What about the DNA evidence?

[Loudmouth]

Why do you trivialize things like that? I'm saying that we can't fully explain all the subtle variations in human behavior and attitudes at birth, so you have no idea if that DNA actually serves no purpose.

Just as you have no idea whether or not odor molecules from the unique mix of trash on a specific day of a woman's pregnancy is not the source for unique personalities.

All you can hope to point me to are the studies that identified various traits that are associated with various DNA strands. What you won't be able to show me is any study that clearly demonstrates that none of the rest of the DNA has any value or use.

What I can show you is evidence that it doesn't have function, and you continue to ignore this evidence because you don't want it to be true.

Like I said, a lot about human attitudes and behaviors at birth cannot and have not yet been explained.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Functional" in *what specific way*? I have no idea how you could rule out every *possible* function they might serve.

Until we can *fully* explain all the subtle variation in human behavior and personality at birth, we can't really be sure what those 'unexplained' areas of DNA actually do. It's just an *assumption* that they have *no function at all*. The term "junk" seems highly inappropriate IMO.

Post #554 by sfs is a perfect explanation of the current conclusions being put forward by scientists. Everyone should read that post, and ask any questions if you need clarification.

 

[Michael]

Just as you have no idea whether or not odor molecules from the unique mix of trash on a specific day of a woman's pregnancy is not the source for unique personalities.

That's just more of your handwavy flippant nonsense.

What I can show you is evidence that it doesn't have function, and you continue to ignore this evidence because you don't want it to be true.

No you can't! All you might be able to show me is that we don't know what some DNA does yet.

Argument from ignorance.

Sorry, but you're just arguing from pure "argument from arrogance" a this point. You have no idea what that DNA might do, and neither do I. You're the one claiming it's not useful, and making definitive statements about it, without any *definitive* evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's just more of your handwavy flippant nonsense.

Until you can show me how unique personalities are produced, it is just as valid as your explanation.

No you can't! All you might be able to show me is that we don't know what some DNA does yet.

I can show that divergence rates are consistent with what we would expect from DNA that doesn't have function. That is evidence. Is it absolute proof? Of course not. There is no absolute proof in science, and you know that.

Sorry, but you're just arguing from pure "argument from arrogance" a this point. You have no idea what that DNA might do, and neither do I. You're the one claiming it's not useful, and making definitive statements about it, without any *definitive* evidence.

I do have evidence that those stretches of DNA are without function. You have no evidence for them having function.

 

[Michael]

Until you can show me how unique personalities are produced, it is just as valid as your explanation.

More flippant nonsense. Personality *is* going to be influenced by DNA. We don't know everything there is to know about personality and where it comes from, so *assuming* that all that DNA is irrelevant and "junk" is more than a tad "premature".

I can show that divergence rates are consistent with what we would expect from DNA that doesn't have function.

What *specific* function? How did you decide how the two should be related in the first place?

That is evidence. Is it absolute proof? Of course not. There is no absolute proof in science, and you know that.

Yes, I do, and I also know it's *weak* evidence at best even *if* we could fully explain personality without it.

I do have evidence that those stretches of DNA are without function. You have no evidence for them having function.

You have limited evidence that requires *personal subjective choices* on your part. So what? It's minor at best case. It's certainly not conclusive evidence by any stretch of the imagination. Get over it already, particularly until you can explain every detail of human personality differences at birth without that DNA.

 

[createdtoworship]

And I'm just telling you that I'm not a very good source of information on this subject. I've met people with quite strict ideas about Biblical inspiration who accept evolution, though whether they'd use the term "verbal plenary inspiration" I don't know.

You might try reading B.B. Warfield on the subject. He was a staunch inerrantist, and was at least open to the possibility of evolution.

very good.

Also, I haven't always been into ID, at some point I was an evolutionist. I too had "quite strict ideas about Biblical inspiration" but however as I learned more about verbal plenary inspiration I also learned that as I studied genesis, I realized evolution just doesn't fit the Bible. As I said before: you have death before the fall, with the gap theory. You have to fudge on doctrine to believe evolution. It's a sad thing.

 

[sfs]

More flippant nonsense. Personality *is* going to be influenced by DNA. We don't know everything there is to know about personality and where it comes from, so *assuming* that all that DNA is irrelevant and "junk" is more than a tad "premature".

True. But since no one is "*assuming*" that any DNA is without function, why do you mention it?

What *specific* function? How did you decide how the two should be related in the first place?

Any function that affects the fitness of the organism. That's how I defined function, remember? That fitness relates to allele frequency is just the way the universe works.

Yes, I do, and I also know it's *weak* evidence at best even *if* we could fully explain personality without it.

Why not deal with the evidence, rather than huffing and puffing about complete irrelevancies? We can't fully explain personality, or the immune system, or insulin pathway signaling, or anything else in human biology at this point. So what? We have reasons to believe that much human DNA does not have function. You have offered precisely zero reason to think that it does have function, nor have you said anything about the reasons we do have.

You have limited evidence that requires *personal subjective choices* on your part. So what? It's minor at best case. It's certainly not conclusive evidence by any stretch of the imagination. Get over it already, particularly until you can explain every detail of human personality differences at birth without that DNA.

You seem to have completely lost it here. If you want to discuss the science (and this is all standard evolutionary biology and genetics), discuss it.

 

[sfs]

very good.

Also, I haven't always been into ID, at some point I was an evolutionist. I too had "quite strict ideas about Biblical inspiration" but however as I learned more about verbal plenary inspiration I also learned that as I studied genesis, I realized evolution just doesn't fit the Bible. As I said before: you have death before the fall, with the gap theory. You have to fudge on doctrine to believe evolution. It's a sad thing.

For me, I'd have to fudge on the Bible to believe in inerrancy and fudge on reality to reject evolution. Not really options for me.

 

[Michael]

True. But since no one is "*assuming*" that any DNA is without function, why do you mention it?

Ya, LM is assuming it.

Any function that affects the fitness of the organism. That's how I defined function, remember? That fitness relates to allele frequency is just the way the universe works.

How is one's temper related to the "fitness" of the organism?

Why not deal with the evidence, rather than huffing and puffing about complete irrelevancies? We can't fully explain personality, or the immune system, or insulin pathway signaling, or anything else in human biology at this point. So what? We have reasons to believe that much human DNA does not have function. You have offered precisely zero reason to think that it does have function, nor have you said anything about the reasons we do have.

Ultimately I'd be inclined to agree with you that *some* DNA doesn't have a function, it's really a question of "how much" in the final analysis. I have a problem with LM tossing around that 80 percent figure like it's "gospel" considering how much we have yet to explain about human DNA and human behavior.

You seem to have completely lost it here. If you want to discuss the science (and this is all standard evolutionary biology and genetics), discuss it.

I'm more than happy to discuss it, I'm just not convinced that LM's 80 percent figure is 'gospel'. Sorry, I'm just not convinced we know enough about DNA and human behaviors to make such claims at this point in time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya, LM is assuming it.

No, I am pointing to evidence that supports a lack of function. That is a conclusion, not an assumption.

I have a problem with LM tossing around that 80 percent figure like it's "gospel" considering how much we have yet to explain about human DNA and human behavior.

Listen carefully to what I am saying. I am saying that 80% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with non-function. Those are the experimental results. I count this as evidence supporting non-function, but this is a tentative conclusion and I would be more than happy to look at evidence demonstrating that this DNA does have function.

However, making up functions out of whole cloth is not compelling. You are pointing to our ignorance of specific processes as evidence that this DNA does have function. That is an argument from ignorance.

I'm more than happy to discuss it, I'm just not convinced that LM's 80 percent figure is 'gospel'. Sorry, I'm just not convinced we know enough about DNA and human behaviors to make such claims at this point in time.

I doubt we will ever know enough for you to accept that 80% of the genome is junk.

 

[Loudmouth]

Personality *is* going to be influenced by DNA. We don't know everything there is to know about personality and where it comes from, so *assuming* that all that DNA is irrelevant and "junk" is more than a tad "premature".

Argument from igorance. If you want to claim that supposed junk DNA is involved in developing personalities then show us the evidence. Pointing to our ignorance of brain development is not evidence for anything you can dream up at the drop of a hat.

What *specific* function? How did you decide how the two should be related in the first place?

I have already explained this. If a DNA sequence has function that function will depend on its sequence. I am sure that you would agree that a function will not have an infinite number of DNA sequences that all perform that same function, especially when you are looking at a system limited to inheritance like DNA is. Therefore, any sequence with function will lose that function when certain mutations occur within that sequence. If the fitness of the organism is decreased because of that mutation then it will be selected against. If changes to a specific DNA sequence change function to a beneficial function, you will see a strong selection for changes. In between conservation of function and evolution of new function you have neutral drift. This is where each and every mutation has equal chances of being passed on, and this produces a predictable rate of divergence between species and within the species.

Therefore, when we find DNA sequence that is diverging as if the sequence of that DNA does not matter to the fitness of individual it is evidence that it doesn't have function. It is also worth mentioning that this technique is capable of differentiating between known pseudogenes (e.g. human vitamin c gene knockout) and genes with known function.

Yes, I do, and I also know it's *weak* evidence at best even *if* we could fully explain personality without it.

I strongly suspect that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You have an emotional reaction to a percentage, and that isn't going to be changed by evidence.

You have limited evidence that requires *personal subjective choices* on your part.

Sorry, but commonly used equations that have been thoroughly vetted within the science of population genetics is not a personal, subjective choice. It is as scientific as it gets.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Argument from igorance. If you want to claim that supposed junk DNA is involved in developing personalities then show us the evidence. Pointing to our ignorance of brain development is not evidence for anything you can dream up at the drop of a hat.



I have already explained this. If a DNA sequence has function that function will depend on its sequence. I am sure that you would agree that a function will not have an infinite number of DNA sequences that all perform that same function, especially when you are looking at a system limited to inheritance like DNA is. Therefore, any sequence with function will lose that function when certain mutations occur within that sequence. If the fitness of the organism is decreased because of that mutation then it will be selected against. If changes to a specific DNA sequence change function to a beneficial function, you will see a strong selection for changes. In between conservation of function and evolution of new function you have neutral drift. This is where each and every mutation has equal chances of being passed on, and this produces a predictable rate of divergence between species and within the species.

Therefore, when we find DNA sequence that is diverging as if the sequence of that DNA does not matter to the fitness of individual it is evidence that it doesn't have function. It is also worth mentioning that this technique is capable of differentiating between known pseudogenes (e.g. human vitamin c gene knockout) and genes with known function.



I strongly suspect that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You have an emotional reaction to a percentage, and that isn't going to be changed by evidence.



Sorry, but commonly used equations that have been thoroughly vetted within the science of population genetics is not a personal, subjective choice. It is as scientific as it gets.

How did you decide the two are not related, since you do not know what any of that so-called junk DNA does? Especially when geneticists are starting to realize all that junk DNA isn't junk at all.

I would say your hypothesis that they can not be related is just as without merit, perhaps more so since it is based upon the hypothesis that junk DNA does nothing, when we are finding junk DNA isn't junk at all, but is required.

But you can certainly prove your confidence by having that junk DNA removed from the next child you have, and let us see how worthless it is. I don't think you have the guts to back up your belief.

http://beaker.sanfordburnham.org/2012/12/junk-dna-embryonic-development-microrna/

"The researchers confirmed their finding by artificially blocking let-7 function and checking to see what happened. That move dramatically altered embryonic cell fate, diverting would-be mesoderm and ectoderm into endoderm and underscoring the microRNA’s crucial role in development."

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-to-turn-simple-paper-into.html

http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/junk-dna-not-in-our-trunks-but-it-does-shape-our-faces/

"So that junk DNA is likely the differences in skull shapes that you like to call transitional species.

And when conditions are not ideal, deletion of that junk DNA leads to severe deficiencies.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S27/96/55S87/index.xml?section=science

 

[Loudmouth]

How did you decide the two are not related, since you do not know what any of that so-called junk DNA does?

We have ample DNA evidence that we are related to other apes and primates. From that data we can find DNA that is diverging at rates consistent with DNA that has no sequence specific function. This, amongst other data, is what scientists are using to draw their conclusions. So we do know what it does. It acts like non-functional DNA. If you have better methodologies or evidence, now is the time to present it. I am all ears.

Especially when geneticists are starting to realize all that junk DNA isn't junk at all.

Who are these geneticists?

I would say your hypothesis that they can not be related is just as without merit, perhaps more so since it is based upon the hypothesis that junk DNA does nothing, when we are finding junk DNA isn't junk at all, but is required.

Reference?

But you can certainly prove your confidence by having that junk DNA removed from the next child you have, and let us see how worthless it is. I don't think you have the guts to back up your belief.

The bladderwort already did that for us. It removed nearly all of its junk DNA, and it is doing fine. We have also removed sections of junk DNA from mice, and they were unaffected:

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable m... [Nature. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

What was surprising is that the scientists were expecting some function in the parts of the mouse genome that they deleted to to conserved synteny, but even then they were not able to tell the difference between the different groups using several different methodologies.

 

[Michael]

Argument from igorance. If you want to claim that supposed junk DNA is involved in developing personalities then show us the evidence. Pointing to our ignorance of brain development is not evidence for anything you can dream up at the drop of a hat.

Your entire argument is a argument from arrogance. *Without* being able to explain personality traits, you've already decided how much DNA is necessary and how much isn't.

I have already explained this. If a DNA sequence has function that function will depend on its sequence.

Well, there's your first assumption (likely I'd admit).

Therefore, when we find DNA sequence that is diverging as if the sequence of that DNA does not matter to the fitness of individual it is evidence that it doesn't have function.

The basic problem is that you're making is your assumption in that "as if" part of your sentence, and doing it without respect to any personality traits whatsoever.

It is also worth mentioning that this technique is capable of differentiating between known pseudogenes (e.g. human vitamin c gene knockout) and genes with known function.

I wouldn't even debate that the technique itself works, I'd debate on how you're trying to *misuse* it. The technique tells us *which genes* are *obviously* having noticeable effects, but it doesn't tell us much about anything else.

I strongly suspect that no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You have an emotional reaction to a percentage, and that isn't going to be changed by evidence.

Sorry, but commonly used equations that have been thoroughly vetted within the science of population genetics is not a personal, subjective choice. It is as scientific as it gets.

Ya, but I've heard all that before with respect to other areas of science in instance where it later fell right on it's face. It's not the concept that some human DNA might indeed by "junk" that I object to, it's your assertion of that 80 percent figure as "gospel" that I object to.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your entire argument is a argument from arrogance.

I am not the one with the arrogance to ignore the evidence. That would be you.

*Without* being able to explain personality traits, you've already decided how much DNA is necessary and how much isn't.

We don't need to know what a specific set of DNA does in order to determine that its divergence rate is consistent with having no function. You do realize this, don't you?

Perhaps this question can help swerve this back to something sane. Do you think a functional piece of DNA that affects fitness is impervious to deleterious mutations?

 

[sfs]

Ya, LM is assuming it.

I see no sign of that.

How is one's temper related to the "fitness" of the organism?

You don't think aggressiveness has an effect on survival, especially in more violent societies? There are still plenty of places in the world where having too hot a temper will get you killed or maimed pretty quickly, while having too little may leave you without a mate or the means to support yourself.

If it doesn't have an effect on fitness, then it's not functional.

Ultimately I'd be inclined to agree with you that *some* DNA doesn't have a function, it's really a question of "how much" in the final analysis. I have a problem with LM tossing around that 80 percent figure like it's "gospel" considering how much we have yet to explain about human DNA and human behavior.

That 80% (or 80-90%) is the current state of the science. Why pick on him?

I'm more than happy to discuss it, I'm just not convinced that LM's 80 percent figure is 'gospel'. Sorry, I'm just not convinced we know enough about DNA and human behaviors to make such claims at this point in time.

You're not just "not convinced"; you're practically frothing at the mouth.

 

[Michael]

I see no sign of that.

I do.

You don't think aggressiveness has an effect on survival, especially in more violent societies? There are still plenty of places in the world where having too hot a temper will get you killed or maimed pretty quickly, while having too little may leave you without a mate or the means to support yourself.

If it doesn't have an effect on fitness, then it's not functional.

But that's just it. I do think aggressiveness, reaction to threats, and overall intelligence play a role in "fitness" in terms of procreation, and I don't see how or why we can be sure none of that 80 percent of human DNA has any effect on such traits.

That 80% (or 80-90%) is the current state of the science. Why pick on him?

It's the zeal of the assertion I have a tough time with.

You're not just "not convinced"; you're practically frothing at the mouth.

I'm simply pointing out that he's making *huge* assumptions and stating them as absolute fact based on a pretty limited understanding of DNA and how it all works. I'm sure there is indeed 'junk' DNA, but simply lack belief that 80 percent of our DNA serves no useful purpose.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do.

That is why having a conversation with you is nearly impossible. I relay the scientific consensus that is drawn from evidence, and you claim it is my dogmatic opinion and just assumed.

But that's just it. I do think aggressiveness, reaction to threats, and overall intelligence play a role in "fitness" in terms of procreation, and I don't see how or why we can be sure none of that 80 percent of human DNA has any effect on such traits.

It is a simple question. Do you think DNA with selectable function is impervious to deleterious mutations?

I'm simply pointing out that he's making *huge* assumptions and stating them as absolute fact based on a pretty limited understanding of DNA and how it all works.

I am not making that assumption. I am pointing to the evidence where 80% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with non-function. How many times do I have to say it?

 

[Michael]

I am not the one with the arrogance to ignore the evidence. That would be you.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just not clinging to it as "gospel", and trying to build a federal case over it like you are.

We don't need to know what a specific set of DNA does in order to determine that its divergence rate is consistent with having no function. You do realize this, don't you?

I realize that you do a lot of things and say a lot of things that I disagree with.

Perhaps this question can help swerve this back to something sane.

Notice how you go personal at the drop of hat? It's not like I even doubt that *some* DNA isn't critical. You still feel compelled to use loaded language like "sane" to make your points. Your attitude is to beat everyone into submission based on verbal abuse apparently.

Do you think a functional piece of DNA that affects fitness is impervious to deleterious mutations?

I still have no idea what you personally mean by the term "functional".

Your basic position is that "since we cannot figure out what everything does yet, we can just *assume* that what we haven't figure out yet isn't necessary at all". I don't believe that is true.

 

[Michael]

That is why having a conversation with you is nearly impossible. I relay the scientific consensus that is drawn from evidence, and you claim it is my dogmatic opinion and just assumed.

The consensus isn't nearly as dogmatic as you tend to be over a wide range of topics.

It is a simple question. Do you think DNA with selectable function is impervious to deleterious mutations?

Define "selectable function".

I am not making that assumption. I am pointing to the evidence where 80% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with non-function. How many times do I have to say it?

You can say it all you like, but that doesn't mean it's *actually true* that 80 percent of all human DNA is "non-functional". You simply don't know what that function might be yet.