We Is Junk
| November 10, 2006 | Posted by PaV under Intelligent Design |
The quote below is taken from this week’s Nature magazine.
Since joining the blogosphere over two years ago, when challenged, I’ve invoked a scenario pretty much like the one the paper summary is making. I suspect Dave Scot has been making this argument for a longer period than that.
While still preliminary, I have to say that when Nature magazine starts running articles saying that “gene regulation not the creation of new genes  has moulded the traits that make us unique”, then all that can be said is (a la Allen MacNeil): “Darwinism is dead. Long live evo-devo.” Is the war over?
Anyone who has ever put together self-assembly
furniture knows that having the right parts
is important, but what you do with them can
make or break the project. The same seems
to be true of the vast amounts of DNA in an
organism’s genome that used to be labelled as
junk. Studies now indicate that this DNA may
be responsible for the signals that were crucial
for human evolution, directing the various
components of our genome to work differently
from the way they do in other organisms.The findings seem to bolster a 30-year-old
hypothesis that gene regulation  not the creation
of new genes  has moulded the traits that
make us unique.
While there’s not many particulars in what I’ve quoted, it strikes me as provocative enough to invite comments. Any takers?
96 Responses to We Is Junk
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
DaveScott,
Thanks for the follow up in rebuttal to Allen. But my real point was to issue a strawman to his strawman.
He accuses others of the same argumentative jabs he makes.
Nobel Prize, Patents, truth is different people with differen world views will win and make inventions.
I just wanted to show how silly it was to throw out such an argument. As to the majority of beliefs during one era in time, it changes. It may start to change back again. Of course, the committee itself would need to possibly be replaced. They do nothing but make the most extreme political statements.
Notice he has refused to answer my other questions related to EvoDevo, Modern Synthesis and Cornerstone of Evolution, Four Gene Types.
He mentioned “this is the way he will teach it now”.
Professor Macneill, can you answer my original questions with regards to the inconsistency within Evolution?
Is Modern Synthesis truly superceeded? I pointed to PZ in order to show you that I see inconsistency within your own field.
I find it interesting what children are learning today and what is actually being understood at the highest levels. It appears to me what you have is a sequential list of failing hypothesis, one right after another.
I’m just asking to have a clear opinion from you.
Allen,
Has the old paradigm really been superseded as effectively as you claim? You may talk about “ID strawmen” and then discuss the ideas of yourself, Will Provine, Lynn Margulis, etc. as if they have become the majority but both Lynn and Will seemed to have received a lukewarm response at the fairly recent World Summit on Evolution. Has opinion swayed that much since that time or should you be more careful about what positions you label as strawmen? I’m curious to know the group consensus at this point…or does anyone know?
You also seemed to have missed my earlier question:
Dave:
The work of Ilya Prigogine could arguably be considered in support of evolutionary biology. Prigogine received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1977 for his theory of dissipative structures. Although it has more to do with the origins of life…
I think I know where his arrogance comes from!
“a direct lineal descendant of Niall of the Nine Hostages, first high king of Ireland.”
From:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/macneill1.html
A zen buddhist, quaker, fencing enthusiast, libertarian, and last but not least a true Scotsman. And where does he choose to live… New York State, the most heavily taxed, socialistic, gun-grabbing, entitlement giving, big government state in the union. Chosen home of the Clintonistas for just those reasons.
Non sequitur.
The motto on my family coat of arms is
Non mihi sed patriae.
Translated: Not for myself, but for my country.
It’s British. Allen’s attitude handily explains why there was a British Empire but no Scottish Empire, eh?
A Rose by any other name…
I wonder if the experiments Dr. MacNeill point to with roses allow for rehybridization to go full circle. Much like Sunflowers?
It appears Allen is out for the week. And I will not get an answer.
Some conclusions he has reached should make Creationist very happy.
Awe darn. The charateristically wrong peanut gallery at ATBC including the recently banned Zachriel are taking exception to my saying that there was a British Empire but no Scottish Empire arguing that Britain includes Scotland.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. Scotland and England were not united until 1707 and the British Empire (technically the English Empire) at that point was already well on its way. Putting Scotland under the thumb of the English parliament in London was simply part of England’s expansion; another notch on the British belt.
Adding insult to injury, there WAS an attempt by Scotland prior to 1707 to establish a Scottish Empire and it failed miserably.
Further reading: The Complete Guide To The Scottish Empire