DEBATE: Is the Human Genome Largely Junk DNA? with Dr. Casey Luskin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- On May 2nd, 2024 on the Non-Sequitur Show, I debated Discovery Institute's Dr. Casey Luskin on the question "Is the human genome largely junk DNA?"
This is that debate in full. The takeaway is this: Yes, the human genome is mostly (80-90%) junk DNA, that is, DNA that does not have a function.
By the end of this debate, Dr. Luskin had revised his argument somewhat, and if creationists use that version of the argument going forward, they'll be a lot less wrong about junk DNA.
This is just a hobby for me, but if you appreciate what I'm doing and want to say thank you, you can contribute here:
/ creationmyths
paypal.me/crea...
And if you want early access to pre-recorded videos, you can become a channel member: / @creationmyths
If you disagree with anything in this video and want an opportunity to make your case, email me: creationmythschannel@gmail.com. I'll give you as much time as you want, and then I'll take the time I want to respond, and we can have a conversation.
Is it only me : when someone uses the term 'evolutionist' (a word that my phone just doesn't accept as a real word), I immediately consider them a complete hack?
You are not alone.
But I also find it very useful. It saves a lot of time, knowing that an interlocutor is an irrational and dishonest science denier. All from just that word.
@@CheatahX Very fair point.
And, I'm relieved to know I'm not alone. It hurts my ears when someone says it - just sounds wrong.
I used to hate it, but while I still don't like it much I've now seen it used by enough evolutionary biologists in the primary literature, as a short-hand for "evolutionary biologist" (which is distinct from what creationists mean), to relax about it.
Goes double for "Darwinist"
@@maxjohn6012 That's an interesting point. I heard a biologist in a stream utter it unironically a week ago, and was kinda shocked. It's interesting that it's also appearing in articles as shorthand. It could be nice to reclaim that creationist term from them.
Now, Darwinist is another story altogether.
When ID was first proposed it evoked a lot of discussion, including being looked at seriously be real scientists. After a couple years of that I remember a scientist at an ID conference, with great frustration, asking: “What, exactly, does ID explain? What, exactly, does ID predict? Give me something to work with here!” I can’t think of anything it explains. Apparently, all it predicts is: “Every now and then you’ll find something that looks like it couldn’t have been evolved step-wise.”
Good show 😊👍
Good job on the debate 😎👍
Casey Luskin called Intelligent Design a scientific theory lol. 🤦♂😂
Yeahhhhhh it’s not
NOPE! And if you disagree, take it up with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
@@CreationMythsIt takes a special kind of person to keep the act going when they know that we know they have an agenda that's not about science at all. I mean they want so badly to convince people they're just honest good-intentioned "scientists" pointing out the "problems" with Evolution.
I know it was so hard to sit there and let him pretend he's making a good-faith scientific argument. It was written all over your face lol.
@@CreationMyths Why not call it shit science instead? It only encourages them to believe they have been unfairly ruled out by fiat (by a mere rule such as Methodological Naturalism for example).The demarcation debate is often considered old fashioned on account of it not really being possible to achieve a clear distinction between science and non science.
A scientific theory is an explanation that is supported by all the available evidence. It’s about time that when creationists say ID is a ‘Theory’ that they are taken to task to provide the supporting evidence of how anything was actually designed!
Genuinely got sad from Luskins intro. 15 minutes of being hostile and defensive before he found out Dan was not there to fight him...
I'm nice! I've done all these shows and debates and STILL people think I'm gonna be mean. IDK where this reputation comes from.
Ta Dan. I think you did a good job of pointing out just how much we do understand about function in the genome and how this knowledge precludes any known functions for large parts of it. Ruling out " unknown unknown" functions is always going to be a difficult task ( even knockout experiments would struggle to demonstrate that the resulting mice ,for example, are not 1% less capable/fit in some sense that we aren't aware of or can't accurately assess ) . Which is one reason why I.D proponents can sound reasonable. The fact that the more we look the more "function" we find is not surprising under any paradigm. Despite all that we do know ,we are still basically in our infancy when it comes to our understanding of whole genomes. We are bound to discover functions which we didn't previously recognise. That is a far cry from saying that most of the genome will prove to be functional. Unconstrained sequence simply has very few ways in which it even could be so. Which doesn't of course entirely rule out the possibility, so if the I.D people, or anyone else , wishes to go out and find that supposed function, good luck to them. Doing so would not , as many in that camp would wish, be evidence against evolution, but I guess it would provide the first real example of their hypothesis making a successful prediction which was not already predicted by mainstream evolutionary science.
It was also super helpful that you explained the arguments you were NOT making. I got a much better understanding of what you are saying just by better understanding what you are not saying!
My final feedback: Just like in your conversation with Sal, in this conversation, you were *incredibly* patient as well as kind. You let Leskin talk and talk without interrupting. I would have had to bite my tongue so hard. But by doing that, you got a bit of breathing room to have time to make your points, and it was so much more effective that way when you weren't being interrupted or at least not as much as you could have been interrupted. Though Leskin did interrupt you more than you interrupted him. I got irritated with Luskin about that. Also, you were supposed to have the last word and he tried to get the last word in there at the end. So annoying.
I love hearing a geologist's opinions on the role of junk DNA. While we're at it maybe a software engineer or a chef could chime in.
Careful, half of DI is engineers.
A software engineer wouldn't give a bad take on the subject by the way.
They would tell you that even so called "designed" systems accumulate a lot of legacy code which doesn't have a lot of function, but "let we keep it there just in case"
@@CreationMythsFR! What is it with engineers who think they're big shots when it comes to natural science
@@francescoghizzo Or they can just say Hey I have no idea about this ...
2:41 "scientific debate over evolution and design" is one of the funniest things I have heard today, and a very generous way to frame people talking about hard evidence while the other side goes "nuh-uh, because magic sky daddy."
Great work as always Dan exposing these cdesign proponentsists!
My main issues with Luskins statements are that
1. Even if wwe did indeed find in the future that 90% of all DNA was actually functional, doesn't intelligent design require 100%? Why would a creator make us with any junk DNA whatsoever?
2. It is incredibly annoying hearing Luskin say "evolution is a science stopper" over and over, as if "evolutionists" (incredibly annoying term) have put up stop signs when it comes to research about DNA function. Why hasn't Luskin published any papers on this in the "twenty years" he's been claiming this? Or anyone at Discovery Institute for that matter.
Maybe you don’t know that creationists do not seem to be able to get published in legitimate scientific journals. Because they do not follow the scientific method, as it’s all about misinterpretation and cherry picking. their papers never get past the peer review process. So AIG have even started their own parody journal that their employees, staff members can be published in.
@@budd2nd and so have the DI. My point is twofold. First, that Luskin and pals would surely try their hardest to actually publish something, if this was so amazing and obvious all this time (like they did with Douglas Axe, which they NEVER shut up about). Secondly, it is to point out that this simple question should be asked of Luskin. Next time Dan (or anyone else) talk to them, "we" (science affirming people) should simply ask Luskin
"So, if you have been saying this for decades, why have you (nor any creationist?) not published any work on this? Other people have, so why not you?"
The point of this question is to highlight the absurdity behind the statement "evolution is a science stopper", he is trying to make it sound like evolution is in the way of progress and creationism is not. If creationism was not, it would produce actual research, as he claims they do. That was my point :)
@@kemicalhazard8770
Oh yes, that would be an interesting exchange to watch. The required mental gymnastics would be spectacular I expect..
Dr. Luskin’s position, assuming functionality, isn’t apparently falsifiable.Because even if science shows it doesn’t perform any known function and cannot perform them, someday we might learn a new function. This is a bad starting position.
Thank you for taking the time to define what "functional" is up front - and also explaining what has to be in place for DNA to be functional -- in the way that lay people can understand. Your opening comments were sooo helpful! Or maybe I should say that I understand much better compared to before watching this video, even if I'm still not 100% clear.
This is still the open question for me: The part about there having to be enough volume of RNA to be functional. I understand your point about the inside of a cell being like a swimming pool with shoulder to shoulder people. However, if say one of those thousands of people has really bad say body oder, with the right wind, that B.O. can impact the well-being of the entire swimming pool. Ie, just because something is rare doesn't mean it isn't impactful or important.
In a more relevant example: Humans need water. Without water (whether from a drink or the liquid in food such as fruit), we will die. Human bodies also need to get vitamin B12 from our diet. Without it, we will die. And yet the amount of B12 we need is minuscule compared to the amount of water we need. And most people can go far longer without B12 than they can without water. Both are important and necessary to life, but the volume of one substance is significantly less. Or put another way, B12 is an example of a substance that is vitally important, even if the amount is very small.
So, I'm still missing an understanding of why volume matters for the functional DNA argument. Why can't something that is rare in a cell also be vitally important to the life of the cell? You may have answered this in the video and I may have not understood what you said. And it may be that explaining such a basic concept wouldn't be fun for you. That would be totally fair. Just saying in case you want to take that feedback and want to incorporate the information into a future video. :-)
It has to do with the mechanism. Vitamins and other small molecules or metal ions are often cofactors in enzymes that perform reactions. That means that a single enzyme molecule with a single bound cofactor, can perform dozens of reactions per second for minutes or hours on end.
That's the amplifying effect of catalysts: one molecule affects thousands.
RNA on the other hand, interacts by physical touch, and loses that effect when it lets go. There is no amplification step.
If RNA A needs to inhibit translation of mRNA B, and there are two molecules of A, and thousand of B, then at any given time A can only block two of B, leaving 998 active.
A single RNase enzyme that specifically targets and cuts up RNA B, can degrade this RNA one by one, until virtually no molecules are left. It has an amplification effect that molecules that work by touching and holding don't have.
And even if there is just one target molecule in the cell, it's still better to have more, because this RNA needs to find that target. By Brownian motion. In a huge cell.
Imagine a serial killer was on the loose in a city, but you don't know where he is. You don't send one cop, even if one cop is enough to do an arrest. It will take too long to find eachother.
@@borisbauwens7133 That makes sense! Very helpful examples. Thank you!!!
I haven't finished watching yet, but this debate is great I'm learning a lot more than I thought I would.
I think Dr. Luskin is technically correct that a 'broken' or 'degraded' LINE might have some function unrelated to what functioning LINE's do. He then follows that up with non sequitur's concerning design. Nothing about the percentage of junk DNA justifies claims of design, all claims of design must be backed by demonstration of the designer doing the deed, or via concrete proof of actual origin being the same as some other item whose designer has been demonstrated. On this latter (does comment length affect TH-cam stats?) knowing the designer of one gear train allows us to claim there was a designer of any highly similar gear trains.
And the whole ID thing is of little interest as until you have direct evidence of the particular designer and their design documentation you may not infer a single thing about that designer's intention nor future plans. What we think is designed is as likely an unintended side effect as a goal.
That's spurious logic. He didn't claim he could prove a designer made DNA. He claimed that design of something includes certain traits it will have. For instance, that much of what is there will have a function. This creates a hypothesis with respects to viewing DNA as being designed, that much of is will likely have a function. The only proof this hypothesis requires is finding functionality in the DNA, not proving the design outright.
The was using it was as a guiding principal. Much of his argument in the video centered around one thing, that the usage of the term 'junk DNA' pushes a meaning not backed by logic. It's the black swan all over again. The term 'junk DNA' implies a negative when there is a lack of knowledge.
Those using the term junk DNA are claiming we know how DNA works, and thus if we don't know what sections do according to our current knowledge, there is little to no chance that any will be found in the future. Now, when I say that, many will claim science isn't like that, but the term junk DNA is. It directly implies there is no function.
The problem, as pointed out, is that our knowledge of the functionality of DNA is very limited and we are constantly learning more. If we Learn of knew functionality, the all the so called junk DNA has to be reviewed for that new functionality. Such was admitted to in the video too.
What's more is that DNA now classified as functional used to be classified as junk before. As we learned about functionality, it changed junk into functional DNA.
This shows how poor of a term it is. That is what he was saying for pretty much the entire time. That the label choice most scientists insist on using for what they don't know about is illogical at best.
@@haddow777 He happens to be factually wrong about design attributes, and I say that as a person whose 40 year career of electronics and electro-mechanical design included taking over failing design projects. Experts often design very efficient systems with no unused parts, but I have also shipped systems with spare logic. I got a note back from the person who took over product design after I left a company stating that he had been looking forward to being able to add to the product, but that each time he went to do so he found the feature already added and just needing to be turned on.
The "design hypothesis" is not backed by real world data, its conclusions are based on statistics and there exist counter examples. That makes it a useless hypothesis. That is on top of the fact that a sentient designer's behavior cannot be used to predict the future without having a conversation with that entity, or seeing their design notes, *and* trusting that they are not lying or deluded. You cannot tell from a system whether its purpose is what the designer intended, you can only at best determine what it actually does now under present conditions. ID is so useless it doesn't even merit investigation other than as a philosophical pursuit. However there are political purposes behind that which is why I speak up at Luskin et al's attempt to sneak God into public policy.
I am agreeing that Luskin has a philosophical point about 'broken' elements perhaps having another function. But a lot of the argumentativeness is due to over interpreting the label "junk". This is reminiscent of the Big Bang which is not a bang at all, but creationists go on at length about how it can't be an explosion. A rose by any other name does smell as sweet, but calling a turd a rose does not make it also smell sweet. The fact that the scientists who called it junk are the ones seeking to find its functionality belies the claim that those who are expert in the field think it has no function. What they do think is that if sequence is not preserved then the functionality is even easier to develop by mindless processes than those who require a very specific sequence of bases. For them junk DNA is DNA for which nearly any sequence serves its role in a reaction/process.
So I think we agree that "junk" used here is prejudicial and another term should be used.
But likewise what the ID folk are saying are signs of design as also abusing that term to create expectations.
I'd like to hear what Luskin has to say about amoeba have 20 times as much DNA as humans, are they that much more biochemically complex than we?
Dr. Dan still has points that are as valid as the invalid points of Dr Luskin. Broken genes do eventually sometimes mutate into functional ones, perhaps occasionally in one mutational step. Most often it takes more than one mutational event to repurpose a stretch of DNA. Statistical arguments presented as laws are invalid and both sides have indulged in this, but one side far more often than the other.
@@haddow777You seem to be implying that we don't know anything about DNA. The fact is that the reason why call DNA junk is based on what we do know about how it functions. It would be foolish to ignore what we do know.
@@NinjaMonkeyPrime no, I understand that we know quite a bit about DNA. What I am saying is that there is a lot we still don't know, beyond what we do. To label something as junk is implying that we know all. They could use a label has had a more open we don't know meaning to it, but they insist on junk, which is definitively negative.
The seriously dumb thing about it is that the junk label isn't new. There are parts pf the DNA today that used to be labeled junk, but had that classification of them removed when new functionality was found out about.
A large part of why there are still so many unanswered questions about DNA is that we are still advancing in our technology. Just listen to how they define functionality. They mash up a bunch of cells and count how many pf various peices they find and determine functionality based on quantity. I'm sorry, but that is insane to think that is a high value method of analyzing functionality.
I've been in software development. Back in the day of 32 bit computing, there was an inturupt call you had to make to get the CPU to switch from 16 bit mode to 33 bit. It was a single call made at a specific time, once various other functions were carried out. It happened rarely, but it was extremely important to running any sort of 32 bit application. Without it you have a severe lack of processing power and memory. You couldn't even access certain parts of the computer.
What's more, there are so many possibilities of things in the DNA that haven't even come close to being explored. Like instinctual knowledge. Look at pretty much any animal and they will display built in logic and knowledge. What gives us the instinctual fear of the unknown? Human babies don't usually care about unfamiliar people for their early stages, but after a couple of years, they suddenly become very shy about strangers. It's a well known developmental cycle. Where is tbe instruction for that in the DNA and the part that keeps it dormant for the first year or so? If everyone shares that developmental cycle, the only thing we really have in common is DNA, so logically the instructions for that must be in there. Like puberty.
Or, what about instinctual visual stimuli? Visual data is extremely complex, involving billions of connections in the brain, yet some birds will be driven to mate with another bird based on their coloring. Some birds have large air bladders that are typically strongly colored, and when inflated, the visual stimuli in other birds becomes attracted to it. Where is that coming from? It's a instinctual decision process built into them that drives them. Same wirh us, the porn industry makes billions every year, along with the beer industry, all based on parts of our brains being highly attracted to various body parts of other humans. Where does that instinctual drive pretty much every human shares come from? How does our complex minds just have the ability to know that those parts are sexy based on the complex visual stimuli? How does each successive gernation get this knowledge?
What part of our genes guide the development of our complex neural pathways to develope such instincts so perfectly that they are shared amongst the vast majority of their kind?
I'm sorry, but I am just not convinced that science has learned nearly enough about DNA to use such a definitive and closed minded term as junk when referring to any part of the DNA.
@@haddow777 You seem obsessed with the term junk. The fact is that we do understand the functions of DNA and we can evaluate when parts of DNA are not performing that function. Trying to say that "maybe" one day we will find another magical function of DNA isn't how science works. Saying that those parts of the DNA are not functional is correct based on our current knowledge.
I enjoyed the argument from ignorance complaints followed by the admission that there is evidence....its simply contrary to the position.
while I know this wasn't a theological debate by any means, it seems like Luskin's argument boils down to something similar to the "God of the Gaps" argument. perhaps it should be called "Functions of the Fissures"? Geologists are so good with fissures, after all
Science: We looked at this DNA thing and it does (X) but in humans we do not have (X) so it does nothing....
ID: "Someday we will find out what that thing does! TRUST ME BRO.
I huge part of this argument is "we just learned some stuff so we're going to learn a LOT more of the same stuff trust me bro".
@@CreationMyths I think we should call the idea "FOG" function of the gaps. When they say you are "science stopping" you say "I can't see though your FOG" :D
Also did they REALLY make any predictions at all? I mean - what if anything have they added to science?
Also what possible answer do they have for why onions have more code then us?
Dr Luskin seems to keep hearing an argument for why we shouldn’t count genes for which we are have no current reason to think are functional as an argument about it absolutely not being functional. He seems to be working from an assumption of functionality until functionality is disproved.
Does the ID guy think there is a difference between a ratio and a percentage when dealing with a total number? Why convert from a percent to a ratio? What is the distinction he thinks he's making?
I notice that also. Beats me.
It really feels like they ought to have the opposite positions were steadfast to the conceptual implications of their "worldviews." Luskin -- argues staunchly against the implication that degradation implies lack of functionality, negating a common creationist talking point. What happened to DNA errors over time due to sin? Dan -- seems to imply that a theoretical interpretation of sequences precludes the necessity for experimental results.
I don't know much, but The Australian lungfish, with its impressive genome of around 40 billion base pairs, stands as a testament that Designer is planning, eventually, to activate the lungfish's junk DNA and express it as a mutated Second Coming.
his qualifications are having studied geology and earth science. so, with regard to this subject... a layman? 😂
Pretty much every creationist "expert" only ever speaks on subjects they aren't actually experts in
Yeah it's weird, like, they have a guy with a degree in *evolutionary biology* on staff (Dr. McLatchie), but he didn't want to talk. They had the geologist do it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@CreationMyths Sounds eerily similar to AIG and other creationist organizations, where they don’t send their (few) experts to debate on their own field… I wonder why 🤔
AiG clamps down super hard, it's so weird. They let Jeanson out once (I chatted with him for about an hour), he stuck his foot in his mouth, and since then, nothing. They have other "real" biologists on staff, but none of them do real open public events. Zero engagement with critics.
Almost like they *want* to exist in an echo chamber...hmmmmmmm
@@CreationMyths *_"they have a guy with a degree in evolutionary biology on staff (Dr. McLatchie)..."_*
...who denies almost everything he had to learn to aquire his degree. Which makes his degree worthless.
In the same way a geologist degree would be worthless in the hands of a flat earther.
What % of DNA is junk? ....
"I don't have that in my brain!"
Well yeah you do, its called Intelligent Design! :D
I would like to acknowledge that Steve was a great moderator.
So as it stands..... most of the genome has no known function. Dan wins.
Luskin is pretending that a competent designer would use viruses. Everything is apologetics to him. Design does not need apologetics, it needs testing with real designers. Luskin is used to making excuses for all the errors in the Bible and that is almost all of what he is doing here.
Am I sensing a bit of inspiration from Mr Anderson in Dr Dans strategy here?
You sure are. I told @Mr. Anderson there's a specific thing he's talked about that I did in that key exchange at the end of Luskin's closing.
I guess the Disinfotoot isn't paying Casey enough to get a better webcam.
I don't understand intelligent design. Makes no sense.
Non sequiter still exist? 😮
Why has Steve stolen a pic from a cut-price lighting catalogue for his layout? 😂
Unless you LIE, Creationism DIES.
Is there still a point in talking about this? Doesnt seem like the discovery institute has people willing to change their minds or admit to not offer any actual research & application.
The discovery Institute do not want any of their employees to accept biological evolution. They are extremely strict with their employees that they must not support mainstream evolutionary biology in any way shape or form. In fact, they make their employees sign a formal legal contract to that effect.