tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6457438141627680913..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: My challenge to critics of the ENCODE researchmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25124487403479131592012-09-13T08:02:40.749-04:002012-09-13T08:02:40.749-04:00Only the very first apple! XDOnly the very first apple! XDPépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34070171500074948942012-09-13T08:00:24.043-04:002012-09-13T08:00:24.043-04:00Michael,
What exactly do you mean? Large cells t...Michael,<br /><br />What exactly do you mean? Large cells tend to (but not necessarily) have large nuclei. Cells actively transcribing RNA tend to have larger but paler nuclei because they have less condensed DNA (heterochromatin).<br /><br />The evolutionary biology explanation for the absence of junk DNA in prokaryotes and its presence in eukaryotes is easy. Prokaryotes multiply so quickly that often their DNA isn't completely replicated and one daughter cell misses out on a large number of genes (so for example E col can vary by up to 30% in its genome). Bacteria also have horizontal gene transfer, so any important gene can be replaced by chance in some of the deficient offspring, giving an advantage to the fortunate bacteria.<br /><br />If junk DNA occurs in bacteria, having it is a disadvantage, losing it is an advantage and regaining it through horizontal gene transfer is a disadvantage, so bacteria will lose all the junk DNA eventually.<br /><br />In eukaryotes, junk DNA tends to arise through virus infections, duplications of genes and segments of chromosomes (and mutation in the extra copies of genes) or mutations within no longer necessary genes. And there's no method for safely removing DNA because there's no mechanism for safely replacing lost genes. Keeping junk is safer than throwing out important DNA inadvertently (similar to the fact that I have a lot of junk lying around the house, usually cables or cords for pieces of electronic equipment I no longer have, but which I keep because I don't know what it's actually for and if I throw it out, I'll probably then find out that it was important for something).bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58216610731348111392012-09-13T06:50:03.837-04:002012-09-13T06:50:03.837-04:00But there is a close correlation between cellular/...But there is a close correlation between cellular/nuclear size and amount of "junk" DNA, which of course "purifying selection" has no explanation for. <br /><br />Are cells with larger nuclei less... purified?<br /><br />Think troy... WWDD (What Would Darwin Do?)mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77970245900411877202012-09-13T04:59:29.251-04:002012-09-13T04:59:29.251-04:00Do I really have to make the case that multicellul...<i>Do I really have to make the case that multicellular organisms are more complex than single cell organisms?</i><br /><br />Your ignorance shows again. There are unicellular eukaryotes (e.g. amoebae) with larger genomes than humans. Indeed, within eukaryotes there is no correlation between genome size and developmental complexity. troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50875073352067059892012-09-12T22:38:38.518-04:002012-09-12T22:38:38.518-04:00"Because God wanted us to eat oranges!"
..."Because God wanted us to eat oranges!"<br /><br />But not, apparently, applesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68718120423611521902012-09-12T22:25:31.603-04:002012-09-12T22:25:31.603-04:00Michael,
Your 'spam filter' still seems t...Michael,<br /><br />Your 'spam filter' still seems to be over functioning. The marked variation in genome size over different eukaryotic species gives lie to your claim that physiological constraints and complex embryological development necessitate the larger genome in eukaryotes, all of it functional. Why do certain single cell eukaryotic amoeba have a genome much larger than the marbled lungfish (130 billion base pairs) let alone humans (with 3 billion base pairs)?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79480884792366972512012-09-12T20:20:12.778-04:002012-09-12T20:20:12.778-04:00Michael,
It seems as though your 'spam filter...Michael,<br /><br />It seems as though your 'spam filter' is malfunctioning again. A comment I posted has subsequently disappeared.<br /><br />If multicellular organisms require more DNA because of physiological constraints due to the requirements of embryological development, then why do certain single-cell amoeba have much larger genomes than humans or even the marbled lungfish? More complex? Really?<br /><br />Not Holocaust denial. Just an example of your habit of taking tiny facts out of context and inflating them beyond all recognition to suit your preconceived ideas. Similar to what you did with Rachel Carson.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29431366957234865482012-09-12T19:58:52.571-04:002012-09-12T19:58:52.571-04:00@troy:
I know what "purifying selection"...@troy:<br /><br />I know what "purifying selection" is. I think the term is hilarious. <br /><br />It sounds like a libation in some fringe religious cult. <br /><br />Which it is. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4829290623224318272012-09-12T19:46:07.168-04:002012-09-12T19:46:07.168-04:00@troy:
Embryological development is one of those ...@troy:<br /><br />Embryological development is one of those "more elaborate physiological constraints". <br /><br />Do I really have to make the case that multicellular organisms are more complex than single cell organisms?<br /><br />Is this another example of my Holocaust denial?<br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90963147414700425922012-09-12T19:23:48.161-04:002012-09-12T19:23:48.161-04:00Michael,
You keep on refusing to address the prob...Michael,<br /><br />You keep on refusing to address the problem (to ID) of broken genes - pseudogenes- of which there are thousands in the human genome, some of which are copies and some of which are actually transcribed into RNA but not translated into protein, so by the very liberal ENCODE definition of functional, they're not 'junk' DNA.<br /><br />ENCODE is early work. You shouldn't be getting too excited about its results since it will take a long time to work out its meaning. Eukaryotic genomes aren't elegant and 100% functional (the enormous variation in genome size across species indicates that).<br /><br />The eukaryotic genome works adequately well (I used that clunky formulation, because if I wrote 'the eukaryotic genome works well enough', if you quote me, you'd leave out the 'enough' as creationist liars often do), but it's a clunky solution, similar to the left recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe which descends along the entire length of the neck, loops around the aorta in the thorax and then ascends most of the neck to supply the larynx, reflecting its evolutionary history.<br /><br />The eukaryotic genome reflects the evolutionary history of their owners. There's no evidence that it reflects the loving care of an omnipotent god.<br /><br />Actually, the prokaryotic genome is apparently 'intelligently designed'; lean, mean, without very little of non-coding DNA and with no introns within genes. But there's an evolutionary explanation for that too. And bacteria are the true masters of the world, thriving in environments eukaryotes can't survive, such as in geysers and rocks kilometres beneath the Earth's surface.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72163162407603536172012-09-12T18:44:01.219-04:002012-09-12T18:44:01.219-04:00Haha, man are you ignorant.
"purifying selec...Haha, man are you ignorant.<br /><br /><i>"purifying selection". I love it.</i><br /><br />That's standard terminology in biology. Of course you wouldn't know about that. Google it.<br /><br /><i>Eukaryotic cells in multicellular organisms have much more elaborate physiological constraints than simple prokaryotes, and much more elaborate regulation of the genome is necessary. That's the ID prediction, and the ENCODE data supports it. It puts the lie to the Darwinist crap about "purifying selection" . </i><br /><br />Haha, nice bluff. What are those "more elaborate physiological constraints" then? How did you derive that from ID "theory"? <br /><br />troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20848624741415607232012-09-12T18:38:40.124-04:002012-09-12T18:38:40.124-04:00@L:
Birney used 80%, as he explains clearly in th...@L:<br /><br />Birney used 80%, as he explains clearly in the quote above, because 80% conveyed the truth about the data (specific biochemical activity) and it conveyed the truth that the genome is "alive with activity", and not dead with wood. <br /><br />Birney used 80% because it tells the truth. It is also obviously a way that he and his 400 collaborators could convey quite clearly that you and other Darwinists who peddle the junk DNA myth are ideologically motivated assholes. <br /><br />He gave you the middle finger, L. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66045815559671909562012-09-12T18:34:06.436-04:002012-09-12T18:34:06.436-04:00Because God wanted them to eat Cantaloupe, Grapefr...Because God wanted them to eat Cantaloupe, Grapefruit, Kiwi fruit, Mango, Papaya, Pineapple, Strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, cranberries, Watermelon.<br /><br />Isn't God GREAT for having made fruits for Peter, Paul and Mary!<br /><br />Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87984857834075915822012-09-12T18:33:08.813-04:002012-09-12T18:33:08.813-04:00@troy:
"purifying selection". I love it...@troy:<br /><br />"purifying selection". I love it. <br /><br />Of course very little of eukaryotic DNA is junk, so your "purifying selection" fairy tale is another example of Darwinian junk science. <br /><br />Eukaryotic cells in multicellular organisms have much more elaborate physiological constraints than simple prokaryotes, and much more elaborate regulation of the genome is necessary. That's the ID prediction, and the ENCODE data supports it. It puts the lie to the Darwinist crap about "purifying selection" . <br /><br />What amazes me is the tenacity with which you Darwinian assholes stick to your fairy tale. The smartest thing would be to shut up (cf PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins) and pretend ENCODE never happened. <br /><br />So please keep defending the junk DNA hypothesis, and link it intimately to Darwinism. It makes my job so much easier. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6155169085910604812012-09-12T18:06:57.744-04:002012-09-12T18:06:57.744-04:00mregnor,
Yes , now I see how I used your word det...mregnor,<br /><br />Yes , now I see how I used your word detrius (a word I wouldn't use on my own) in a manner that could lead to confusion. I assure you it was not intentional.<br /><br />Tell me though, if Birney is "rigorously defending" the 80% then why is he confusing people by mentioning the 20% figure? Why the difference between the two numbers? What does that 60% represent?<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25541572036481593472012-09-12T17:37:51.322-04:002012-09-12T17:37:51.322-04:00Egnor:
Junk DNA, in the Darwinist perspective, is...Egnor:<br /><br /><i>Junk DNA, in the Darwinist perspective, is tangible evidence of the "random" in "random mutation and natural selection". Accordingly, Darwinists have pointed to junk DNA as very strong evidence confirming Darwin's theory.</i><br /><br />Bullshit. You should read Michael Lynch's "The origins of genome architecture" to get a bit up to speed with modern views on junk DNA. The role of randomness in the spread of junk DNA is not random mutation, but rather that in small populations slightly deleterious DNA can become fixed by random genetic drift. That's why bacteria, with their huge population sizes, and therefore efficient purifying selection, have almost no junk DNA. The only known Darwinian mechanism that promotes spread of junk DNA is "selfish" elements like transposons multiplying within genomes.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11792684637834713022012-09-12T16:58:17.382-04:002012-09-12T16:58:17.382-04:00Even though I.D. has won the science battle
For t...<i>Even though I.D. has won the science battle</i><br /><br />For there to be a "science battle" there would need to be science in ID to begin with. There isn't. ID is crap, and ENCODE does nothing to change that. A couple years from now, IDers will be desperately trying to spin how the ENCODE data must be wrong because it will be clear even to their slow minds that it doesn't support them at all.<br /><br />As usual, IDer puff themselves up, glom onto the research done by others, misunderstand it and misrepresent it, and try to claim victory. And as usual, the claims of IDers will be ignored as the empty garbage they have always been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-73658149997268635622012-09-12T15:47:33.030-04:002012-09-12T15:47:33.030-04:00That's a very long-winded dodge on your part, ...That's a very long-winded dodge on your part, KW. It certainly looks to me like you can't answer any of Dr. Egnor's questions regarding the specific meanings of terms, which demonstrates his point about Darwinists relying on ambiguity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077625716758094282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82438793616380049952012-09-12T15:33:07.071-04:002012-09-12T15:33:07.071-04:00So why are some people allergic to oranges? For hu...So why are some people allergic to oranges? For humility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-43988697897878982912012-09-12T15:31:27.955-04:002012-09-12T15:31:27.955-04:00For anyone who ever doubted that Darwinists were m...For anyone who ever doubted that Darwinists were motivated by ideology, not science, the findings of the ENCODE Project will remove any and all doubt. <br /><br />Watching these people fight scientific progress solely because it refutes their stealth religion has been both thrilling and nauseating. It's quite the thrill to watch I.D. win the debate (and it has), however, it's nauseating knowing that these ideologues will stoop to any level to make sure their pseudoscience remains in the classroom.<br /><br />Even though I.D. has won the science battle, I'm certain these discoveries will lead to an increase in lying for Darwin in an attempt at winning the political battle. As their desperation and insecurity increases, so, too, does their level of dishonesty. Also, any attempt at bringing critical thinking into the classroom (as in Tennessee) just got a whole lot more threatening to the Darwinist, so expect to see them amp up their smear tactics against academic freedom bills.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077625716758094282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6785654069114444832012-09-12T14:51:15.296-04:002012-09-12T14:51:15.296-04:00This is so much fun to watch! Another misundersta...This is so much fun to watch! Another misunderstanding of basic science by the creationists, and they're squealing like stuck skunks - reduced to demanding definitions for things they don't really understand! Hahaha! Briliant!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-50104111070416917892012-09-12T14:15:58.174-04:002012-09-12T14:15:58.174-04:00@L:
Here's the rest of Birney's paragraph...@L:<br /><br />Here's the rest of Birney's paragraph that you truncate:<br /><br /> "(Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity."<br /><br />You're a liar, L. You intentionally didn't quote Birney in full, so you could change the context. He rigorously defended the 80% because it conveys that the genome is not "dead wood" but "alive with activity".<br /><br />You people are lying, spinning, spitting, doing anything you can think of to protect your shabby ideology. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15185619922198912452012-09-12T13:38:12.498-04:002012-09-12T13:38:12.498-04:00Mike Egnor,
“Where on earth do you get the idea t...Mike Egnor,<br /><br />“Where on earth do you get the idea that 60% of the genome is "detritus"?”<br /><br />From Birney’s blog: “Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling.”<br /><br />Of the 80% cited only 20% was of relevance to cell activity. The rest (80%-20%=60%) passed through the biochemical assays but appear to have no relevance or consequence on cell activity. I admit that detrius was your word. In his original press release, Birney wanted to make this distinction, but felt it would not make for good copy.<br /><br />“Why would you misrepresent the science so blatantly, in a way that can so easily be refuted?”<br /><br />I do not misrepresent science.<br /><br />Again from Birney’s blog: “But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for.”<br /><br />In short you are a prime example of the type of reader Birney was worried about: one who doesn’t have the patience to understand the full explanation. Reading two numbers and trying to figure out why they are different appears to be asking too much of you.<br /><br />-LAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79433463230249241922012-09-12T12:41:40.861-04:002012-09-12T12:41:40.861-04:00This is so much fun to watch. Another Icon of Evol...This is so much fun to watch. Another Icon of Evolution bites dust at the hand of real science, and evos are squealing like stuck pigs -- reduced to arguing that functioning really doesn't really mean functioning, and besides, "why would God (fill in the blank). Hahaha! Brilliant! Richnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25191408169675300262012-09-12T11:56:48.792-04:002012-09-12T11:56:48.792-04:00bachfiend: "Why did God make humans prone to ...bachfiend: "Why did God make humans prone to scurvy by including all the genes (present in most mammals) making vitamin C in the human genome, but made one of the genes defective and non-functional?"<br /><br />Because God wanted us to eat oranges!<br />This answer is less idiotic than what Darwinists want us to believe.<br />Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.com