Saturday, July 13, 2013

Oops: “A Large Proportion of the Mammalian Genome is Functional”

Evolution is Getting Demolished

No sooner had Dan Graur finished his talk at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution this week on how if ENCODE’s conclusion (that much of our genome is functional rather than junk) is true, then evolution is false, but that ENCODE most assuredly is not true, that the human genome is small, low on genes, unoriginal and repetitive, and that junk DNA is a known known, then new research out of John Mattick’s lab took the next step in the inexorable march of science showing that, once again, it’s not good to bet against Mother Nature. While Graur argued that only about 5% of our genome can be functional because, after all, the pufferfish’s genome is way larger than ours and we surely we can’t believe in human exceptionalism and Goldilockism (which certainly got some laughs in Chicago), Mattick and crew reported on actual experiments suggesting that, err, “a large proportion of the mammalian genome is functional.”

The Mattick results show that in addition to the 5-8% of the genome with conserved DNA sequence, a much higher percentage, possibly up to 30%, has conserved RNA structure. You see while protein structure is difficult to predict from the amino acid sequence, RNA structure can be predicted relatively accurately from the nucleotide sequence. So the new research from Mattick’s lab computed the predicted RNA structures from dozens of mammalian genomes and searched for conserved structures across the different species.

A conserved structure across multiple species, according to evolution, probably has been conserved by purefying selection. In other words, it contributes to the organism’s fitness, and so has function and is not junk.

The bottom line is while ENCODE found that more than three-quarters of our genome is transcribed, which is circumstantial evidence for function, Mattick’s lab is now providing even stronger evidence for function for about a third of that three-quarters of our genome.

And that additional evidence was obtained only using a particular method. There are many, many more potential lines of inquiry that could show more genome function. In other words, that 30% figure is only going to grow.

In fact it already is larger when you consider other work, such as the recent findings that the so-called Alu elements “have been shown to control mRNA processing at several levels, to have complex regulatory functions such as transcriptional repression and modulating alternative splicing and to cause a host of human genetic diseases.”

Perhaps our prediction, that Graur’s claim (that if ENCODE is true then evolution must be false) will be conveniently ignored and forgotten, will come true sooner rather than later. For none of this will change evolutionary thought. No matter how ridiculous the data shows evolution to be, the truth status of evolution never was and never will be vulnerable to scientific evidence.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

94 comments:

  1. I'm glad to see we all agree that natural selection does occur, at least at some levels. That's a start.

    The problem with the ENCODE results turn on their definition of 'function'. This has been criticized for being far too loose. They seem to assume that if a region shows almost any sign of activity then it must have a function - even if what is being transcribed is genetic gibberish.

    According to your description, the Mattick study is making the same mistake. They are assuming that any conserved RNA sequence must be functional, it wouldn't be retained otherwise.

    That assumption was challenged by Ford Doolittle in his critique of the ENCODE results. He sees it as just another form of "panadaptationism" - the view that any property of current organism is there only because it has some survival value.

    A third, and the least reliable, method to infer function is mere existence. The presence of a structure or the occurrence of a process or detectable interaction, especially if complex, is taken as adequate evidence for its being under selection, even when ablation is infeasible and the possibly selectable effect of presence remains unknown. Because our genomes have introns, Alu elements, and endogenous retroviruses, these things must be doing us some good. Because a region is transcribed, its transcript must have some fitness benefit, however remote. Because residue N of protein P is leucine in species A and isoleucine in species B, there must be some selection-based explanation. This approach enshrines "panadaptationism," which was forcefully and effectively debunked by Gould and Lewontin (34) in 1979 but still informs much of molecular and evolutionary genetics, including genomics.

    The problem with the panadaptationist argument is exemplified by the vitamin C gene - GULO. In human beings, it's broken. We can no longer synthesize the vitamin internally, unlike many other creatures, so we have to eat it in some form. The thing is, it's estimated that the gene was disabled something like 63 million years ago. But it's still there. It's conserved even though it lost its original function way back and doesn't seem to do anything else. How much of the other conserved material doesn't actually have a function?

    Two final points, first, even if 30% of the genome is functional that still leaves 70% that isn't and, second, you still have to explain how much simpler organisms like the onion have genomes many times bigger than the human.

    I'd say the "junk" DNA hypothesis and the theory of evolution are still in pretty good shape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's here to explain? Onion doesn't have an adaptive immune system like human does it? Do I have to explain why that is so important or you are going to look that up?

      Delete
    2. Ian:

      According to your description, the Mattick study is making the same mistake. They are assuming that any conserved RNA sequence must be functional, it wouldn't be retained otherwise.

      No, the criteria are different. Transcriptional activity could be due to nothing at all about the sequence, but rather an over active RNA polymerase, making useless copies of useless DNA. As the OP explains, conserved RNA sequence, according to evolutionary theory, implies purefying selection, *on* the sequence in question. The Mattick, et. al. paper is using a stricter criterion.

      That assumption was challenged by Ford Doolittle in his critique of the ENCODE results. He sees it as just another form of "panadaptationism" - the view that any property of current organism is there only because it has some survival value.

      No, that would be an inappropriate criticism of the Mattick, et. al. paper.


      Two final points, first, even if 30% of the genome is functional that still leaves 70% that isn't

      At what value is evolution falsified?


      you still have to explain how much simpler organisms like the onion have genomes many times bigger than the human.

      No, you are elevating a weaker argument so as to favor evolution. If XX% of the genome is shown to be under selection, then XX% of the genome is under selection, period. The fact that some other species presents an enigma in comparison, is an interesting and important question, but it doesn’t invalidate the finding that XX% of the genome is under selection.


      I'd say the "junk" DNA hypothesis and the theory of evolution are still in pretty good shape.

      Actually the theory of evolution was never in pretty good shape from a scientific perspective, so there is no way is can still be in pretty good shape.

      Delete


    3. And yet thousands of professional biologists sincerely hold the opposite opinion and as you said ,you don't doubt their sincerity. Do you have a more persuasive scientific theory for them to evaluate its better explanatory virtues,because isn't that how the scientific perspective works?

      Delete
    4. Do you have a more persuasive scientific theory for them to evaluate

      This is not a scientific problem. When we say evolution is a fact as much as is gravity, it demonstrates that we are not evaluating the theory according to science. We’re a long, long way from science.

      Delete
    5. There you go, cornelius, running away as usual. You were asked if you "have a more persuasive scientific theory for them to evaluate its better explanatory virtues".

      Since you constantly assert that evolutionary theory is not scientific, not explanatory, and "was never in pretty good shape from a scientific perspective", you should have NO problem with presenting your 'scientific theory' that explains the history and diversity of life. What is your 'scientific theory', in detail?

      Since you are SO certain that evolutionary theory is not scientific and is wrong, you must have a 'theory' that you believe is scientific and right. So, what is it, in detail?

      You spend a lot of time and effort bashing evolution and evolutionary theory (even though you don't know the difference between them), but do you have a 'scientific theory' that explains the history and diversity of life? If so, what is it, in detail?

      Delete
    6. twt:

      do you have a 'scientific theory' that explains the history and diversity of life?

      I'll try once again. Evolution is not a scientific theory. The fact of evolution does not come from scientific evidence and reasoning.

      Delete
    7. Cornelius Hunter

      I'll try once again. Evolution is not a scientific theory. The fact of evolution does not come from scientific evidence and reasoning.


      What an amazingly dumb thing to claim, even if you are getting paid to write this garbage.

      You jumped the shark long ago CH. Now you're going for Evel Knievel's record of 20 sharks side-by-side.

      You also didn't answer the question asked

      "do you have a 'scientific theory' that explains the history and diversity of life?"

      ...instead doing your usual Creationist tap-dance avoidance.

      Delete
    8. DrHunter,
      I'll try once again. Evolution is not a scientific theory. The fact of evolution does not come from scientific evidence and reasoning.


      How about the Theory of Evolution,does it come from scientific evidence and reasoning.In other words ,if evolution occurs, would the ToE be considered a scientific explanation?

      It also seems even if the ToE is not a theory ,you are still obligated to produce a scientific theory yourself , if one fails to do so, the status of the ToE is irrelevant.

      Unless your real point is science has no place in answering questions best left to religion, and by religion I mean your religion.

      Delete
    9. V: How about the Theory of Evolution,does it come from scientific evidence and reasoning.In other words ,if evolution occurs, would the ToE be considered a scientific explanation?

      J: There are no propositions entailed in that part of the ToE that are derived from observations that EXPLAIN naturalistic UCA. Thus, there is NO naturalistic explanation of naturalistic UCA, PERIOD. Throwing around the adjective "scientific" is irrelevant at this point.

      V: It also seems even if the ToE is not a theory ,you are still obligated to produce a scientific theory yourself , if one fails to do so, the status of the ToE is irrelevant.

      J: You're changing the subject. CH is merely arguing against lying in the name of science about the CURRENT epistemic status of the ToE. That is perfectly valid whether or not one has an explanatory hypothesis of his/her own. Of course, you guys can legislate against the 1st amendment by positive law. But that has nothing to do with what is WARRANTED rationally. Only COMPLETE idiots confuse the two.

      Delete
    10. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Thus, there is NO naturalistic explanation of naturalistic UCA, PERIOD.


      LOL! You mean none that you know about. That's because you're an amazingly stupid willfully ignorant goober. The rest of us have had a solid productive theory for over 150 years.

      But do keep blithering the same ignorant philosophical nonsense if it makes you feel better about yourself.

      Delete
    11. Oh, Moronton, I didn't realize that you know which of the "propositions entailed in that part of the ToE that are derived from observations" actually "EXPLAIN naturalistic UCA." To explain is to imply by hypotheses. So have at it. Once and for all, articulate those hypotheses.

      Only the most moronic of idiots incessantly insist that they know what they can't even articulate.

      Delete
    12. Jeff,
      J: There are no propositions entailed in that part of the ToE that are derived from observations that EXPLAIN naturalistic UCA


      UCA is secondary to the ToE, at its heart it is the theory that given time living things change by natural processes and those changes can be significant or small.



      Thus, there is NO naturalistic explanation of naturalistic UCA, PERIOD. Throwing around the adjective "scientific" is irrelevant at this point.

      Of course there is, all life has a common ancestor

      Your answer seems to be that science is, by your definition of evidence ,incapable of even constructing a scientific theory concerning any origins of anything.Am I incorrect? If so how about an example of such a theory.

      Delete
    13. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      I didn't realize that you know which of the "propositions entailed in that part of the ToE that are derived from observations" actually "EXPLAIN naturalistic UCA."


      Of course you don't, because you're just another willfully ignorant Creationist goober. But that's OK LFJJ, idiots like you give the scientific community something to laugh at.

      Delete
    14. CH: I'll try once again. Evolution is not a scientific theory. The fact of evolution does not come from scientific evidence and reasoning.

      I forgot, exactly what kind of empiricist are you, Cornelius? Oh, that's right, that's yet another question you refuse to answer.

      So, let me fix that for you Cornelius...

      I'll try once again. The theory that everything in biology is just one giant random accident is not a scientific theory according to some specific definition of science I refuse to actually define in a detailed way or argue for. The fact of evolution does not come what my definition of scientific evidence and reasoning.

      I'll ask you again, are dinosaurs *the* explanation for fossils, or not? How is that scientific given your definition of science? Or is it not science either?

      IOW, "X isn't science" would be a bad criticism unless you define science in a way that this same criticism cannot be applied to absolutely everything. In the absence of such a definition, it cannot be used it in a critical way.

      Of course, I'm being generous here and assuming you actually want to make progress on the issue by presenting genuine criticism.

      Delete
    15. Jeff: There are no propositions entailed in that part of the ToE that are derived from observations that EXPLAIN naturalistic UCA.

      Except, you still haven't formulated a principle of induction. So, your criticism isn't valid. Let me repost here for your convenience.

      01. Raw data
      02. Not conjecture or refutation
      0N. Not conjecture or refutation
      [...]
      0X. Inductive conclusion

      Fill in [0N] with something other than conjecture and refutation.

      Please be specific.

      Otherwise, your objection that "There are no propositions entailed in that part of the ToE that are derived from observations that EXPLAIN naturalistic UCA." is a bad criticism because it could be applied to absolutely anything.

      Delete
    16. IOW, "X isn't science" would be a bad criticism unless you define science in a way that this same criticism cannot be applied to absolutely everything.

      No Scott, there is nothing heroic about my claim that religious reasoning such as this is not science:

      =====
      Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.
      =====

      Delete
    17. How about the Theory of Evolution,does it come from scientific evidence and reasoning.

      No V, I hate to be the bringer of bad news here, but the theory that the world arose spontaneously, that something must have come from nothing, and that this is a fact, did not come from scientific evidence and reasoning. Science isn't telling us that the entire biological world just happened to arise spontaneously via random chance events.

      Delete
    18. Cornelius Hunter

      No V, I hate to be the bringer of bad news here, but the theory that the world arose spontaneously, that something must have come from nothing, and that this is a fact, did not come from scientific evidence and reasoning.


      21 sharks jumped and counting CH. You make Evel Knievel proud!

      Delete
    19. CH: No Scott, there is nothing heroic about my claim that religious reasoning such as this is not science:

      [...]

      Except, I've already addressed this several times, which you have yet to respond to with any sort of criticism.

      Again, are you really suggesting there is no distinction between taking someone else's claims seriously, for the purpose of criticism, and personally holding that belief?

      Pointing out that the theist beliefs of others is self conflicting doesn't actually one subscribe to theistic belief themselves.

      To use an example, imagine if a bank robbery was thwarted by woman wearing a green suit with a big Z on her chest, but not before she was shot in the arm. Now imaging someone claimed this woman, now in the hospital being treated for a gunshot wound, was Superman.

      Would I have to actually, personally believe that Superman exists to point out that Superman is supposedly a man, not a woman, who wears a blue suit with S on the chest, with a red cape and is impervious to bullets? No, I don't.

      Theists complain that we do not take their theory seriously, but when we do, we get this sort of disingenuous objection.

      As I've pointed out elsewhere, we start out with a problem to solve, conjecture solutions to that problem, then criticize them to find and discard errors. This includes taking conjectured theories seriously for the purpose of criticism. This is yet another example of doing just this.

      Note: I'm being completely self consistent across the board. Nor have you actually presented any kind of serious criticism to the argument I've presented.

      Are you going to ignore this yet again?

      Furthermore, to quote this article....

      What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.

      However, in the case of abstract designer with no defined limitations, there is no *necessary* consequences for current state of the system which we can test using empirical observations. Nor would there be *necessary* consequences for God.

      Delete
    20. DrHunter,
      No V, I hate to be the bringer of bad news here, but the theory that the world arose spontaneously, that something must have come from nothing,


      Playing word games again? What is " the theory" of which you speak? Not the Big Bang not the ToE since neither postulates something from nothing.

      and that this is a fact,

      Which part of " the theory renders it unscientific, the fact that it is considered a fact or the that it removes God as a direct actor when looking at causes?

      Science isn't telling us that the entire biological world just happened to arise spontaneously via random chance events.

      That is true, that is not what the ToE says.

      Delete
    21. V:

      "that is not what the ToE says."

      Actually that is what it says. Teleology is not allowed.

      Delete
    22. Scott:

      Pointing out that the theist beliefs of others is self conflicting doesn't actually one subscribe to theistic belief themselves.

      Sorry, but "paths that a sensible God would never tread" is a theistic belief. Did you think otherwise?

      Delete
    23. Scott: Pointing out that the theist beliefs of others is self conflicting doesn't actually one subscribe to theistic belief themselves.

      CH: Sorry, but "paths that a sensible God would never tread" is a theistic belief. Did you think otherwise?

      J: Moreover, "sensible" has to be evaluated in terms of how the designer is best satisfied with the designed order GIVEN what other free agents are choosing. It's not fixed in any specific way if there are other free agents that can affect which means are most conducive to the end(s).

      Delete
    24. DrHunter,
      V:

      "that is not what the ToE says."

      Actually that is what it says. Teleology is not allowed.


      I have sad tidings for you, plenty of theists accept it. And since we were talking about a theory which requires something from nothing,not teleology. You are incorrect, the ToE requires matter to exist.

      Delete
    25. V:

      I have sad tidings for you, plenty of theists accept it.

      Ah, I see your confusion. You are conflating theism and teleology.

      Delete
    26. CH: Sorry, but "paths that a sensible God would never tread" is a theistic belief. Did you think otherwise?

      The claim that Superman is bullet proof is a belief about Superman. Do you think otherwise?

      Again, I don't have to subscribe to that belief personally to take it seriously for the purpose of criticism.

      Returning to my analogy, one could appeal to the idea that we can't rule out for sure that one Superman's powers could include appearing as if he was a woman when examined by a medical doctor, even at the DNA level, or that we cannot rule out Superman having the ability to allow himself to be injured by bullets, in some cases but, not others, should he choose to. Furthermore, we can we rule out that Superman had some good reason for allowing himself to be injured by bullets and appearing as a woman during the robberty that we cannot comprehend. After all, he's super and we're not.

      However, these are general purpose strategies to deny anything.

      These are the same strategies that underly your "evolution is religions argument".

      Delete
    27. Correction: Furthermore, we cannot we rule out that Superman had some good reason for allowing himself to be injured by bullets and appearing as a woman during the robberty that we cannot comprehend. After all, he's super and we're not.

      Delete
    28. Jeff, unless "sensible" somehow constrains God's actions, what does it mean to say God is "sensible"? What does it add to the problem we're trying to solve?

      Delete
    29. DrHunter,
      Ah, I see your confusion. You are conflating theism and teleology.


      As a sidebar,how would that work , a nonteleological theism, there is a god,but he is either not omnipotent or not able to choose?

      If teleology is does not equal theism, then is not the interaction between reproduction and the enviroment a form of teleology?

      Or are you looking for a different form of teleology, something capable of creating something from nothing? Oh wait, I remember something from Cathecism about a being that can do that.

      Delete
    30. To clarify, If "sensible" does not somehow constrain God's actions, "X isn't sensible" would be a bad criticism because it could be applied to any action God would take. As such, it cannot be used in a critical way to find and discard errors in your conjectured conception of God.

      If you think knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural authoritative sources, then you will not see this a problem.

      However, under our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge, you're merely accepted a guess uncritically. No progress can be made.

      Of course, this isn't a coincidence, but is by design, since this assumption is based on supposed divinely revealed properties of God. But this is yet another example of the theory that knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural authoritative sources.

      The idea that human knowledge in specific spheres comes from supernatural authoritative sources would itself be human knowledge. And you supposedly got that knowledge from, you guessed it, a supernatural authoritative source. It's circular in nature.

      This is why the underlying conflict is not based on evidence, because there is plenty of it. Rather, the underlying conflict is epistemological in nature.

      IOW, you're denying that we can use reason, problem solving and evidence to make progress on the origin of the features of biological organisms through rational criticism. And you're using general purpose strategies that can be used to arbitrarily deny anything that conflicts with your specific theological commitments.

      Delete
    31. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    32. Again, I don't have to subscribe to that belief personally to take it seriously for the purpose of criticism.

      No Scott, "God wouldn't (or would) do X" is a religious claim, not merely a test of claim.

      Delete
    33. V:

      As a sidebar,how would that work , a nonteleological theism, there is a god,but he is either not omnipotent or not able to choose?

      You could go to Aristotle, or to process theology, or a whole bunch of traditions in between.

      Delete
    34. CH: No Scott, "God wouldn't (or would) do X" is a religious claim, not merely a test of claim.

      Go ahead, Cornelius. It's a religious claim because?

      Have you reached this conclusion because there is a distinction which you applied to reach it? If so, what is that distinction? Or are you saying there can be no distinction?

      If neither of the above, then how did you reach that conclusion? Please be specific.

      IOW, we're back where we started from, since, all you've done here is re-assert that is a religious claim, by tap-dancing around my original question.

      Delete
    35. Why don't you start out by explaining how it's possible to take claims of theism seriously for the purpose of criticism, then point out how Gould's statement doesn't fit that explanation.

      Please be specific.

      Delete
    36. J: There are no propositions entailed in that part of the ToE that are derived from observations that EXPLAIN naturalistic UCA

      V: UCA is secondary to the ToE, at its heart it is the theory that given time living things change by natural processes and those changes can be significant or small.

      J: That offspring differ from their forebears is not a theory--it's an observable fact. That living things can change as "significantly" as naturalistic UCA implies is purely hypothetical, because there is no evidence for that claim. And the claim that that degree of plasticity is attainable in the posited HISTORICAL time-frames has ZERO plausibility given what we thus far know from observation.

      J: Thus, there is NO naturalistic explanation of naturalistic UCA, PERIOD. Throwing around the adjective "scientific" is irrelevant at this point.

      V: Of course there is, all life has a common ancestor

      J: Saying it is not explaining it.

      V: Your answer seems to be that science is, by your definition of evidence ,incapable of even constructing a scientific theory concerning any origins of anything.Am I incorrect? If so how about an example of such a theory.

      J: To explain even ONE naturalistic UCA tree, you have to posit millions of hypotheses to IMPLY/EXPLAIN the tree. So it can be done. But as Scott said, if you're willing to take the time to do something that worthless and a-plausible, you can do it in all kinds of absurd "explanations." So by that view, there is evidence for all kinds of a-plausible non-sense.

      Delete
    37. Scott, you talk about conjecture and criticism as if induction doesn't do that very thing. It's your view that can't render that approach discernably valuable. Because by your view, literally EVERY proposition is equally a-plausible. Thus, that very criticism is relevant to EVERY proposition. And it is as strong a criticism as can be wielded against ANY proposition. IOW, maybe rational criticism actually occurs, by your definition, but by your approach (non-foundationalism of even the mere "natural belief" kind), no belief/idea/hypothesis/etc can be knowably "BETTER" than any other.

      In short, you can't distinguish "knowledge" or "warranted belief" from mere "belief" by your epistemology. Per induction, you can't prove the distinction corresponds to reality, but you CAN meaningfully make the distinction. And humans seemingly can't resist believing THAT the distinction corresponds to reality. For they, as you, keep speaking of recognizably "BETTER" beliefs/explanations/hypotheses as if they actually KNOW that their epistemology is VALID in REALITY, not merely illusory. And that's because induction is not only the natural way humans infer, but it STILL hasn't been found wanting as long-term satisfaction-producing approach.

      Delete
    38. Jeff: Scott, you talk about conjecture and criticism as if induction doesn't do that very thing.

      Except, I can't tell what "that very thing" is because you still haven't formulated a "Principle of induction" that we can actually use, in practice.

      Jeff: It's your view that can't render that approach discernably valuable. Because by your view, literally EVERY proposition is equally a-plausible.

      No, Jeff. I've made a distinction. You just keep vaguely defining plausible, then demanding I accept that vague definition without qualification. You might need a stronger reason to belief, but that's your problem, not mine. You keep projecting your problem on me. Apparently, you can't recognize your conception of human knowledge is subject to criticism.

      Jeff: IOW, maybe rational criticism actually occurs, by your definition, but by your approach (non-foundationalism of even the mere "natural belief" kind), no belief/idea/hypothesis/etc can be knowably "BETTER" than any other.

      See above. A theory can be "better" than others in the sense that it has withstood the most criticism. This doesn't mean that observations have somehow made it positively better than others.

      Just because I do not accept your unqualified terminology, this doesn't mean I think all theories are equal.

      Jeff: Per induction, you can't prove the distinction corresponds to reality, but you CAN meaningfully make the distinction.

      Per what, Jeff? Still waiting for you to fill in the blanks.

      Jeff: And humans seemingly can't resist believing THAT the distinction corresponds to reality

      So, I'm not a human? Popperans are not human?

      Jeff: And that's because induction is not only the natural way humans infer, but it STILL hasn't been found wanting as long-term satisfaction-producing approach.

      Again, you haven't defined what this approach is, let alone that we actually use it.

      Why don't you start out by filling in the blanks with something other than conjecture and refutation.

      01. Raw data
      02. Not conjecture or refutation
      0N. Not conjecture or refutation
      [...]
      0X. Inductive conclusion

      Please be specific.

      Delete
    39. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    40. cornelius said:

      "I'll try once again. Evolution is not a scientific theory."

      That's correct. As I and others have pointed out many times the THEORY of evolution is a scientific theory. You really should try to learn the difference between evolution and evolutionary theory.

      "The fact of evolution does not come from scientific evidence and reasoning."

      Evolution (the process/result) is a fact. The theory of evolution (the research avenue and explanation) could be described as scientific reasoning that is based on scientific evidence.

      Delete
  2. Dear Cornelius,

    I am sorry to write to you in this way, but I could not find your email.

    I was wondering whether there is an ebook version available of 'Darwin's God'? At the moment, I don't find any way of getting hold of your book in Europe without paying through the nose on transport costs...

    if you could email me, that would be great. daan.vanschalkwijk gmail.com

    Thanks!

    Daan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daan:

      Thanks but unfortunately there is no ebook version (at least that I know of).

      Delete
  3. CH: Perhaps our prediction, that Graur’s claim (that if ENCODE is true then evolution must be false) will be conveniently ignored and forgotten, will come true sooner rather than later. For none of this will change evolutionary thought. No matter how ridiculous the data shows evolution to be, the truth status of evolution never was and never will be vulnerable to scientific evidence.

    J: As Moronton, Scott and others have admitted, naturalistic UCA is not believed because a positive probability can be calculated for it. This means there is no warrant/evidence for it. Why then is it believed by them? Because induction only warrants the belief that libertarian causality plays at least SOME causal role in the design of organisms.

    As you've claimed over and over, the issue is NOT whether we can know that naturalistic UCA is false with absolute certitude. We can't. It could be true and still not rule out teleology. The issue is that many scientists continue to lie to the public about the actual epistemic status of the hypothesis.

    Precisely ZERO evidence has been articulated for naturalistic UCA. When they do make claims about evidence, they reveal that they can NOT avoid circular reasoning in that very exercise. IOW, those claims are sheer non-sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then they point the finger at us and say we are the problem.

      Delete
    2. In a sense, all critics that can get a hearing are their problem. Because those critics can nullify the propaganda goals of the consensi for some portion of the population. And that in turn keeps the political freedom aspect of the debate alive and kicking. The thing is, the kinds of evidence used in political and legal debates (courts) are the same old inductive evidences relevant to all argument. That's why the only way the ID debate will be totally silenced is with a significant loss of free speech rights. Because ID'ists aren't saying anything remotely outrageous, inductively speaking.

      But the narcissists among the anti-ID'ists are willing to take it that far. And the status-quo types in their midst will sit back and see who, of the vocal ones, will prevail, and then go with the "winner." Those 2 groups typically constitute about 50%. So it truly is a debate for political rights, ultimately.

      Unfortunately, history shows that propagandists typically win in the short term. And then it takes something radical for the tyrants to lose control.

      Delete
    3. jeff said:

      "Unfortunately, history shows that propagandists typically win in the short term. And then it takes something radical for the tyrants to lose control."

      Yep, and religious propagandists/tyrants are losing control, slowly maybe, in some places, but surely.

      When Darwin published On the Origin of Species I'm sure that it was considered to be "radical" and god pushers like you likely still see it that way. That book surely caused or enabled many people to rethink their religious beliefs and to see in a new light the religious propagandists/tyrants.

      That book and many other sources of scientific information surely cause or enable many people to rethink and turn away from religious propaganda and tyrannical god pushers today and will continue to do so in the future. The more that science finds out, the less room there is for religious fairy tales and religious tyrants.

      Delete
    4. "The more that science finds out, the less room there is for religious fairy tales and religious tyrants."

      I can agree with this. There are no fairy tales or irrelevant religious tyrants allowed when it comes to the amazing array of requirements needed to explain the REALITIES of living organisms.

      Clearly, what can be observed, requires intelligent implementation and coordination of interacting irreducibly complex components forming a vast complex of sustaining entities that are inexplicable via unexplainable correlations of the known natural processes of physics and chemistry.

      Thank you for your admission. Clearly, there is a need for something beyond "fairy tales" (NDE). Although, I confess, I am not sure what your definition of a "religious tyrant" is or how that is relevant to this discussion.

      Delete
    5. Jeff: That's why the only way the ID debate will be totally silenced is with a significant loss of free speech rights. Because ID'ists aren't saying anything remotely outrageous, inductively speaking.

      The design debate will be silenced when a child, using exponentially more powerful computers than we have today, can design a more efficient, moral and harmonious biosphere, either by simulation or on some other planet. At which point, theists will no longer want to claim the design of organisms; just as they no longer want to claim lighting today.

      Delete
    6. Jeff: J: As Moronton, Scott and others have admitted, naturalistic UCA is not believed because a positive probability can be calculated for it.

      Again, "X isn't probable" is a bad criticism because it can be applied to all theories (in contrast to known outcomes inside an existing theory). So you it can't be used in a critical way.

      Is three something about the above that you do not understand?

      Jeff: Precisely ZERO evidence has been articulated for naturalistic UCA. When they do make claims about evidence, they reveal that they can NOT avoid circular reasoning in that very exercise. IOW, those claims are sheer non-sense.

      "Modus Ponens argument X is circular reasoning" is a bad criticism because it can be applied to all Modus Ponens arguments.

      However, the ToE can be reformulated as Modus Tollens, in which it's not not circular and has withstood a overwhelming amount of empirical criticism based on the very same evidence.

      Again, is there something about the above that you do not understand?

      Delete
    7. Scott: The design debate will be silenced when a child, using exponentially more powerful computers than we have today, can design a more efficient, moral and harmonious biosphere, either by simulation or on some other planet. At which point, theists will no longer want to claim the design of organisms; just as they no longer want to claim lighting today.

      J: By your epistemology, we could never know such a thing happened even if it DID happen.

      Scott: Again, "X isn't probable" is a bad criticism because it can be applied to all theories (in contrast to known outcomes inside an existing theory). So you it can't be used in a critical way.

      J: Find me one scientist who thinks the relative probability/plausibility of hypotheses has nothing to do with distinguishing science from non-science. Then quote him/her thus. Then tell me how many putative scientists agree with that. By your approach, science simply can not be demarcated from non-science non-arbitrarily. And no scientist I've ever heard admits to believing ALL believed propositions arbitrarily.

      Delete
    8. Jeff: By your approach, science simply can not be demarcated from non-science non-arbitrarily.

      Please note Jeff's strategy….

      01. Make vague statements that lump rational criticism with positive proof, inductive reasoning, the inability to calculate the probability of a theory itself, etc. into a phrase, like "for theory X".

      02 Claim that unless I accept this vague phrase, and *all* of the ideas he's lumped into it, I must think we can make no progress and that everything is arbitrary.

      03. When I clarify by pointing out there is no *positive* evidence for a theory or that probability is invalid in adopting a theory itself, but theories can be subject to and withstand significant rational criticism, ignore this distinction.

      04. Disingenuously repeat 01, 02 and 03, starting with another version of the same vague statement, as if no distinction was made.

      Delete
    9. Jeff: Find me one scientist who thinks the relative probability/plausibility of hypotheses has nothing to do with distinguishing science from non-science.

      This suffers from the same problem above, as Jeff is asking for a scientist that accepts either all or none of the vague statement he's made.

      However, there are a number of scientists that are Popperans, as I am, who make the same distinction. One example is David Deutsch, who essentially founded the field of quantum computation.

      Delete
  4. Cornelius Hunter

    Evolution is Getting Demolished


    LOL! Wow CH, that's the second time you've disproved the world's best supported scientific theory this week! All without leaving your comfy armchair or doing a smidgen of work either. Yet those narrow-mined meanies in the scientific community still refuse to acknowledge your technical brilliance.

    It's a travesty I tell you, a travesty!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah but Thorton, don't you know that billions of people, including all of the *real* scientists, are making their way this very minute to cornelius's door so that they can hear and bask in the divine glory of his *truly scientific theory* that explains once and for all in intricate detail the entire history and diversity of life?

    Oh wait, cornelius doesn't have a scientific theory. Oh well, I guess evolutionary theory will last another day or two, until cornelius disproves it yet again and replaces it with his much better non-existent theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Ah but Thorton, don't you know that billions of people, including all of the *real* scientists, are making their way this very minute to cornelius's door so that they can hear and bask in the divine glory of his *truly scientific theory* that explains once and for all in intricate detail the entire history and diversity of life?"



      "Real scietists" Would come to the honest conclusion that, "hey, we don't know SHIT, compared to what our proclomations have been for decades. They would conclude that if they weren't so obligated to the status quo bullshit of NDE, in order to keep their jobs or tenure, or whatever, and were free to be honest without losing their beloved retirement of status, they would MOST UNDOUTABLY SAY THAT, nde, in it's traditional form is a bunch of SHIT. Needing revision.

      Delete
  6. cornelius said:

    "And then they point the finger at us and say we are the problem."

    Well, since you and other godbots constantly push your dominionist agenda to replace well established evolutionary theory with your ridiculous religious fairy tales, then yes, you are the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  7. twt:

    Well, since you and other godbots constantly push your dominionist agenda to replace well established evolutionary theory with your ridiculous religious fairy tales

    Oh really. And exactly what "agenda" is that? Please give us some examples of where we pushed our "dominionist agenda to replace well established evolutionary theory." Or could this be yet another false charge?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius Hunter

    Oh really. And exactly what "agenda" is that? Please give us some examples of where we pushed our "dominionist agenda to replace well established evolutionary theory." Or could this be yet another false charge?


    Well, for starters there's the Wedge Strategy published by the Discovery Institute, the guys paying you to write this swill.

    20 sharks and counting CH.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As Thorton pointed out, for a start there's the wedge strategy, and in your case, cornelius, there's also this site, your postings at UD, the religious fairy tales you use to brainwash/indoctrinate students at biola, and:

    http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/

    http://www.biola.edu/about/mission/

    And this is very interesting:

    http://www.biola.edu/hr/downloads/Biola_Staff_App.pdf

    And of course there's plenty of stuff in the bible that pushes christian domination of the world and wiping out anyone who doesn't eagerly go along with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the Biola Doctrinal Statement

      Biblical marriage consists only of a faithful, heterosexual union between one genetic male and one genetic female, and biblical marriage is the only legitimate and acceptable context for a sexual relationship.

      No surprise here.

      Delete
    2. I've repeatedly and directly asked Cornelius to confirm or deny that he holds the belief that human knowledge in specific spheres comes from a supernatural, authoritative source. But he has yet to even acknowledge the question, let alone answer it.

      What's particularly humorous is, apparently Cornelius thinks, by refusing to answer the question, we cannot make any progress regarding the underlying basis for his objection. However, I don't need his explicit disclosure.

      Also, from the Biola Doctrinal Statement…

      The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

      This represents a theological commitment to the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from a supernatural, authoritative source.



      Delete
    3. Biola will be on my short list of schools for my kids.

      Delete
    4. Marcus

      Biola will be on my short list of schools for my kids.


      Excellent. With a Biola "science" education they'll be amply prepared for their new careers as waitresses and fry cooks.

      Delete
    5. Nothing wrong with honest work Thorton no matter what form it is. At least they will learn the truth.

      Delete
    6. Marcus

      At least they will learn the truth.


      It's true if you set the bar low enough you'll never be disappointed.

      Delete
    7. Scott posted this from the biola doctrinal statement:

      "Biblical marriage consists only of a faithful, heterosexual union between one genetic male and one genetic female, and biblical marriage is the only legitimate and acceptable context for a sexual relationship."

      Hey cornelius, will you please define a "genetic male" and a "genetic female"?

      Will you also please describe how intersex people fit into your definitions?

      And if a person with a penis undergoes genetic testing and the results say that the person is female, would it be okay with you if they have sex with or even marry another person with a penis whose genetic test results say that the person is male?

      Does biola require that all staff and students undergo genetic testing to determine gender?

      What would genetic testing results say about a bisexual person?

      And one more question for now, do genetics have anything to do with body parts?

      Delete
    8. So, as a condition of his employment, Cornelius has to agree that:

      The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin
      of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power.
      A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events,
      laws and chance.
      Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially
      directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created
      Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that
      (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.



      OK. So if that's where you start, that's where you've got to finish, I guess, if you want to keep your job.

      So we can agree, I think that no science can be done at BIOLA, whether or not that position is correct.

      As my grandfather used to say: where the conclusion is prescribed, science is impossible.

      Delete
    9. As my grandfather used to say: where the conclusion is prescribed, science is impossible.

      Precisely. Your point explains why evolution is not a scientific theory. It cannot be false (eg, "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread"). As for me, I could care less, from a religious perspective, whether or not it is true. Of course from a scientific perspective it makes no sense, but that's another story.

      Delete
    10. Cornelius Hunter

      It cannot be false (eg, "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread").


      Ah, Creationists do love to dishonestly quote mine. Here is Gould's whole statement, in context.

      SJ Gould: "Our textbooks like to illustrate evolution with examples of optimal design — nearly perfect mimicry of a dead leaf by a butterfly or of a poisonous species by a palatable relative. But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce."

      Most people consider quote mining a form of lying but that never stops our Creationist friends.

      As for me, I could care less, from a religious perspective, whether or not it is true.

      Of course you could care less. You could care a whole lot less than the all consuming religious obsession you have with ToE now.

      Of course from a scientific perspective it makes no sense, but that's another story.

      Of course you could back this up by offering a better explanation for the empirical data, but of course you never will. That's the real story.

      Delete
    11. Thorton:

      "
      Ah, Creationists do love to dishonestly quote mine. Here is Gould's whole statement, in context."


      I don't see how the context changes the meaning of the quote or the religious implications.

      (And if you can't answer the mature thing to do would be to say you can't answer, not call me names. That's what I tell my students.)

      Delete
    12. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I hate all minorities


      Piss off you disgusting bigot.

      Delete
    13. I guess it was too much to expect Thorton to actually have an answer. Let's see, evolutionists don't like math. The numbers wind up working against them. They aren't big on logic. They aren't very big on logic either, or they would resort to insult instead of argument. The evidence for evolution is really very spotty, so it isn't the evidence. What's left to guid their thinking? I know.! I know!
      Blind faith.

      Delete
    14. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I love to lie for my religion


      Piss off you disgusting bigot.

      Delete
    15. Tjhorton"


      "I love to lie for my religion"

      Piss off you disgusting bigot.

      Delete
    16. Go ahead natschuster the homophobic bigot, tell us again how gays are second-class citizens who deserve to be punished.

      Show us you idea of True Christian behavior.

      Delete
    17. Thorton:

      "Go ahead natschuster the homophobic bigot, tell us again how gays are second-class citizens who deserve to be punished.

      Show us you idea of True Christian behavior."

      Delete
    18. Nathan Schuster, why are you such a hateful homophobe?

      Delete
    19. Thorton:

      Nathan Schuster, why are you such a hateful homophobe?

      Delete
  10. TWT: And of course there's plenty of stuff in the bible that pushes christian domination of the world and wiping out anyone who doesn't eagerly go along with that.

    J: Again, you demonstrate what a complete idiot you are. Any idiot can find a sentence here and there to support even the most absurd claims if one quotes out of context. And that's what dominionists do. They're idiots, like you.

    On the other hand, CH never has to quote evolutionists out of context to demonstrate that they have ZERO evidence for naturalistic UCA. But of course idiots like you will claim that the mere fact that those same idiots BELIEVE in naturalistic UCA with BLIND faith proves they certainly can NOT mean what they admit to, since that would mean that their belief is not derived rationally from observations. And yet that is precisely the case.

    It's their metaphysics, not observations, that constrain the range of acceptable hypotheses for them (as is the case for all people). And they have a MUCH less parsimonious metaphysics than do rational folk. They are anti-inductive, just as was Darwin. So they have to keep generating more and more a-plausible propositions to serve as grounds in their futile search for a hypothetico-deductive approach to explaining cosmic history. Futile, i.e., because any time an explanation requires that we blindly believe millions upon millions of non-intuitive hypotheses JUST for the conclusion to be believable, only complete idiots can believe the conclusion.

    In short, the conclusion is actually foregone for naturalistic UCA'ists. They see it is as virtually SELF-EVIDENT. The only question for them is the HOW. But for sane people, naturalistic UCA is not even REMOTELY self-evident. It requires evidence. And there is none. And you haven't provided any that isn't the mere circular restatement of your belief in common ancestry that includes lineages that are NOT known to be possible. Indeed, there is no evidence THAT they're possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW, TWT, dominionists DEPEND upon Old Testament claims (that were made about Jews, not Christians) to even have a chance at fooling idiots like yourself as to what the judaeo-christian scriptures MEAN. Any person with a brain sees the pathetic arbitrariness of their synthesis. But of course, you have no brain. You're an infantile fideist eat up with animus.

      Delete
    2. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      they have ZERO evidence for naturalistic UCA.


      Yeah yeah LFJJ, so you've been stupidly blithering for the better part of a year.

      At least CH jumps a different shark every once in a while. You keep brainlessly jumping the same one.

      Delete
    3. Jeff July 14, 2013 at 6:02 AM

      [...]

      On the other hand, CH never has to quote evolutionists out of context to demonstrate that they have ZERO evidence for naturalistic UCA. But of course idiots like you will claim that the mere fact that those same idiots BELIEVE in naturalistic UCA with BLIND faith proves they certainly can NOT mean what they admit to, since that would mean that their belief is not derived rationally from observations. And yet that is precisely the case.


      No, it's not. And constantly chanting your little mantra about naturalistic UCA doesn't make it so.

      If anyone's interested, a summary of the evidence for common descent can be found here. Don't listen to what Jeff or I or anyone here says. Go and read it for yourselves. Judge for yourself whether scientists are as stupid and ignorant as Jeff believes or whether there is a bit more to it than that and perhaps they actually have some idea of what they're talking about.

      Delete
    4. I: If anyone's interested, a summary of the evidence for common descent can be found here.

      J: Pick one of those "evidences," Ian, and I'll show you why you have to be using "evidence" in a non-inductive sense. And in that case, you need to define what evidentiary relations you mean by the term.

      Delete
    5. jeff said:

      "dominionists DEPEND upon Old Testament claims..."

      Which translation, version, and interpretation of the old testament?

      Oh, and in what 'holy' book can the old testament be found? Would it be the christian bible by any chance?

      christian dogma/doctrine is dominionism.

      Delete
    6. jeff said:

      "Any idiot can find a sentence here and there..."

      A sentence here or there? You haven't read the bible, have you?

      Delete
    7. Jeff July 14, 2013 at 4:15 PM

      I: If anyone's interested, a summary of the evidence for common descent can be found here.

      J: Pick one of those "evidences," Ian, and I'll show you why you have to be using "evidence" in a non-inductive sense. And in that case, you need to define what evidentiary relations you mean by the term.


      I have no particular preference so you take your pick.

      As for what is meant by 'evidence, we could start with Theobald's explication of 'scientific evidence':

      Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

      Delete
    8. Ian: quoting Theobald:

      "By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions."

      Jeff: Give me just ONE risky, empirical prediction of the hypothesis that all organisms we infer to exist or to have existed, by fossils/observations/etc, are genealogically related? Just one will do. Remember, a prediction of an hypothesis is a logical IMPLICATION of it, not a mere subjective and, therefore, speculative "expectation." The latter is all Darwin did. That's why Darwin never provided any inductive evidence for the hypothesis. And he admitted it in private correspondence. Biologists to this day are making the same mistake in text books over and over.

      Delete
    9. In fact, Ian, even CH keeps granting to UCA'ists that their predictions are being falsified. But those predictions are not predictions of the naturalistic UCA hypothesis. They're predictions of speculations on HOW universal common ancestry might have played out, IF it did. Falsifying those kinds of predictions never touches naturalistic UCA. Because there IS no risky prediction of the mere naturalistic UCA hypothesis. It's literally unfalsifiable in the sense that Theobald describes. And that's why it's not a scientific hypothesis, by THAT definition.

      Delete
  11. Moron: At least CH jumps a different shark every once in a while. You keep brainlessly jumping the same one.

    J: Brainless, you say. And yet you can provide no evidence to the contrary. What a complete idiot you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Keep blithering the same stupidity LFJJ if that's the only way you can feel better about yourself.

      Meanwhile, ToE continues to be the foundation for the work of millions of scientists every day, all of whom happily ignore your Creationist blustering.

      Delete
    2. Keep clicking your hills little fideist. Who knows; it may just work. Just because scientists have wrong about most everything doesn't mean that this most speculative of all hypotheses will be wrong. Just BELIEVE! And before you know it, you'll be sleeping like a baby!

      Delete
  12. I see that over on his blog Sandwalk Laurence Moran has picked up on the Mattick paper. At the end he quotes this passage from the paper:

    When applied to consistency-based multiple genome alignments of 35 mammals, our approach confidently identifies >4 million evolutionarily constrained RNA structures using a conservative sensitivity threshold that entails historically low false discovery rates for such analyses (5–22%). These predictions comprise 13.6% of the human genome, 88% of which fall outside any known sequence-constrained element, suggesting that a large proportion of the mammalian genome is functional.

    and comments:

    Apparently 13.6% of the human genome is a "large proportion." Taken at face value, however, the Mattick lab has now shown that the vast majority of transcribed sequences don't show any of the characteristics of functional RNA, including conservation of secondary structure. Of course, that's not the conclusion they emphasize in their paper.

    Why not?


    Maybe because religion drives science - right out the window.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello bloggers. I am the lead author from that paper. I would simply like to point out that the study looks at evolutionary data to make the findings. By promoting our research to support intelligent design, you are intrinsically admitting that evolution is a fact and that it is central to biology and the natural world.

    We explicitly measured genetic mutations across 35 mammalian species. We made predictions against a null hypothesis that uses a phylogenetic tree calculated from these mutations. Phylogenetic trees are how Darwin illustrated his theory of evolution (which is a scientific fact). We show that at least 13.6% of all mammalian genomes have evidence of common RNA structural components, but these structural components vary between each individual species consistently with their common ancestry.

    In summary, the work shows that at least 14% of our genome (likely over 30%) displays explicit evolutionary evidence of function through RNA secondary structure alone. Our work should find common ground between the ENCODE findings and its critiques, as it is focused on evolutionary evidences. It does not promote any spiritual ideologies and was performed in a scientifically objective manner.

    ReplyDelete