Kot, already answered you on the functional and non-functional DNA issue. Sad you cannot understand it but it's not my fault.
If I cannot understand your explanation, perhaps it is you who should be pitied, because, as you said earlier:
Good science should be about helping people assess and understand what the data does and does not say, not trying to indoctrinate people to believe.
If your contributions to this thread do not help people assess and understand what data does and does not say, then I put it to you that perhaps you are the one who is doing something wrong in your explanations.
Please pay attention to the specifics of the argument. Evos said repetitions of non-functional DNA were stronger evidence for evolution because they could not be there due to functional design as creationists and IDers argued.
Okay, so if we pretend that in a given genome there truly is such a thing as a non-functional sequence of DNA, evolutionary theory would expect this sequence of DNA to behave, when analyzed over a larger data set than just one individual, to behave in a certain way. We would expect, for instance, that this sequence would form nested hierarchies which are concordant with other data, with a degree of resolution corresponding loosely to the rate of base substitution in the sequence in question. This rate, if the sequence is truly non-functional, would be expected, from evolutionary theory, to be relatively high, as no selective pressure would be expected to operate on the sequence to modify the rate of base substitution.
In other words, though they also said functional DNA was evidence for evolution
Okay, so let us also pretend that in the same set of genomes, there is a DNA sequence that we have reason to believe to be functional. What these reasons are is immaterial at the moment. Evolutionary theory would predict that these sequences would behave in a certain way, but generally do so slower relative to the hypothesized non-functional DNA sequence in the same genome, as selection would be expected to modify the rate of base substitution.
Over time, when a sufficient amount of base substitution has occurred in the hypothesized functional DNA sequence for it to show nested hierarchies, but not too many base substitutions have occurred in the hypothesized non-functional DNA sequence, evolutionary theory would predict that the two sets of data would statistically show concordant nested hierarchies.
they argued non-functional homologous sequences were PARTICULAR evidence for evolution and did so for years and years vehemently, even saying that piece of evidence alone was a slam dunk essentially.
Okay, so evolutionary scientists hypothesized that non-functional DNA sequences would be a stronger kind of evidence for evolutionary theory than functional DNA sequences. Undoubtedly some of them hypothesized that certain known DNA sequences were non-functional.
However, until you show data proving otherwise, I will not accept that scientists claimed that purportedly non-functional DNA sequences were strong evidence for evolution while the actual sequences they used to base this claim on did not behave in accordance with the predictions and expectations of evolutionary theory. Thus, until you show me evidence to the contrary, I will proceed under the assumption that the purportedly non-functional DNA sequences behaved as expected and predicted by evolutionary theory, before these same DNA sequences were found to be functional rather than non-functional. That is, whether or not a scientist had any idea of whether a given DNA sequence was functional or not, the sequence would behave according to the expectations and predictions of evolutionary theory. Remember: you may show evidence to the contrary whenever you want, as long as it is
actual evidence, and not quotes from letters or similar.
IDers predicted science would show so-called junk DNA was functional.
Okay, I will accept this on face value. Do you also, as a subsidiary part of this, claim that no scientists predicted that the purportedly non-functional DNA sequences on which these evolutionary claims you refer to above were based also would be shown to be functional? In short, did both IDers and scientists predict that these purportedly non-functional DNA sequences would eventually be found to be functional? You may answer at your leisure.
While I await your answer, I will continue this analysis.
As I said above, I will assume that the purportedly non-functional DNA sequences used as evidence for the claims of the scientists did behave in a manner predicted and expected by evolutionary theory. That is, whether a given DNA sequence in a set of genomes was believed to be functional or non-functional, they all behaved according to the predictions and expectations of the theory of evolution.
Now, would genuinely non-functional DNA sequences, whether they exist or not, be stronger evidence for evolution that functional DNA sequences? Without having reviewed the literature, I would say that they would be. This does not in any way imply that functional DNA sequences is not an immensely strong evidence for evolutionary theory, but reflects only that there are philosophical aspects to known functional DNA sequences that do not exist to the same degree in genuinely non-functional DNA sequences. Again, I have not read the specific claims or arguments randman is referring to, as he has not, to my knowledge, ever linked to any in specific, but has, if I recall correctly, referred vaguely to internet discussion sites he frequented in the past.
In our discussions this spring, you showed adequately that you have no idea what a niche is, randman. I defined it slightly less inexpertly (randman suggested "whale" was a niche) as a set of obstacles placed between an organism and its sources of nutrients and energy. I further discussed how members of different branches on the tree of life would approach the overcoming of these obstacles with different sets of tools, and that these obstacles occasionally necessitate a certain set of derived tools. These derived tools may superficially look similar, as they are evolved to cope with the same set of obstacles, but do not necessarily have the same basis. This, incidentally, is, as you will recall from March, the main reason that your idol Davison is an ill-educated lunatic, in that he is unable to cope with the possibility that two things that look the same may not be the same. Your insistence that "similar" or "virtually identical" is the same as "identical" is a step in that direction as well, though I would not be so indiscreet as to openly call you an ill-educated lunatic.
Now, if we suppose that there is some correspondence between the genome of an organism and its morphology -- and I will insist that there generally is -- the set of derived morphological tools needed to overcome a certain set of obstacles may be reflected in a need for derived genetic tools to allow these derived morphological tools to evolve. It
needn't be so, but I claim that in at least some cases, this is
likely to be the case.
If we then assume, as does the IDers and Davison, that there is a God who is directing the development of derived tools, whether on the morphological or the genetic level, this to me implies that "derived genetic tools" would be the same as "functional DNA sequences", however you are free to disagree and post your own correspondence.
If this is the case, then the functional DNA sequences could potentially be directed in their continual derivation into more suitable tools to counter the obstacles that need to be overcome by God. While the truth of this supposition cannot necessarily be known, it does attach to functional DNA sequences a philosophical baggage which, I will argue below, genuinely non-functional DNA sequences are not burdened with to the same extent.
The reason for this is simple. If as we have assumed above, until you provide evidence to the contrary, the set of genomes in question, whether the specific sequences are believed to be non-functional or functional, do behave as predicted or expected by evolutionary theory, this must
necessarily caused by God] in the cases where the end product of a sequence is a derived morphological tool (
i.e., functional DNA sequences), as it is God who directs the derivation of more refined tools, but only
possibly in those cases where there is no such end product, as we cannot know if God directs the changed in DNA sequenced that have no effect on the organism's morphological tools. It cannot, of course, be ruled out that God is directing the changes in purportedly non-functional DNA sequences as well, but it is not necessary to postulate this.
Therefore, the difference between the set of purportedly non-functional DNA sequences in a given set of genomes, and the set of known functional DNA sequences in the same set of genomes, again supposing that there is no qualitative difference in their behaviour, but that both sets behave as predicted or expected by evolutionary theory (until you provide evidence to the contrary), is that the former set is less likely to be burdened by the oversight of God. The difference between the two sets is thus almost exclusively philosophical, not biological.
To return to the point where it was discovered that purportedly non-functional DNA sequences were actually functional: how did this affect the discussion above? Well, as I have told you before, the main difference between the set of purportedly non-functional DNA sequences and known functional DNA sequences in the hypothetical set of genomes I asked you to imagine above, is that now all sequences are in the latter category. That is, they still behave as predicted by evolutionary theory, but we have changed the set they belong to; to use the phraseology of earlier posts, we have changed the label we attach to these sequences. Their behaviour and other properties remain the same, but we do not refer to these specific instances as "non-functional DNA sequences" any longer.
This naturally means that a larger proportion of DNA sequences in the hypothesized set of genome now are potentially burdened by the oversight of God, which means that there is a
philosophical difference between the specific DNA sequences initially claimed to be non-functional before and after they were found to actually be functional. But there is no
qualitative difference between the two. If they behaved as expected or predicted by evolutionary theory before the change of label, they still do the same after the change. If they didn't behave as expected or predicted by evolutionary theory before the change, they don't after the change either. Absent the philosophical baggage, the degree to which any given purportedly non-functional DNA sequence supports evolutionary theory is the same before and after the change of label for that specific DNA sequence.
And is that philosophical baggage relevant? Well, it may be the day that we have positive proof of God. Until then, the burden of the oversight of God is merely a figment of imagination.
So there you have it, randman. Feel free to criticize this explanation as much as you want, but remember that it is only due to your refusal to provide actual sources for your claims that I am forced to speculate. If you changed your personality into one at least claiming to have any kind of intellectual integrity and honesty, no matter how rudimentary, and provide evidence for your claims, assessing and understanding your claims about what data does and does not say would be much easier. Until then, you appear to be just another creationist trying to indoctrinate people to believe.
I close this post by reminding you of your earlier appeal:
Good science should be about helping people assess and understand what the data does and does not say, not trying to indoctrinate people to believe.
