Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
29 online now:
GDR, jar, ssope, Taq (4 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 153 of 177 (548630)
02-28-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
02-28-2010 6:10 AM


what's the topic?
Hi Percy, just a note

Of course you can, but in threads where it would be on-topic. This thread's about abiogenesis.

This thread was started by marc9000 to discuss the relative merits of ID versus abiogenesis on a scientific basis. I got some further clarification on what marc9000 wanted to discuss with Message 123:

quote:
From these messages and your OP I glean the basic topic to be:

1. whether abiogenesis can properly be considered science,
2. whether ID can properly be considered science, and
3. whether abiogenesis is more scientific than ID or vice versa


Yes, you’ve clarified it well, I believe your A,B, and C should be the focus of this thread, and I agree about leaving the other issues.

As such the title should probably be changed to

Abiogenesis vs ID -- which is more scientific?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 02-28-2010 6:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 154 of 177 (548798)
03-01-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by marc9000
02-27-2010 7:50 PM


Update on the bogus ID "prediction"
Hi again, marc9000, just came across some additional information.

From thread is the advancement of macro evolution without hick up? Message 28:

This letter to Nature describes an experiment involving the deletion of over 2,300 non-coding intervals from mice DNA with no apparent effect on the mice.

Going to the article abstract we see:

quote:
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice

The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined(1). Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts(2, 3, 4) can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.


Note two things:

(1) the function of non-coding DNA is still unknown for 98% of the mammalian genomes, and

(2) large segments can be deleted with no apparent effect on the viability of the organisms or their descendants.

Now remember your one single prediction that you offered to support ID was:

Message 111: To go further with the “junk DNA” thing, we find this link, including this paragraph;

quote:
Even if some rogue biologists suspected function for "junk" DNA, this does nothing to change the fact that the false "junk"-DNA paradigm was born, bred, and sustained far beyond its reasonable lifetime under the Neo-Darwinian mindset. Some Darwinists do not want to admit this fact of history. Given the behavior of Darwinists regarding the film Flock of Dodos, where they have denied that Haeckel's faked embryo drawings have been misused in modern textbooks, it is not surprising that some Darwinists are now trying to rewrite history to claim their paradigm never called non-coding DNA "junk." It appears that junk-DNA is truly going the way of the dodo, in more way than one.

Intelligent design really can sometimes correct mistakes of the Neo-Darwinian mindset.

As I noted in Message 136:

Four, I've done a little investigating of the background on your "prediction" ...

From your link:

quote:
As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this sentiment in First Things:
[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))


Now let's review that "prediction" by Dembski again ...

quote:
... If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ...

So that "prediction" has still not been fulfilled, unless you consider the small amount of all DNA having a known use today meeting the criteria of "as much as possible, to exhibit function." So what is predicted for the remaining DNA today? If we are still less than 50% known use then that prediction has not been met. What is the use? What is the function? Without that essential little detail there is no prediction of the use of such DNA. When I design something it is 100% functional parts.

So to update my previous comments with the information given above:

(1) If the use of 98% of mammalian genomes is still not known, then the amount of non-coding DNA that has been determined to have some use is indeed very very small, to the point where Dembski's "prediction" of finding use -- "If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function" -- cannot be deemed to be anywhere near being touched by any stretch of a willing but rational imagination.

(2) The deletion of such large sections of non-coding DNA without discernible effect on the individual or its descendants is a strong argument for invalidation of Dembski's prediction: if DNA, as much as possible, should exhibit function for ID to be valid, then any large scale deletion of DNA should have noticeable effect on the organism or its descendants.

Leaving aside the fact that his "prediction" of some use for non-coding DNA being found was due to reading about it in a science journal rather than to some hypothesis based on ID, we see that this has nowhere near come close to beginning to hint at validation, while there is evidence that strongly speaks to invalidating it.

Notice that in abiogenesis, when it became apparent that the early environment was not as reducing as was assumed with Miller-Urey, that the scientists discarded the previous assumptions and proceeded to (successfully) repeat the experiments with updated environmental conditions.

Science discards invalidated concepts.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 7:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019