Wednesday, April 07, 2010

 

Junk Arguments


Here is an amusing "argument." Richard Sternberg is over at the Discovery (sic) Institute's Ministry of Misinformation asking this:

I have long questioned the assumption that most genomic DNA sequences are "nonsensical" or "junk." And given the data that have emerged over the past seven or so years, a functionalist view of genome has robust empirical support. It is for this reason that I think many of the arguments presented by the Biologos Foundation are "wrong on many counts," to borrow a phrase from Darrel Falk.

Now, of course, any particular amount of "junk DNA" isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory ... selection could be so effective as to eliminate almost all defective or useless DNA in organisms. Still, junk DNA is compatible with evolutionary theory. So, when Sternberg asks:

Exactly what fraction of the transcribed 88.5% of our DNA are you willing to say "plays no role" or can be harmful? All I am asking for is a prediction, such as "90% of these DNA letters is superfluous" ("or 79.5% of the RNAs are nonsensical").

... the question becomes "what fraction of junk DNA is compatible with a (omnipotent, omniscient) "Designer"?" Let's assume that 79.5% of the RNAs are not nonsensical. How does that fulfill the "prediction" that life was the result of a a "Designer" who had the ability to direct 4 billion years or so of life? Why does evolutionary theory have to make a prediction when Intelligent Design Creationists don't have to?

Once again, IDC is reduced to impotent creation science-like cavils about evolutionary theory while being unable to explain why IDC, which has explained so little, should be preferred to a theory which has explained so much.
.

Comments:
This can't be THAT Richard Sternberg because he was silenced and driven into obscurity and penury by the all-powerful Supreme Evilutionist Cabal. It must be a different one.
 
This can't be THAT Richard Sternberg because he was silenced and driven into obscurity and penury by the all-powerful Supreme Evilutionist Cabal. It must be a different one.
 
There's an echo in here...
 
Why, yes it is!

Why, yes it is!

;-)

Now he is paid a "fellowship," probably greater than the money he has ever been paid before, to sit around and make silly arguments.

You'd almost think he was a lawyer!
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives