Heterochromatin More Complicated Than Thought
A new study is revealing yet more evidence that the so-called “junk” DNA is much more complex than evolutionists had predicted. As one report explains:The game-changing discovery was part of a study led by Texas A&M biology doctoral candidate John C. Aldrich and Dr. Keith A. Maggert, an associate professor in the Department of Biology, to measure variation in heterochromatin. This mysterious, tightly packed section of the vast, non-coding section of the human genome, widely dismissed by geneticists as “junk,” previously was thought by scientists to have no discernable function at all.
There is still much to learn about these non-coding sections, but each new finding reveals yet more complexity. As professor Maggert explains:
The heterochromatin that we study definitely has effects, but it's not possible to think of it as discrete genes. So, we prefer to think of it as 30,000 protein-coding genes plus this one big, complex one that can orchestrate the other 30,000.
I thought there were 19,000 protein coding genes. Interesting statement though.
ReplyDeleteThis mysterious, tightly packed section of the vast, non-coding section of the human genome, widely dismissed by geneticists as “junk,” previously was thought by scientists to have no discernable function at all.
ReplyDeleteIt still has no discernable function as far as can be discerned.
So, we prefer to think of it as 30,000 protein-coding genes plus this one big, complex one that can orchestrate the other 30,000.
I thought you had no time for massive leaps of faith in science. Going from the detection of variability in heterochromatin to speculation about some sort of vast regulatory complex is certainly stretching things a bit.
It was recently discovered that DNA actually has two sets of instructions, one hidden beneath the other, which is why the second one went undetected for so long.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, how many sets of intricate, detailed, function-specific instructions would science have to discover before Darwinists would be willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps intelligence was involved after all? Five? Ten? One Hundred? Ten Thousand? My guess is that there simply is no number that would get some Darwinists to question their theory, because the theory was never about science. It was, is, and ever shall be about philosophy.
Alethinon61: I wonder, how many sets of intricate, detailed, function-specific instructions would science have to discover before Darwinists would be willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps intelligence was involved after all?
DeleteEvolution is very adept at that sort of intertwining, as can be shown with evolutionary algorithms.
"Evolution is very adept at that sort of intertwining, as can be shown with evolutionary algorithms."
ReplyDeleteThank you for confirming my suspicion!
We'd be happy to discuss the evidence for how evolution can balance multiple countervailing influences.
Delete"We'd be happy to discuss the evidence for how evolution can balance multiple countervailing influences."
ReplyDeleteThat's alright. Discussing a non-falsifiable philosophy that's sustained by circular reasoning with an ardent advocate isn't really that enjoyable for me.
a61:
DeleteDiscussing a non-falsifiable philosophy that's sustained by circular reasoning with an ardent advocate isn't really that enjoyable for me
That is understandable,you already have " a non-falsifiable philosophy that's sustained by circular reasoning ".
"That is understandable,you already have 'a non-falsifiable philosophy that's sustained by circular reasoning'".
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm undecided about TAG, but it has a virtue that Darwinism lacks. TAG proposes that the existence of God is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary, while Darwinists simply rule out the contrary arbitrarily, despite the absurdities that emerge.
Alethinon61,
DeleteIf you're here because you're worried that the existence of your hypothetical god is threatened by the theory of evolution...
You're in the right place!
And how is the Transcendental Argument for God non-circular?
Ale61:
DeleteActually, I'm undecided about TAG
A wise choice,but we can probably find something a bit closer to home that is fits the bill.
but it has a virtue that Darwinism lacks
No assumption of methodological naturalism?
AG proposes that the existence of God is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary
given that premise 1 is correct, it may.
while Darwinists simply rule out the contrary arbitrarily, despite the absurdities that emerge.
Le voilà, a non-falsifiable philosophy with circular reasoning.
"If you're here because you're worried that the existence of your hypothetical god is threatened by the theory of evolution...You're in the right place!"
ReplyDeleteAttempting to start a conversation with me by suggesting that Christians oppose Darwinism because they feel threatened by it can only evoke a big fat yawn.
If anything, it's atheistic Darwinists who feel threatened by ID, because while Christians can take or leave the religion of Darwinism (so I'm told), atheists don't have that luxury. That's why so many Darwinian internet trolls proselytize with fervor that would gain a reluctant nod of respect from the Apostle Paul himself!
Yes, it's probably true that there are atheists who are quit fervent in their support of evolution.
DeleteBut there are atheists (such as myself) who reasons for being atheists really have nothing to do with evolution at all. I'm an atheist because I don't see any solid evidence to support faith claims by various religions. When I became an atheist (after deconverting from Christianity), I never once thought about evolution. Now since then I have taken an interest.
I have a few friends who are also atheists, and it's the same for them, in fact most of them don't even think or talk about evolution at all, or show any interest. I don't know the numbers, but I think there are a lot of atheists like this, people who get on with living their lives and don't even think about these topics.
So I don't feel threatened by ID. Actually if ID came through with some real evidence, I think that would be quite exciting - and then we could have a lively debate about what it all means and who the "designer" is!
To Zachriel: That's alright. Discussing a non-falsifiable philosophy that's sustained by circular reasoning with an ardent advocate isn't really that enjoyable for me.
ReplyDeleteTo Pedant: Attempting to start a conversation with me by suggesting that Christians oppose Darwinism because they feel threatened by it can only evoke a big fat yawn.
Evidently, like so many christian fundamentalists, Alethinon61 is here solely to pontificate, sneer at and disparage the benighted heretics* who practice science. Must be his ministry.
______________
*Evolution = atheism = heresy
"..an astonishing number of [Darwin's] defenders today are, at least when discussing Darwinism, not scientists at all...They instead behave like religious fanatics whose favorite dogmas are being challenged. That's why they answer their serious critics with name-calling, credentialism, expertism, sniping, politics, and misdirection, answering questions that have not been asked, using answers that have nothing to do with the real questions...They have no good answers, and yet they have an unshakable faith in Darwinism..."
Deletehttp://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html
~Sean Garrigan
Sorry, I forgot to attribute that quote to it's author, Orson Scott Card.
DeleteOrson Scott Card? The Mormon science-fiction novelist?
Delete"Orson Scott Card? The Mormon science-fiction novelist?"
ReplyDeleteYes. Why do you ask?
To quote further
ReplyDeleteIntelligent design uses the evil "must" word: Well, if random mutation plus natural selection can't account for the existence of this complex system, then it must have been brought into existence by some intelligent designer
Why? Why must that be the only alternative?
Just because the Darwinian model seems to be inadequate at the molecular level does not imply in any way that the only other explanation is purposive causation.
There might be several or even many other hypotheses. To believe in Intelligent Design is still a leap of faith.
"There might be several or even many other hypotheses. To believe in Intelligent Design is still a leap of faith."
ReplyDeleteYou're belief that other mechanisms will be found that provide what Darwinism lacks is itself a leap of faith. It is a naturalism-of-the-gaps argument.
Ale61:
ReplyDeleteYou're belief that other mechanisms will be found that provide what Darwinism lacks is itself a leap of faith. It is a naturalism-of-the-gaps argument.
You mean Orson Scott Card's belief,right? Personally I believe that everything we can possibly know has already been discovered, just like you.
"Personally I believe that everything we can possibly know has already been discovered, just like you."
ReplyDeleteI've never said anything to suggest that I believe that everything we can possibly know has already been discovered.
ale61:
DeleteI've never said anything to suggest that I believe that everything we can possibly know has already been discovered.
Good , I agree. So then it is not a fallacy or a leap of faith to believe new mechanisms will be found, it is almost a guarantee.
"Good , I agree. So then it is not a fallacy or a leap of faith to believe new mechanisms will be found, it is almost a guarantee."
ReplyDeleteI do so enjoy conversing with people who use deception to steer a dialogue. Oh, wait, I don't.
ale61
DeleteI do so enjoy conversing with people who use deception to steer a dialogue. Oh, wait, I don't.
You give me too much credit, you did all the work. I just read what you wrote but how were you deceived?
"You give me too much credit, you did all the work. I just read what you wrote but how were you deceived?"
ReplyDeleteI wasn't deceived. One doesn't have to be deceived to recognize that another person is employing rhetorical deception, i.e. saying "I agree with you" about something I didn't say but you pretended I did, and then saying "I agree with you" when I clarified I didn't hold the view you claimed to have inferred that I hold. You can't agree with me that all is known (which I never said) yet also agree with me that all is not known. One of the "agree[s]" was rhetorical deception employed to steer the dialogue.
In any case, you've committed a logical error, and your conclusion doesn't logically follow. Just because I don't think we know all there is to know doesn't logically suggest that I would grant the likelihood of any given specific faith conviction coming true. So, for example, by granting that all is not known I do not grant that we are likely to discover miniature pink gremlins in the cell who spend their time singing their atgc's.
ale61:
Deleteany case, you've committed a logical error, and your conclusion doesn't logically follow. Just because I don't think we know all there is to know doesn't logically suggest that I would grant the likelihood of any given specific faith conviction coming true
That is assuming your conclusion, you need to prove that it requires a leap of faith to believe that new unknown mechanism will be discovered ..
You're belief that other mechanisms will be found that provide what Darwinism lacks is itself a leap of faith.
I propose that since out scientific knowledge is incomplete, new mechanisms are likely to be discovered. In addition since they do not have to support the TOE ("provide what Darwinism lacks")that increases the scope to even design. I propose it takes more faith based on history to believe new mechanisms will not be discovered.
So, for example, by granting that all is not known I do not grant that we are likely to discover miniature pink gremlins in the cell who spend their time singing their atgc's.
Believing a specific mechanism may be a leap of faith, but believing that some unknown mechanism exists considering the history of science and our incomplete knowledge would not seem to require any more faith than believing the sun will rise tomorrow.
ale61:
ReplyDeleteI wasn't deceived. One doesn't have to be deceived to recognize that another person is employing rhetorical deception, i.e. saying "I agree with you" about something I didn't say but you pretended I did,
Actually it is not deception if the person understands it is a rhetorical device,to exaggerate and distort an opponent's position I assumed by your use of Orson Card's quote you were demonstrating that knowledge.
and then saying "I agree with you" when I clarified I didn't hold the view you claimed to have inferred that I hold
I did agree with you since I do not hold that position either, just like you.
One of the "agree[s]" was rhetorical deception employed to steer the dialogue
Actually the first "agree" was merely a sarcastic response to "You're belief that other mechanisms will be found that provide what Darwinism lacks is itself a leap of faith. It is a naturalism-of-the-gaps argument.", the second ,agreement.