Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Physicist suggests: “Onion test” for junk DNA is challenge to Darwinism, not ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to Junk DNA hires a PR firm (by the time you can’t tell the difference between Darwin’s elite followers and his trolls, you know something is happening):

Dr Sheldon
Rob Sheldon

Rob Sheldon writes to say,

There may be some very good reasons for onions to have large genomes.

Let’s start with an analogy. My son says the computer game “Starcraft” will play on just about any old piece of computer hardware in the house. However, he tells me, when you go to download the game from the website, it takes up 15 GBytes of space. Evidently, in order to be compatible with older hardware, it has to use less CPU power–since the older machines were not as powerful. Much if not most of the CPU processing is used on graphics, and to get the graphics to work on older machines, it had to be nearly uncompressed, hence the 15 GBytes of memory required. Newer game can achieve the same level of graphics in much less space, but they require fancier graphics boards with more GPU (graphical processing power).

So back to the lowly onion. The DNA is software. The proteins are the video feed. The nucleus is the CPU. Humans have highly complex coding/decoding machinery in the nucleus. When mathematical analysis is performed on human DNA, it is found to have a fractal information dimension greater than 3 (papers available upon request)–indicating that at least 3 different codes are simultaneously present. This is a number bigger than chimpanzees, whose DNA is not so compressed, and if I recall correctly, come in around 2.5 or so in fractal dimensions. The paper did not analyze onions, but I think it is safe bet that the fractal dimension is < 2.0.

What does this changing dimension mean for DNA size? Well the information in DNA is proportional to the volume of phase space, so if humans have dimension 3.0, then the volume ~ (3.2GBytes)^3 ==> 27 GBytes. This dwarfs the 15GBytes of the onion, but then I don’t know the fractal dimensionality of onions.

Now admittedly, the papers don’t do the entire genome, they look at little subsets, so I may be generalizing too much to say that I know the dimension of information packing. But if the genome had junk DNA in it, it would drive the number lower, not higher, because junk DNA is uncorrelated to everything else.

This is categorically what is NOT found, and so even without the ENCODE results, it is manifestly obvious that human DNA is not mostly junk.

But if DNA is compressed and packed so efficiently in humans, why is it not packed that way in onions?

One paper that was published 3 years ago or so, suggested that embryonic development from ovum to embryo was driven by a clock. As the transcriptase zipped along the DNA, proteins were made successively by the cell, and the ordering and timing of the proteins were such as to drive the embryogenesis and development. In other words, the spatial location of the DNA was converted into temporal development of the organism. Then if an organism needed to prolong a stage of embryogenesis, the most direct way would involve adding more DNA. No extra machinery is needed, no added complications and regulators, just another 1GByte of DNA to transcribe and the necessary 30 minutes will be added to the development.

Crude, but why do that at such a high cost to the genome of every cell?

Well, perhaps there is a plant virus that hijacks the “clock” to crank out tumors. This onion solution would then be impervious to such a virus. It might even give it an “evolutionary advantage”.

Then the “Onion Test” is not a Darwinian challenge to ID, but an ID challenge to Darwinian imagination. Why don’t they take their own medicine: if the junk isn’t functional why doesn’t it get selected out?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I see some serious problems with Dr. Sheldon's analysis here, both in the basic math and the information theory. Let me take a look at the errors in just this small section:
... When mathematical analysis is performed on human DNA, it is found to have a fractal information dimension greater than 3 (papers available upon request)–indicating that at least 3 different codes are simultaneously present. This is a number bigger than chimpanzees, whose DNA is not so compressed, and if I recall correctly, come in around 2.5 or so in fractal dimensions. The paper did not analyze onions, but I think it is safe bet that the fractal dimension is &gtr; 2.0.
What does this changing dimension mean for DNA size? Well the information in DNA is proportional to the volume of phase space, so if humans have dimension 3.0, then the volume ~ (3.2GBytes)^3 ==> 27 GBytes. This dwarfs the 15GBytes of the onion, but then I don’t know the fractal dimensionality of onions.
I'll start with the simple (& somewhat superficial) problems, and work my up to the central fallacy. First: the human genome isn't 3.2 gigabytes, it's 3.2 Gigabases (for the hapolid genome, which is what's relevant here). Each DNA base can be in any of 4 states, which corresponds to 2 bits of information (or 1/4 byte), so that comes to 6.4 Gbits or 0.8 GBytes. Second, (3.2GBytes)^3 is not 27 GBytes, it's 32 octillion cubic bytes (or 3.2e28 bytes^3 if you prefer), a number so large it doesn't even have a metric prefix. And I have no idea what a cubic byte is. Even if we correct the 3.2GBytes (to 6.4 Gbits) and only square it rather than cubing (see Sheldon's comment #33), we still wind up with 10 quintillion square bits, which is still pretty clearly nonsense. Which brings us to the third problem: not only has Sheldon done the math wrong, he's also done the wrong math. Bits and bytes are logarithmic measures of possibilities (or phase space, as Sheldon describes it). And since log(w^3) = 3 * log(w), cubing the space only triples the information (and squaring doubles it). Applying the same corrections as last time (3.2GBytes and square rather than cube), we get only 13 Gbits or 1.6 GBytes. Note that with just these corrections to the math, we're already well under the information capacity of the domestic onion (Allium cepa)'s 15Gbases = 30 Gbits = 4 GBytes. So this explanation has already failed the onion test. But that's still wrong, because of the fourth problem: while this sort of overlaid coding can represent combinations (triples, pairs, whatever) of messages from a huge space of message combinations, most combinations cannot be represented; the representable combinations are a very very small subset of all possible combinations. In fact, with 3.2 billion base pairs, you can only represent 4^3.2e9 possible combinations of messages, which corresponds to ... 6.4 Gbits of information. Overlaying messages doesn't increase the information capacity of the genome at all! Let me digress a bit into the theory of data compression before I go on to Sheldon's next mistake. I'll start this with a simple illustration of my last point about the limits of overlaid codes: Consider a (short) example DNA sequence carries both a message in the standard protein-encoding code, and also some other message. Let's make the protein-code message the amino acid sequence Glycine (which encodes as GGx; that is it can be encoded as any of GGA, GGC, GGG, or GGT), Glutamic acid (GAA or GAG), Threonine (ACx). Suppose there were a second message overlaid on this segment. It would have to be a message that started with GG, had GA in the fourth and fifth positions, A or G in the sixth, and AC in the seventh and eighth. If the second message didn't fit those restrictions, it wouldn't fit. In all, the second message must be one of only 32 possibilities, and can therefore only squeeze 5 additional bits of information in. Essentially, the second message must be able to fit into the gaps in the first message's encoding. Which brings me to an important general point: it is only possible to compress data if it was inefficiently encoded to begin with. (Well, there are lossy compresson systems like jpeg and mp3, but they work by throwing out some of the original information; not what I'm talking about here). In my example, it was only possible to fit in additional information (the second message) because the first message was inefficiently encoded to begin with. An information-dense encoding for AA sequences wouldn't bother storing the meaningless third base for the Glycine and Threonine AAs, and would've used the wasted half-base Glutamic acid for something else anyway. In the case of the genetic code, the inefficiency comes (at least mostly) from having multiple encodings for the same message. There are also other kinds of inefficiency, like patterns in the data. Efficiently encoded data looks like maximally random data. This may be unintuitive, but there's a simple reason for it: to encode the most possible messages in the fewest possible bits/bytes/bases/whatever, you need to allow messages to encode to all of those possible sequences, and most of those possible sequences look just like random data... because randomness would also "use" all possible sequences. A random-looking sequence might be random, or it might be efficiently encoded meaningful information, or some combination, or something with a hidden pattern, or... well, you can't really tell. But if you see patterns, that's a solid indication that it's not efficiently encoded. Human DNA has patterns. Two obvious examples are that it has repeated (and near-repeat) sequences (over a million ALUs, for example), and regions where the C and G bases are more frequent, and regions where the A and T bases are more common. Which brings me to Dr. Sheldon's fifth and biggest mistake in the section I quoted: fractal structure in a DNA sequence is a pattern, and therefore a sign of inefficient encoding. I haven't followed the math in the cited paper either, but generally fractal patterns mean the object exhibits self-semilarity at all scales, and self-similarity is something you don't see in efficiently-encoded data. If there are fractal patterns in the human genome, they might be a result of inefficiently encoded meaningful information. Or they might simply be a result of DNA sequence duplication having occured at all different length scales (producing that self-similarity thing I mentioned). But I see no reason whatsoever to think it's a sign of the number of codes simultaneously present.Gordon Davisson
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
A writeup on a recent discovery about mutations that further challenges the Materialists' beloved belief in "junk DNA". http://www.icr.org/article/8653
Cancer Research Inadvertently Refutes Evolution by Brian Thomas, M.S. * How did nature supposedly transform a single-cell organism into all the varieties of land-walking animals in our world today? Textbook explanations invoke natural selection of beneficial mutations across unimaginable time, with a bit of help from “junk DNA” and heaps of serendipitous chance. Though it was not intended as a test of evolution, a new cancer research discovery jeopardizes these unfounded evolutionary assumptions. As body cells divide, they copy billions of DNA “letters” that encode cellular building and maintenance protocols, including codes that build new proteins. Despite networks of error-detecting and correcting molecular machines, a few copying mistakes called mutations always creep in. Scientists have known for some time that mutations have the potential to cause cancer when they occur in genes used for cell growth and division. However, scientists from The Institute of Cancer Research in London recently published new finds in Nature Communications showing that mutations in DNA found far away from these cell-growth genes can also help cause cancer.1 News from The Institute of Cancer Research said, “Single-letter genetic variations within parts of the genome once dismissed as ‘junk DNA’ can increase cancer risk through ‘wormhole-like’ effects on far-off genes.”2 In other words, the mutations occur in DNA sequences found nowhere near the cell growth genes, yet somehow affect cell growth. If the sequences were truly useless, as secular scientists once maintained, then mutations there would not cause cancer anywhere. Instead, it looks like this remote DNA regulates cell processes without coding for proteins. Similar to the remote DNA, DNA called pseudogenes was also thought to be purposeless junk at one time. But mutations in them contribute to cancer as well, showing they aren’t junk but actually affect vital functions in the body.3 Now, studies confirm that virtually all DNA is used for some task, in some tissue, at some time during a creature’s life.4 This should be bad news for a pretty popular mechanism thought to aid evolution. Supposedly, evolutionary progress benefits when mutations alter junk DNA without damaging its organism. Eventually, a useful, new gene accidentally emerges and becomes integrated into the creature’s growth process, adding a new trait upon which natural selection can beneficially act. But this new research reveals what others have been finding—that very little DNA, if any, is actually junk. And without junk DNA to mutate without repercussion, most mutations actually damage useful DNA. How does that help a sponge evolve into a spearfish? Geneticists continually confirm that mutations rarely, if ever, add new and useful genetic programming. Instead, scientists observe mutations causing diseases. Where is the evidence for evolution’s “beneficial mutations?” It certainly does not appear in this cancer research. In fact, the relentless pile-up of mutations over many generations flies in the face of conventional “millions of years” wisdom. Eventually, essential genetic information gets too garbled, resulting in mutations galore and eventual species extinction. If we have been accumulating mutations as a human race for millions of years, why are we not already extinct?5 Nowadays, even cancer research disagrees with the assumptions of beneficial mutations, millions of years, and junk DNA. However, this new cancer research does agree with the idea of a once perfect, recent creation that still suffers under its Genesis 3 curse. References Jäger, R. et al. 2015. Capture Hi-C identifies the chromatin interactome of colorectal cancer risk loci. Nature Communications. 6 (6178). Cancer risk linked to DNA ‘wormholes.’ The Institute of Cancer Research. Latest News. Posted on icr.ac.uk February 19, 2015, accessed February 22, 2015. Thomas, B. RNA Discoveries Refute Key Evolutionary Argument. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org August 23, 2011, accessed February 23, 2015. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74. Thomas, B. New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org November 9, 2010, accessed February 23, 2015.
tjguy
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Did Charles Robert Darwin have any academic training in Biology? The point was a lack of knowledge and understanding, not a lack of academic training. And yes, Darwin was a noted biologist even aside from his work on evolution.Learned Hand
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
The paper gives references as to how these numbers are derived, but not much help explaining what they mean. It is my interpretation that fractal dimension relates to the number of simultaneous codes present.
Can you explain your reasoning, please. This looks like a very strange leap to make. In particular, you seem to think that because an object has a fractal dimension >1 that means it has >=1 code in it, which I have difficulty seeing a justification for (the converse, i.e. that in something has n codes in it, it mist have a fractal dimension > n seems more plausible, although again I'd like to see the proof).Bob O'H
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
I knew if I mentioned papers available I'd get a request. Here's one of Todd Holden's more recent papers from the arXiv server: http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.2540/ I realized in reading it that I misspoke in the blog post above. The Shannon entropy was 3.80, but the fractal dimension was 1.98, at least, for the Y-chromosome of humans. The paper gives references as to how these numbers are derived, but not much help explaining what they mean. It is my interpretation that fractal dimension relates to the number of simultaneous codes present. Once again, read the literature if you need to know more about them. Nevertheless, and pertinent to my argument above, the paper shows that "false" genes were easily distinguished by their improper dimensions. Something about these 2 dimensions of human genes sets them apart from other species. As to whether a physicist can ever study biology, I will confess that I was on track to be a biology major and medical doctor in college. I even stained the chromosomes and prepared a microscope slide full of onion root-tip cells, which means I actually studied onion genetics too. But I'm afraid those slides are not available upon request.Robert Sheldon
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Did Charles Robert Darwin have any academic training in Biology? Only in theology? How did he dare explain the origin of species with such background???Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
WD400 says, The curious bit is why so many of the blunder in without first taking the time to learn any biology, or in this case understand the question. I say, I would guess a big part of the reason for this is the way Biology is taught. So much of it seems like glorified stamp collecting and most of the rest appears to just be constantly tidying up old findings from years ago. You see it all the time here. The ID critics are constantly pointing out that nothing new ever happens take RodW's comment for example quote: First of all, its been known for at least 22 years (not 3) that introns can delay the expression of genes end quote: He just can't wait to point out that there is nothing new to see here. Perhaps it's just me but I prefer a little excitement when I learn something new. The frontiers of physics are in a constant state of flux and there are lots of conflicting opinions about how to proceed to the next step in our understanding. Engineering is all all about creating the next big thing that has never been done before. Biology on the other hand appears to be just more and more of the same old same old variation on a theme. At least to hear folks around here tell it peacefifthmonarchyman
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
wd400:
As Bob mentioned, many mathematicians and engineers have contributely greatly to evolutionary biology, but not without first understanding the field.
Biologists do not understand biology. So it's OK if physicists have an opinion or two, no? By the way, wd400, did you know that the genome is organized hierarchically?Mapou
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
"It's hard to imagine civilization without onions." — Julia ChildZachriel
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
WD400: Why is it that physicists (and engineers) are so much more likely than others to offer opinions on subjects they know nothing about, without bothering to do any even the most rudimentary research?
There is no difference whatsoever between physics and biology, or is there?Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
"I will not move my army without onions!" — Ulysses S. GrantZachriel
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
CHartsil, BobOH,WD400 Sheldon may be referring to the packaging of chromatin in the nucleus. The DNA takes the form of a 'fractal globule' to maximize accessibility by proteins. But I doubt very much that there would be any difference between human and chimp DNA, and probably not even onion. He could also be referring to genetic regulatory networks but again, I really doubt there would be a detectable difference, at least between humans and chimps. The issue of junk DNA and the timing of gene expression really illustrates how desperate IDers are to see design where it isn't First of all, its been known for at least 22 years (not 3) that introns can delay the expression of genes, but this is a very 'undesignerly solution' Imagine you meet a man hitting himself in the head with a hammer. The man is also wearing a steel helmet. You ask him why he's wearing the helmet and he says its so he wont be injured by the hammer. This is a legitimate reason but wouldn't it be better if he just stopped hitting himself in the head with the hammer? If a gene initiates expression too early wouldn't it be better to just not do that instead of adding junk DNA to the introns to delay expression? But even if you invoke complex regulatory networks to explain the above the total intronic DNA might account of 0.01% of the junk being discussed. What about the other 99.99%??0RodW
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Speaking of onions, a recent African study on diabetic rats found that onion essence dropped fasting blood glucose levels 35 to 50 percent. Pretty big news for diabetics such as myself, at least, if this also holds for human beings!anthropic
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
It must be a burden to have to constantly abide people who refuse to humbly submit to the vast onion expertise of biologists and instead try to make physical and or mathematical sense of stuff.
No one has to "submit" to the expertise of biologists, I just think most people would take the time to learn some biology before they offered their opinion on a biological question. As Bob mentioned, many mathematicians and engineers have contributely greatly to evolutionary biology, but not without first understanding the field.wd400
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
But if some high school kid “believes” in evolution, and offers his 2 bits to that end, he is naturally brilliant, right? No. And I'm sure most of the physicists that blunder in and embarass themselves like this a pretty good at their field of physics. The curious bit is why so many of the blunder in without first taking the time to learn any biology, or in this case understand the question. It's not only a question of biology, here's Sheldon getting stats wrongwd400
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
WD400, "Why is it that physicists (and engineers) are so much more likely than others to offer opinions on subjects they know nothing about, without bothering to do any even the most rudimentary research?" But if some high school kid "believes" in evolution, and offers his 2 bits to that end, he is naturally brilliant, right? The problem with your theory is that life science is a branch of physics, and of mathematics, and of engineering. However, your theory smells rancid to most of us who know something about how the real world works outside of the evolutionary hypothesis.bFast
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Rob Sheldon, "In other words, the spatial location of the DNA was converted into temporal development of the organism. Then if an organism needed to prolong a stage of embryogenesis, the most direct way would involve adding more DNA." This is very interesting -- potentially a unifying of the ENCODE results with the usage conjecture from Darwinian evolutionists. I have long conjectured that there should be some sort of numerical parameter system in DNA. It is, after all, a common method of developing evolutionary algorithms. If long strands of non-coding DNA are used for timing, and if they must go through the process that ENCODE says they go through to produce that timing, but if each nucleotide is merely a place holder for timing purposes, then other analytical means will declare it to be junk. Its like declaring the 0 to have no value.bFast
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Rob Sheldon, "human DNA, it is found to have a fractal information dimension greater than 3 (papers available upon request). Citations are required to support this discussion! Zachriel, "Garte, Fractal properties of the human genome, Journal of Theoretical Biology 2004: “Human chromosomes exhibited a fractal dimension (D) of about 0.8, while values for a bacteria, yeast, worm and plant were higher.” I find your sited value to be unexpected. I don't truly understand "fractal dimension", though it appears to have something to do with data compression, specifically the kind of compression used in the JPG file format. What I do know is that there are very many more proteins in the human than there are genes to code for them. This is the result of some impressive compression algorithms. If "fractal dimension" is correlated with data compression, then a "fractal dimension" of 0.8 for human and more for many other organisms is very unexpected by me.bFast
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
tjguy @ 11 Good comments. I recall one winter - a cold early morning - walking along the Atlantic Ocean at Virginia Beach. The sunrise was a work of beauty - red/orange rising over the ocean and through the misty clouds and towards the towering clouds in the distance. I was in private awe of the scene ... Then I looked at the also beautiful sea-gulls along the beach ... they could care less and merely turned into the wind so as to stay warm.ayearningforpublius
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Using Bekenstein and Schiffer information bound ,the information in a Medium onion of 8 Oz or 0.2267 Kg and radius of about 0.0413 m is 2.57x10^45 x 0.2267 x 0.0413 = 2.40 x10^43 bits. So Onion does have a lot of informational value :-)Me_Think
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Andre: onions are not staple food it’s used for flavoring Onions are a staple in South Asia, and have been a staple food for thousands of years. http://www.ifpri.org/blog/onions-bring-tears-indian-governmentZachriel
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Zachriel onions are not staple food it's used for flavoring .Andre
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
IMO the difference between the genome of a single onion species and the human genome is only the less important part of the onion test. Of more relevance is the fact that genome sizes of different onion species differ by a factor of 5. Would you claim that one onion needs five times more information content than the other? How would you calculate the fractal information dimension of both onion secies?sparc
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
News: When mathematical analysis is performed on human DNA, it is found to have a fractal information dimension greater than 3 (papers available upon request)–indicating that at least 3 different codes are simultaneously present. Garte, Fractal properties of the human genome, Journal of Theoretical Biology 2004: "Human chromosomes exhibited a fractal dimension (D) of about 0.8, while values for a bacteria, yeast, worm and plant were higher."Zachriel
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
NEWS as to: "When mathematical analysis is performed on human DNA, it is found to have a fractal information dimension greater than 3 (papers available upon request)–indicating that at least 3 different codes are simultaneously present." Wow, that sounds like a fascinating study, so I do request the papers if you and Dr. Sheldon don't mind.bornagain77
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Andre: Onions don’t really have any food value
Turns out that onions are nothing to cry over — these flavorful bulbs are packed with nutrients. http://www.livescience.com/45293-onion-nutrition.html
Zachriel
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Andre @ 7
Onions don’t really have any food value but they add incredible flavour to food, perhaps God knew how much we where going to need flavouring to make the other bland nutritious foods more edible…. Thus a plant that is hardy against EVERYTHING…… so that we can enjoy a grand hamburger!
Andre, interesting thought. We do know according to the Bible that God created things "pleasing to the eye" and that He commanded the tabernacle makers to make it beautiful and with extra unnecessary art forms. Beauty, beauty that is unnecessary for life - hence no reason for it to evolve - is all around us. [Just a side note here - but when it comes to beauty, it is creationists who argue that it has no function and evolutionists who claim it does. Here the roles are reversed from the Junk DNA argument. It does make more sense though that beauty does not really need to have a function. God is a God of beauty and He creates things to be beautiful. It seems that only humans can appreciate beauty. Animals do not stop to look at the sunset or gaze at the starry sky. They don't seem to have that capability. So beauty and the ability to appreciate it is a wonderful gift from God.] Back to your point, Andre. The Bible does say that God gives us everything to enjoy - provided we use these things correctly of course - and that every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father. Sex is another of His good gifts - He made us male and female and obviously gave us the capacity to enjoy both the physical and emotional aspects of lovemaking. It is quite logical to believe that the gift of taste is also one of His good gifts and onions would be just one small part of that wonderful gift. This makes complete sense in the creationist/ID paradigm and I think better explains the data than the evolutionary story. I don't know much about the nutrition of onions, but I certainly believe that God made a variety of foods for us to enjoy, not just endure. Even the gift of creativity comes from God - creativity that cooks use to make good food as well as the creativity that evolutionists use if tryi8ng to come up with plausible stories about how things might have evolved. So here we have an example of a right and a wrong use of one of God's good gifts. But the gift of creativity is only useful if there are a variety of foods/spices/flavors to choose from. Creationists/IDers would say that we have God to thank for that! Theistic evolutionists would say what? I'm not sure. Maybe this: "Somehow, that's the way it happened to work out? Praise God for good luck! What a great Creator we have." Also, as was pointed out by others, there may very well be a reason for the onion's vast genome. It is easy to jump to conclusions, but evolutionists have had egg on their faces when they jumped to the Junk DNA conclusion in the past. That would make me a bit hesitant to claim the onion's genome is full of junk. We speak of things we really do not know. It is simply a conclusion the evolutionist arrives at based on his worldview and beliefs about how things work.tjguy
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
All that work by evolutionary biologists and they still don't know what makes an organism what it is. They still can't figure out how unguided processes produced eukaryotes. Yes, one should know their onions before talking about them. Unfortunately no one seems to know their onions...Joe
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
It must be a burden to have to constantly abide people who refuse to humbly submit to the vast onion expertise of biologists and instead try to make physical and or mathematical sense of stuff.
No, it's great: a lot of advances in evolutionary biology have happened because mathematicians got involved: R.A. Fisher was a mathematician, Maynard Smith an engineer. More recently coalescence processes were developed by mathematicians, and are now used extensively in evolutionary biology, and there are other mathematicians like Nick Barton and Mats Gyllenberg working on evolution. The problems come, IMO, when mathematicians/physicists/engineers try to work on biology without first learning about biology. Doesn't it make sense that you should know your onions before talking about them?Bob O'H
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
WD400. Why is it that physicists (and engineers) are so much more likely than others to offer opinions on subjects they know nothing about? I say, It must be a burden to have to constantly abide people who refuse to humbly submit to the vast onion expertise of biologists and instead try to make physical and or mathematical sense of stuff. peacefifthmonarchyman
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply