Here is another "junk DNA" claim that needs to be junked. And this time in rather dramatic fashion. The headline reads "Research team finds important role for junk DNA." That's putting it mildly. The "junk" DNA genes "spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome" of the humble protozoan, Oxytricha.Early discoveries of "junk" DNA function were a bit more mundane. For instance, some segments were found to have a structural role. To be sure, structural roles actually are complex, and it is not good science to think mutations constructed such a marvel. Later, the "junk" DNA was found to be responsible for massive, sophisticated gene regulation. Pretty amazing. But now we have the rearranging of the entire genome. Biology doesn't seem to understand evolution. But evolutionists don't give up easily--after all, it's a fact.
So in program terms, the "non-junk" is the current source code and the "junk" is the comments, documentation and version control macros?
ReplyDeleteFound the original paper, but it is not publicly accessable...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19879799
From the abstract...
"...maternal RNA templates provide both an organizing guide for DNA rearrangements in Oxytricha and a template that can transmit spontaneous mutations that may arise during somatic growth to the next generation, providing two such mechanisms of so-called Lamarckian inheritance. This suggests that the somatic ciliate genome is really an 'epigenome', formed through templates and signals arising from the previous generation. This review will discuss these new biological roles for RNA, including non-coding 'template' RNA molecules. The evolutionary consequences of viable mechanisms in ciliates to transmit acquired characters may create an additional store of heritable variation that contributes to the cosmopolitan success of this diverse lineage of microbial eukaryotes."
Without reading the full paper, I can't be sure. But it looks like this might provide empirical support for the RNA World hypothesis for biological origins.
RNA World?
ReplyDeleteAlready on its death bed and rightly so.
When will Darwinists finally get it through their heads that prescribed, coded information, by very definition, is formal and cannot arise without intelligence?
Apparently never, because they "believe"!
Thought Provoker,
ReplyDeleteI think any time we see RNA bullying DNA about, the RNA world hypothesis comes to mind. The structural role of RNA in organizing chromatin extends past protozoans, but perhaps my favorite is telomerase-which uses RNA in a templating and catalytic role to slap the telomeres (protective DNA repeats) onto the ends of linear chromosomes.
BTW, could someone explain to me why ID/Creationists are so triumphant about "Junk" DNA? There was never a hypothesis, I know of, that it would be non-functional.
The original coining of the phrase "Junk" DNA by Susumu Ohno in 1970 used the quotes, indicating the colloquial nature of the phrase. Even he was wagering guesses at its function-as a spacer between genes, to allow recombination that didn't break genes, etc. The "Bodyguard" hypothesis for chromatin follows. And this is before DNA sequencing.
Following actual sequencing of it, the recognition of conservation in "junk" DNA led to immediate hypotheses regarding function.
For example, by 1980:
Sex chromosome associated satellite DNA: Evolution and conservation Chromosoma. 1980;79(2):137–157
"Evolutionary conservation of W satellite DNA strongly suggests that functional constraints may have limited sequence divergence."
It is a strange "triumph" based on blatant (retrospective) misinterpretation of a colloquialism. Years ago, I had a final exam question that asked "Why is "junk" DNA not "trash?"
After all, the original definition of junk was cabling used to make other items, and it still retains a bit of the meaning-discarded things that might serve other purposes-the 'junk' in my basement I hold onto because it might be re-purposed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junk
Hitch: "When will Darwinists finally get it through their heads that prescribed, coded information, by very definition, is formal and cannot arise without intelligence?"
ReplyDeleteSo, what is your....
Oh, never mind.
My hypothesis is "prescribed, coded information" is realized through quantum effects.
Whether the appearance of Quantum Indeterminacy is due to true randomness, orchestrated quantum effects or God is a metaphysical question which may or may not forever remain unanswered.
Does that make me a hard-headed “Darwinist”?
"When will Darwinists finally get it through their heads that prescribed, coded information, by very definition, is formal and cannot arise without intelligence?'
ReplyDeleteYou should check out the discussion from a Christian scientific fellowship here:
http://www.asa3online.org/Book/category/books/sitc/info-intel/
Cutting and pasting some of the problems:
1)There is a fundamental difference between DNA, and say computer code. Computer code is interpreted by abstraction (an intelligence) while DNA is a physical language that is functional without abstraction.
2)"The logic is inductive in nature, claiming that all examples of CSI are from intelligent sources. Unfortunately, it is not a compelling conclusion that CSI must therefore always come from an intelligent source."
3) A single example to the contrary refutes the point:
A) Functional antibody production, as described by Dr. Craig Story (random processed beget functional information)
B) Any of the many successful directed evolution experiments.
Maybe we gloss over it because that hypothesis is poorly evidenced and has already been disproved.
Rob:
ReplyDeleteI address the points you picked from asa.
"1) ...fundamental difference between DNA and computer code..."
Whoever said that, whatever their credentials may be, does not understand the nature of code period.
All codes require an intelligence - any encoded information must be intelligently described and functional info., stored in any kind of code, must be prescribed and formal.
Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics, in his book "The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life" rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering.
This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial.
It is a brute fact:
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
There is absolutely NO way out of this.
No amount of double talk, hand waving, story telling etc. will ever change the fact that encoded information (most especially with prescribed function) can ever arise without intelligence.
Code itself intrinsically implies an intelligent encoder!
Why this is so hard for Darwinists to understand is not a mystery either - even if they do claim to be theists.
2)"The logic is inductive in nature, claiming that all examples of CSI are from intelligent sources. ...not a compelling conclusion that CSI must therefore always come from an intelligent source."
And that is mere denial. They may as well have said, "we don't believe it therefore it isn't so".
No. The conclusion is compelling because there is no such thing as coded information without a founding intelligence that prescribes the communications conventions involved and the symbols chosen to represent that information - and this applies to chemical symbols as much as ink on paper or binary code!
I.e. The chemicals are not themselves the information they contain!
The ink on paper or the pixels on your screen are not themselves the information in this English message you are reading. You can "read" (interpret, retrieve the information from) encoded in the pixels because you "know" the symbols and the convention!
This is not hard.
"3) A single example to the contrary refutes the point:
A) Functional antibody production, as described by Dr. Craig Story (random processed beget functional information)
B) Any of the many successful directed evolution experiments."
This merely emphasizes the lack of clear thinking involved with these types of answers.
No random process EVER begets functional information unless the randomness itself is guided by intelligence - like in computer simulations and games.
No more than haphazardly throwing stones on the ground produces an alignment that turns out to be a verse from Longfellow, or that flowers in the wild somehow grew up in the exact form of the letters of your name.
Directed evolution? I hope they're were just kidding on that one! DE is nothing less than ID.
The only way a random process can provide functional information is if the randomness itself is what is being sought by the designer.
In short, Mr. Isaac is seriously wrong in his analysis and appears to be in denial of the nature of all coded information.
"Maybe we gloss over it because that hypothesis is poorly evidenced and has already been disproved."
On the contrary, you are merely living in denial of fact, as Abel et al. complain.
More:
ReplyDelete"Using very simple counting arguments, Hubert Yockey has concluded that an ancient protein such as "cytochrome c" could be expected to arise by chance only once in 10<44> trials. The image of an indefatigable but hopelessly muddled universe trying throughout all eternity to create a single biological molecule is very sobering. It is this image that, no doubt, accounted for Francis Crick's suggestion that life did not originate on earth at all, but was sent here from outer space, a wonderful example of an intellectual operation known generally as fog displacement."
- Berlinski - The End of Materialist Science Subject: Anti-Evolution Articles - Date: 12/2/1996
Yockey wrote, "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical."
As soon as you see the connection that it isn’t just analogy but that the treatment of these is mathematically identical, you find yourself inescapably looking at an intelligent origin.
Not only intelligent but supremely, phenomenally intelligent!
All language comes from a mind and mind only.
Strange to use Yockey as a sole source. If I recall, hes given ID creationism and irreducible complexity a few square kicks in the ass:
ReplyDeleteBehe's irreducible complexity and evolutionary theory. NCSE Reports. 21(3-4) (2001), 18–20.
He thought understanding origins was impossible. Perhaps, and it really isn't part of evolution or the way it is taught. I'm not sure the same can be said of ID and creationism. Apparently, he did not find himself "inescapably looking at an intelligent origin." Or at least not in his public life, that I am aware of.
First problem:
"DNA's functional specificity is derived precisely from its ability to survive and reproduce, not from any abstract meaning. If the chemical and physical structure changes, the functionality is changed and may be lost. The information is not a matter of assigning a meaning to the nucleotides, but rather the chemical function that the DNA carries out."
To further illustrate-a thought experiment: if you generate for me a code that is physio/chemically functional, physically reproduces itself, can change in a selectable fashion over generations, and it doesn't evolve under pressure, I'll shut up. But the false analogy with a language code fails to realize the physical nature of what DNA (or better, RNA) actually is.
Second problem:
"Code itself intrinsically implies an intelligent encoder!"
A 'truth' I keep hearing repeated without proof. Because the 'codes' you are aware of are human-made it proves all information content is human-encoded?
Third problem: Disproofs
The immunology example shows a completely random process generating functional information with imposed selection.
As much as you have been told directed evolution experiments are intelligent design, they are the opposite. The avoid the process of having to design by random generation of diversity. Saturating mutagenesis, recombination, etc., are performed randomly. With selection, novel function comes out.
Other:
"Concluded that an ancient protein such as "cytochrome c" could be expected to arise by chance only once in 10<44> trials."
Although life origins isn't formally part of evolutionary biology, Ill still answer. No one wants cytochrome C to poof into existence de-novo. RNA, and very small peptide catalysts and motifs likely dominated, and grew together in complexity. Functional motifs found in complex modern proteins indicate ancient, simple motifs (Walker A, for example).