Junk for Brains

_{September 24, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We all know that Darwinists have junk for brains [ 😉 ]and this proves it.

It appears that “long non-coding” RNA’s (lncRNA) play a role in the brain’s pineal gland, which is involved in circadian rhythms and such. This ‘junkiest’ of junk functions in activating, blocking or altering the activity of genes or influencing the function of the proteins, or acting as scaffolds for the organization of complexes of proteins.

Here’s a quote from the senior author:

“These lncRNAs come from areas of the genome that we thought were quiet, . . . “But current research in the field makes it unequivocally clear that the information-carrying capacity of the genome is a lot greater than we realized previously.”

Ah, yes, “junk-DNA”—here, the ‘junkiest’ of “junk-DNA”—has a function. One less argument for the Darwinists; one feather in the cap of IDers.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinists.

Comments

Toronto on October 22, 2012 at 2:57 am said:
What you have just said is that the “improbability” of a string N bits long is NOT necessarily 2**N, but could be much less due to a “necessity mechanism”.
Mung_{October 21, 2012
October
10
Oct
21
21
2012
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

petrushka:
No disrespect for the intelligence or musical tastes of cows, but as my son says, grass doesn’t run very fast.
Neither do cows. And i'm guessing that grasses outnumber cows, by far.Mung_{October 13, 2012
October
10
Oct
13
13
2012
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

/b>Mike Elzinga:b>
– the question that no ID/creationist has ever answered is, “Just how does this information push atoms and molecules around?”
Gee I don't know Mike. How did you manage to push the keys on your keyboard and generate this trope?Mung_{October 11, 2012
October
10
Oct
11
11
2012
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

WordPress.kairosfocus_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

ME ME ME! see my post @21Mung_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

KF:
Did you submit a post with too many URLS or links, the UD limit is about 6 or 7 I think; used to be 4 IIRC. If so, your comment is in the mod pile for the UD moderator — I have occasionally been caught out on that. You will need to wait. Beyond that I can only suggest. KF
Ah yea, that is probably it. Thank you for responding. I wondered if there was some criteria I was violating. I didn't think I'd been particularly obnoxious although I do have my moments admittedly. I shall make sure I submit under the limit from now on. Thank you. And yes, someon has forgotten to close a formatting tag on this thread.Jerad_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

F/N: Someone has made a blunder on closing a bold, too. If the solidus is after the b it runs over into the rest of the thread, from experience.kairosfocus_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Jerad: Did you submit a post with too many URLS or links, the UD limit is about 6 or 7 I think; used to be 4 IIRC. If so, your comment is in the mod pile for the UD moderator -- I have occasionally been caught out on that. You will need to wait. Beyond that I can only suggest. KFkairosfocus_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Well, onlooker, maybe you should encourage your mates over at TSZ to stop feeding me material. :)Mung_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

I've had a post up for moderation for almost 9 hours now on the new TSZ thread. Was it something I said?Jerad_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

onlooker (25): From Joe in post 767 of the original TSZ objector thread that went to over 900 comments:
To Mike Elzinga, the finga sniffa- Mung and I are here to expose you and your ilk for what they are- dishonest intellectual cowards who are also anti-science. And we also offer clarufications on ID, along with supporting evidence for ID. That said- what is your purpose? Obvioulsy just to act like a belligerent little child.
That's been up for almost a week. And I've had a comment in moderation in the new TSZ thread for the last 7 hours or so. Sigh.Jerad_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

And today’s Junk for Brains winner is:
Compare and contrast with UD's comment policy:
Try to be polite. Try to be tolerant. Try to keep belligerence and sarcasm in check.
I wonder if an ID skeptic would be allowed to continue post such material. Oh, wait, no I don't. Everyone already knows the answer to that.onlooker_{October 4, 2012
October
10
Oct
4
04
2012
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

PaV @3:
And what might be of very little utility to a muscle cell might be of very great utility in the retina; and, yet, all of this information must be handed down.
Exactly. This is an important point whenever considering so-called junk DNA, knock-out experiments and the like. Also, we in fact know that many functional requirements exist only at certain times (early development of the organism, for example). All of this has to be taken into account. We cannot simply look at what the DNA is doing, today, in one location, and make a pronouncement about what portion of the DNA is unnecessary. And epigenetics is a whole additional layer . . .Eric Anderson_{October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Mung_{October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

I hate it when i forget to end a bold properly. Can't believe that bug still hasn't been fixed. Mung_{October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

ackMung_{October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Zachriel@TSZ:
That’s the error of IDists. They assume that evolutionary processes are no better than random assembly—but that’s simply not the case. If you recombine workable protein sequences, you are much more likely to find a new workable protein sequence than random assembly alone.

Evolutionary algorithms, such as Word Mutagenation, can show you how and why recombination is such a powerful force for novelty.

In an evolutionary algorithm, the fitness landscape is explicitly defined, and recombination is random.
DOH.Mung_{October 3, 2012
October
10
Oct
3
03
2012
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

petrushka:
It’s slightly surprising how many people are willing to judge the efficacy of GA’s without being able to write one, even at the specification or pseudocode level.
That's a straw-man. People are not judging the efficacy of GA's. And I wonder how many of you over there at TSZ who are pontificating on these subjects can meet your requirements.
This really ought to be a prerequisite to discussing evolution.
lol. What does knowing how to code a GA have to do with evolution?Mung_{October 2, 2012
October
10
Oct
2
02
2012
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

And today's Junk for Brains winner is: onlooker@TSZ:
Others here have noted that you are confusing the model and what is being modeled. Labeling all GA fitness functions as “active selection” misses the point of what the fitness function is modeling....All the fitness function is modeling is that environment.
So let's just ignore what the fitness function actually does and how it is able to do it and just pretend that it's just a model of an environment. And if you refuse to ignore the facts and pretend with us, well, you're just confusing the model with what's being modeled. The environment has no goal, purpose or function in mind. It's not trying to use organisms to solve some problem. It's purpose is not to direct organisms towards possible solutions to a pre-specified problem. Unless you believe it's all part of some grand design, that is.Mung_{October 2, 2012
October
10
Oct
2
02
2012
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

p.s. Surely no one else has ever tried to model biological mechanisms with math.Mung_{October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Toronto:
Biology is real and chemistry and physics determine what happens from one generation to the next. Dembski errs when he tries to model biological mechanisms with math.
It's ok to model physics with math. It's ok to model chemistry with math. Biology is just physics and chemistry. Dembski errs when he tries to model biological mechanisms with math.Mung_{October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Mike Elzinga:
Don’t ever make the mistake that we are using YOUR “rules” in our programs. YOUR rules don’t work because they were concocted for other reasons. They were not derived from the study of the physical universe.
Not that Mike has never himself used a rule that was not derived from the study of the physical universe. That just wouldn't do.Mung_{October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Mike Elzinga:
So stop the war and go out and study the world around you. And, please, do benefit from what we already have learned.
Mike's learned everything is there to learn, and that is why he spends his time posting on an internet blog rather than being out there practicing what he preaches.Mung_{October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

petrushka:
Only in laboratory condtions do we encounter such narrow kinds of selection.
And in GA's.Mung_{September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

keiths@TSZ:
You cannot be serious. In less than 48 hours, you’ve taken three mutually inconsistent positions. First you told us that GAs are invalid as models of NS because they’re designed: Then you retracted that statement, asserting instead that it’s okay that GAs are designed, as long as they don’t have fitness functions: "gpuccio: Any fitness function in any GA is intelligent selection, and in no way it models NS."
A GA without a fitness function isn't much of a GA. So that's hardly mutually inconsistent. And a statement that any fitness function in any GA in no way models NS is not inconsistent with a statement that GAs are invalid as models of NS. So, it was otherwise a close contest, but you win the "junk for brains" award for today. gratsMung_{September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Toronto:
Your side is still at the point of learning what “simulation” means, never mind a practical application.
And just what is it that Lizzie's program simulates? Natural Selection? Really?Mung_{September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Toronto:
The “mechanism” of evolution has no target.
Then stop claiming GA's model of evolution and that GA's demonstrate what evolution can do.Mung_{September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Toronto:
We could also use the “Lizzie” algorithm to perform “Methinks it is like a weasel”, without changing the algorithm but simply changing the “environment”.
That I have to see.Mung_{September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Presumably, Mendel's Accountant is considering absolute fitness, meaning populations can precipitously degrade if the fecundity drops below a certain level. If they were serious, they would investigate under which circumstances they would not see meltdown, and explore this boundary in more detail. But their purpose is apologetics dressed up as science. I certainly wouldn't consider any such simulation to be anything more than qualitatative unless carefully matched to a biological situation. It doesn't even account for sexual selection; and without empirical verification, it is subject to simple mistakes such as the calculation of "working fitness" noted above. They see what they want to see.
We'll await the results of the empirical verification of Lizzie's simulation.Mung_{September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Junk For Brains I'll have to try to remember to post responses to posts at TSZ in this thread. Junk For Brains is so apropos.Mung_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.