errors.

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Souljah,

Your wish is granted. Click here for the new thread.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  So what did you expect? "Geez, guys, I'll post this abstract that I don't understand, and make it imply something. I never thought you fellows would correct me. And then, when I told you you were wrong about it, you had the gall to argue with me".

   I can only imagine you were looking for drooling acceptance of your intellectual triumph, not people pointing out your errors.

 

Imagine whatever you want Morat, you don't know me.

 

[Morat]

  Actually, I think I've formed a pretty accurate profile of you. You haven't surprised me yet.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  Actually, I think I've formed a pretty accurate profile of you. You haven't surprised me yet.

 

Cool, enjoy.