Intelligent Design Proponent: No Known Function for Most of Human Genome
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- On May 2nd, 2024, I had a very enjoyable debate with Dr. Casey Luskin of Discovery Institute on the topic of junk DNA in the human genome. Like most (I think all) ID creationists, Dr. Luskin argues that the human genome is mostly functional, and "junk DNA" is an outdated concept that's falling by the wayside, and this is supported by the weight of current data.
But at the end of our conversation, he said...not that. Take a look.
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.
Oh my! Luskin goes off script. 😳
I have been following this discussion since the LSS video and I think the DI's position has changed quite a bit from "it is" to "it could be".
BINGO!
And “it could be” is a perfectly reasonable and defensible position! But it’s not what ID creationists have been saying. But if this is their new position, great!
Expect a long, rant-filled essay on the DI website that attempts to furiously backpedal on this admission.
Bring it.
I don't think that's how DI operates. They're going to _title_ an article something related to this, but the actual contents will be a bunch of whining about Dan being a mean doody-head and how grainy pictures of geology prove evolution is a lie from Satan according to the bible and their usual greatest shits.
_Backpedaling_ would be an admission that they made a mistake. They can't have that, even their audience might wake up long enough to notice.
Totally.
I was hoping you would have went into the conceptual aspect of their claim.
Basically what they are doing is giving an inductive argument…
“We having been finding more function from what was previously considered junk. Given that this happens year after year, we have reason to believe that this will continue to the point that we show that the functional fraction is high.”
The issue with this is that the induction base (each study that finds more function) is consistent with there being a high fraction OR a low fraction.
For an induction to be successful each token that comprises the induction must support the thesis.
Given that there is no quantitative analysis of what is actually being discovered, there is no reason to believe, a priori, that we are headed to a high functional fraction.
We need to know the proportion of function to junk when these new functional sequences are derived. Is it the case that when we survey a new chunk of DNA that we are finding 80% function? Or are we finding 2%? I think it’s the latter.
Either way the burden is on them to evidence their induction.
I think, despite Dr Luskin's assertions to the contrary, his responses in the debate were mostly driven by his ideological defense of a speculative/apologetic faith position rather than affirming the widely-understood consequences of Chemistry: protein-folding, reaction kinetics, etc.
To quote Casey Luskin himself: "I think it's important to not hype your claims. To make sure that you're being careful with your science. And this is a lesson for everyone in science…for all of us who do science, Let's be careful with our arguments and careful with our claims."
Well said, but incredibly ironic.
_To quote Casey Luskin himself: "I think_
Man if anyone ever needed proof that Casey Luskin is a shameless liar it's right there.
Will be interesting to see how this all progresses.
I can't believe that the DI let him out to do this!
Seems they have shifted their position to one equivalent to the "exotic future new physics" that YECs need to get around the heat problem.
"Oops, did I say that part out loud? Crap."
I once had a flatmate who was studying two Australian ant species. They were examples of the larger kinds that can often be found out in the bush. You do not want to get bitten by them. Externally, these two species looked quite similar. About the same size (2cm), similar heads etc, colour was not too different.
But one had ~2X the amount of DNA as the other. Approaching the amount of DNA in a human. That was my introduction to the concept of junk DNA; I thought it was all functional. If he was studying those two, and could not say what was functional in the DNA, who was I to question him? It was not what I was studying.
If those who study the human DNA cannot attribute known functions to ~50% of our DNA, who am I to question them? Equally, if an ant species can have about the same as a human, then we really are at the beginning of our understanding of how DNA works.
One day the human DNA may be understood well enough to say what *all of it* does, but until then I am reasonably happy to accept that, just like that ant, at least some is totally non-functional.
Algormancy!
Always appreciated!
And yet, throughout the debate, he stood by at least 80% per encode. But he knows it's not even at 50% 🙄
Does he even know he's doing this?
And that's why no one understands what makes Casey employable at DI. Or anyone employable at DI. Except a willingness to lie
Faith is BEING SURE of what we HOPE FOR.
Amazing when creationists tell the truth it doesn't help their argument.
Great video, Dan!
An explainer on the scope of the hundreds (800?) of papers that Luskin was so excited about would be helpful. I got the sense that the high count of papers was about a small fraction of reality? Also, I got the sense that much of what Luskin hopes for is physically impossible (you mentioned it once I believe) and diving deeper on all that would be cool. Perhaps you’ve already done videos on that?
Surprise Saturday evening edition
Look, it's short, it's not worth a whole Wednesday release, but I want to get this out there, so...surprise!
I might do more of these little drops in between the main videos. We'll see. I often have little things that aren't big enough for a "real" video but I'd like to say anyway, and I happen to have the time for this one.
@@CreationMythsI’m here for more shorts whenever you have the time and inclination to make them.
So Cagey Luskin's argument is that we will find, over time, that most of the genome is functional, therefore it *_doesn't_* have more than 50% functionality.
Genius.
I can get up and go lock my front door, but my front door is currently not locked, so it's not possible to lock my door. You nailed it, Casey. Jesus figurative christ...
I guess he’s saying he’ll win the debate in 100 years and his great grandkids can tell your great grandkids, “I told ya so.”
Reading a number of the quotes and papers in the two articles on topic recently posted on evolutionnews, something that seems to be coming up more fairly often is how transposable elements, and other portions of the DNA that aren't functional, may become functional in the future.
This made me think that the word "junk" may come back around to being an apt description of what this DNA is. Junk yards are usually full of non-working cars, "junkers" even, but a lot of them have salvageable parts, parts in good condition that could be used to fix a car or be cobbled together to make a working car.
Unlike a "garbage dump", these regions of DNA are sounding more like a "junkyard".
Reminds me of Einstein's cosmological constant. That thing he came up with, then dismissed as his greatest blunder, and which came back later because it actually fit the data.
And by the way, why would an "intelligent" God design a tapeworm? Only to show how unfathomable His ways are?
The entire DI argument here is, by their own admission, resting on hypothetical data they don’t actually have.
They are making a positive claim despite both an absence of evidence for that claim, and the presence of evidence to the contrary.
Were I to try and publish a paper using that kind of reasoning on any subject, the editors and reviewers would reject it.
Intelligently designed with 50%+ junk! lol
you must've missed the entire point that the so-called junk is being found to NOT actually be junk...
@@easyminimal_6130And you missed Luskin's point that it may be a century or so before that can be established. Before this debate, the claim was that there was almost no junk DNA and they already has the proof.
@@easyminimal_6130 some day - it’s all wishful thinking. I could make any wild ass guess like this. Some day…
It's not particularly surprising that evolutionary algorithm (in this case evolution itself) would produce a bunch of side effects in DNA, affecting "primary" function of it, and thus "functional" (re - the sorta-famous FPGA article). However, it's dumbfounding (also funny and ironic) that somebody would call that "genius programmer" and worship as a deity. Sounds like idolatry.
Another 100 years? Before you can predict? Is this what counts as a creation (or what is now called ID) prediction?
Can we get this in writing? No? Oh, then I guess it's not a prediction and ID can't predict anything. Sad.
They're always writing checks you can't cash.
Oh, we totally promise that in 100 years, we will eventually have some data to overturn the cornerstone of biology that is currently contributing massive amounts right now in the present.
So, the desert tribal war deity, Yahweh, couldn't just use magic instead of biology?
what a maroon!! 😂
I still don't know why god would put the fun zone on top of and next to the waste disposal place... god must be a nitwit!
From a joke with that as the punchline: God must be a city planner.
@@tedvdw1975 Nah, city planers have brains. God is brainless.
First?
Second!
Possibly Third
Fifth on the fifth 😏
Is there a "Trend Line"? Is So, WHERE IS IT.