Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:55 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Rich, I think you're mixing apples and oranges here. The Matheson post
> you refer to bashes Ross for a fallacious argument concerning junk DNA.
> Ross was trying to show that the "junk DNA" argument against evolution isn't
> so strong as it's portrayed to be because scientists were rapidly
> discovering that junk DNA is functional; Matheson debunks that claim in one
> of Ross' books.

No I'm not. They are closely related. He talked about the C-value paradox
and the paper I cited dealt with the G-value paradox (along with the C-value
paradox) which is a FAR bigger problem for ID.

I'll quote the relevant section:

There are two intriguing paradoxes in molecular biology—the inconsistent
> relationship between organismal
> complexity and (1) cellular DNA content and (2) the number of
> protein-coding genes—referred to as
> the C-value and G-value paradoxes, respectively. The C-value paradox may
> be largely explained by varying
> ploidy. The G-value paradox is more problematic, as the extent of protein
> coding sequence remains relatively
> static over a wide range of developmental complexity.

One reason why ID has to invoke the functionality of junk DNA is in part
because of the G-value paradox but even here as Steve Matheson showed they
hit the C-value paradox. Put another way if non-coding DNA has an
undiscovered function then mainstream evolutionary science is OK, but if it
is truly "junk" then ID is toast.

>
> But this doesn't address the question whether the complexity of genetic
> code represents a sort of design language in general. If it's true that
> simple organisms can have complex codes, and complex organisms can have
> simple codes, it seems to me that this could *support *some ID arguments
> based on complexity -- at least those that focus on some kinds of teleology
> (e.g. S.C. Morris' convergence) or front loading. The bottom line is that
> what we're calling "simple" code here remains mind-bendingly complex; it
> takes super-computers full of information to unravel the genetic code of all
> sorts of organisms. True, Matheson does a good job of shredding Ross'
> efforts to explain junk DNA, but so what? Maybe I'm agreeing here with your
> concluding observation about design arguments having more traction if they
> would give up trying to deny common descent altogether -- then you could
> talk quite a bit about the marvel of genetic information without getting
> sidetracked trying to explain away junk DNA.
>
>

Exactly. All of this complexity stuff is to show that evolution couldn't do
it. I *really* hate how the language has been hijacked, so I am making up a
new term. I am anti-AEIOUD. Anti-Evolutionary Intelligent but Otherwise
Unspecified Design.

P.S. Since I ran out of posts for the day so I want to correct a typo. It's
eukaryote.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA
King of the Typos

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 12 18:24:08 2008