[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Alexandros

I have not heard of SINEs, so I can't comment there.

LINES and SINES stand for long interspersed elements and short interspersed elements respectively. They are transposons, sometimes called "jumping genes" that move and in the case of retrotransposons like LINES and SINES multiply around the genome. Together, LINEs and SINEs compose about 20% of the human genome.

They are thought to be remnants of ancient viruses or their evolutionary origins. They are mostly non-functional in animal genomes, that is mutations are present which prevent them from transposing "jumping".

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

This is a fallacious argument. There is a hidden circular argument in there. The argument would only be true if shared descent was assumed in the first place. Otherwise it is equally possible to suggest that identical SINEs or LINEs might arise from some other cause such as a designer in control of everything deciding that a certain SINE was a good thing.

This is the problem with asserting creationism (and why it isn't a scientific hypothesis), you can always assert that any given situation is just made that way, just because the creator decided to make it that way.

The question is, does it make sense for the designer to create with the appearance of common descent when it is not necessary for the function of the organism?

Another assumption being made is that the addition of SINEs is a copying error.

When they're little more than packages of genetic information that copy themselves, why should you assume more of them is helpful?

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Actually it was never all thought to be "junk".

But it was thought to be mostly useless. In fact, it was considered to be so useless that one could say it was all useless as a manner of speaking.

ERVs are inside of the human genome and mostly encode viral proteins. Some of those have been co-opted for functional purposes but others have been implicated in disease.

Virus DNA can so easily insert itself into gametes and those cells are better equipped to survive? I think you should really be a huge cheerleader for ERVs, because I predict we'll find that ERVs a similar to viral DNA, but it's just standard code.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

But it was thought to be mostly useless. In fact, it was considered to be so useless that one could say it was all useless as a manner of speaking.

Depends on the species as to how much is "junk". As the video I posted a while back showed, apparently quite a bit is superfluous in many species. Certain lifestyles tend to constrain genome size, and the patterns don't make any sense from a creationist perspective.

For example, insects with complete metamorphosis, for example butterflies and moths, that have a radical change in shape and function actually have SMALLER genomes than those insects that go through a more gradual metamorphosis. This makes no sense if every part of the genome must be useful information.

Way back when, nothing outside of genes was understood to have any function, though most scientists thought much of it would have some kind of function. And some of it does, we don't know exactly how much, but based on comparisons of organisms some have quite a bit since virtually identical organisms seem to be able to make do with far less.

Virus DNA can so easily insert itself into gametes and those cells are better equipped to survive? I think you should really be a huge cheerleader for ERVs, because I predict we'll find that ERVs a similar to viral DNA, but it's just standard code.

. . . . ERV stands for Endogenous Retro Virus.

[One Eyed Jack]

We know what it stands for Alate, but calling it that doesn't necessarily mean that's what it is.

[The Barbarian]

Alate_One is correct. I'm almost certainly older than she is, and when I was in school, there were papers on the function of non-coding DNA.

It's unfortunate that someone started calling it "junk DNA" as a joke. Many creationists got the idea that we ddn't think any of it had any functions.

As any teacher will tell you, it's a lot harder to pry loose misconceptions, than it is to teach the right things.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

... the function of non-coding DNA.

It's unfortunate that someone started calling it "junk DNA".

Unfortunate indeed! Non-coding DNA and "junk" DNA are two different things.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Unfortunate indeed! Non-coding DNA and "junk" DNA are two different things.

Yes, and there are some (on both sides of the debate) who will continue to repeat the misnomer. One cannot usually control the misinformation of others.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

This is the problem with asserting creationism (and why it isn't a scientific hypothesis), you can always assert that any given situation is just made that way, just because the creator decided to make it that way.

The question is, does it make sense for the designer to create with the appearance of common descent when it is not necessary for the function of the organism?


When they're little more than packages of genetic information that copy themselves, why should you assume more of them is helpful?

I wasn't trying to suggest evolution is wrong, just pointing out the failing in the logic of the argument as presented. I learned physics and chemistry at school too and I don't remember once being told that if you do such and such an experiment then random things will happen. The evidence that species change is overhwelming; the reasons why they change are presently only ever guessed at. It seems perfectly acceptable to say that species descend from other species but to say that this proves the theory of evolution (i.e. evolution by random mutation) is unwarranted.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I wasn't trying to suggest evolution is wrong, just pointing out the failing in the logic of the argument as presented. I learned physics and chemistry at school too and I don't remember once being told that if you do such and such an experiment then random things will happen. The evidence that species change is overhwelming; the reasons why they change are presently only ever guessed at. It seems perfectly acceptable to say that species descend from other species but to say that this proves the theory of evolution (i.e. evolution by random mutation) is unwarranted.

Random refers to distribution, not that there is no cause of that mutation. Also natural selection is not random. So to claim that evolution happens through only random processes is inaccurate. There are random aspects, but they are corralled (just like we corral livestock) by non random natural mechanisms. I don't think we have to eliminate the possibility that God created things through natural processes simply because of the evidence for the random distribution of mutations.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by noguru

Random refers to distribution, not that there is no cause of that mutation. Also natural selection is not random. So to claim that evolution happens through only random processes is inaccurate. There are random aspects, but they are corralled (just like we corral livestock) by non random natural mechanisms. I don't think we have to eliminate the possibility that God created things through natural processes simply because of the evidence for the random distribution of mutations.

Thanks Noguru. However, I do know this, at least in theory. But it sounds very much like a contradiction in terms to say that mutations are random but natural processes are not. If, as you say, every mutation has a cause, then, to speak in naturalistic terms, these are also natural processes. To say that these 'SINEs' are the result of copying errors just seems too far fetched for my taste. I predict that one day someone is going to wake up red-faced when they discover that none of it was an error but all very purposeful. For example (in my fancy and biologically uneducated imagination) an organism gets hungry because of lack of oxygen so it mutates itself in the hope that the result will be a protein factory that can live off nitrogen instead but in the meantime it store the old oxygen processing instructions in long-term memory in case it has to wake up that function in some future epoch. I really have no idea, but to say that this is all the result of error and accident seems far fetched.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Thanks Noguru. However, I do know this, at least in theory. But it sounds very much like a contradiction in terms to say that mutations are random but natural processes are not. If, as you say, every mutation has a cause, then, to speak in naturalistic terms, these are also natural processes. To say that these 'SINEs' are the result of copying errors just seems too far fetched for my taste. I predict that one day someone is going to wake up red-faced when they discover that none of it was an error but all very purposeful. For example (in my fancy and biologically uneducated imagination) an organism gets hungry because of lack of oxygen so it mutates itself in the hope that the result will be a protein factory that can live off nitrogen instead but in the meantime it store the old oxygen processing instructions in long-term memory in case it has to wake up that function in some future epoch. I really have no idea, but to say that this is all the result of error and accident seems far fetched.

Two things you are missing.

1.) A Copying error is a mechanism that produces genetic variation. The reason they call it an "error" is because it is not an exact copy of the parent(s) chromosome, because a copy with no errors is exactly like the parent(s). There is no need to conflate that with the next natural process/mechanism known as natural selection that sorts through these variations.

2.) There is evidence that environmental stress increases the frequency of genetic variation. IOW, the distribution is termed random (because there is no clear pattern that is observed to date), but the number of occurrences increases. This gives the second process/mechanism more options with which to work its selection.

None of this evidence can be used to make claims about an ultimate purpose (or lack thereof) for these processes. Anyone who uses this evidence to make claims either way is not being honest about what methodological naturalism has revealed.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Depends on the species as to how much is "junk". As the video I posted a while back showed, apparently quite a bit is superfluous in many species. Certain lifestyles tend to constrain genome size, and the patterns don't make any sense from a creationist perspective.

The video is what I'm referring to which said so much is non-coding DNA is useless, as to call it useless in general..

This makes no sense if every part of the genome must be useful information.

Now you are doing what you are accusing us of doing. Creationists have not said every part of the genome must be useful information.

Way back when, nothing outside of genes was understood to have any function, though most scientists thought much of it would have some kind of function. And some of it does, we don't know exactly how much, but based on comparisons of organisms some have quite a bit since virtually identical organisms seem to be able to make do with far less.

The consensus was that DNA outside of genes were almost entirely useless.

. . . . ERV stands for Endogenous Retro Virus.

I know. But how it got there is suspect on its face. That's how a lowly non-scientist can stick his neck out and make a prediction that the scientists won't see for a number of years.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

I know. But how it got there is suspect on its face. That's how a lowly non-scientist can stick his neck out and make a prediction that the scientists won't see for a number of years.

So what mechanism do you propose for "how it got there"?

What evidence do you have for this?

Or is this suspicion based entirely on your preferred interpretation of a religious text?

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by noguru

Two things you are missing.

1.) A Copying error is a mechanism that produces genetic variation. The reason they call it an "error" is because it is not an exact copy of the parent(s) chromosome, because a copy with no errors is exactly like the parent(s). There is no need to conflate that with the next natural process/mechanism known as natural selection that sorts through these variations.

2.) There is evidence that environmental stress increases the frequency of genetic variation. IOW, the distribution is termed random (because there is no clear pattern that is observed to date), but the number of occurrences increases. This gives the second process/mechanism more options with which to work its selection.

None of this evidence can be used to make claims about an ultimate purpose (or lack thereof) for these processes. Anyone who uses this evidence to make claims either way is not being honest about what methodological naturalism has revealed.

But to say that it is an error is to say just that, i.e. that it was without purpose. If organisms deliberately mutated themselves in times of stress, then this would be a perfect explanation for punctuated evolution. It would also give God a perfectly natural means of bringing about species change if he wanted to.