Junk DNA goodbye!: the battle with Dan Graur continues (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, May 15, 2020, 11:28 (1654 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What causes my confusion is your bolded and oft repeated comment. Natural selection removes failed species, but does not affect DNA code. ENCODE says there are very few chance mutations.

dhw: A very sudden switch of argument! I’m not going to pretend to understand the science, but I strongly object to the suggestion that “natural selection” can only be applied to species. It works in any number of contexts. As I understand it, ENCODE’s task is to find out the functions of all the different parts of the genome. Since the genomes of different species have different numbers/sequences/ functions, and you believe in common descent, I can’t see any reason why you should assume that the inner workings of the cell communities of which all organisms consist have not undergone a continuous process of changing numbers/sequences/ functions, which survive or don’t survive according to natural selection. Unless you can prove otherwise, our atheists can carry on using natural selection as a reason for the absence of junk.

DAVID: Talk about a switch. Natural selection works at the level of living organisms.

It can work in lots of other contexts, but in any case cells are living organisms.

DAVID: Changes in the DNA depends upon who survives and that they pass on their specific code to progeny. Natural selection is an active judge of what is presented to it but is a passive producer of evolution in that strict sense.

Of course it’s passive in that sense. And of course permanent changes in the genome will depend on who survives – that is the role of natural selection. It doesn’t create the changes, it determines which changes survive. And I am pointing out that if there is no junk, your atheist can argue that whenever there was a change, whatever was not needed did not survive.

DAVID: You seem to imply DNA change is an active cellular process all by itself. There are many reasons for mutations, but cells don't just purposely churn them out. Darwin's' view is chance accidental mutations are the source of evolution and as such the junk proponents are sure the DNA must contain lots of remnants of discarded genes. Why is Graur so distressed if logically he can use your argument?

We are discussing the theory of cellular intelligence (Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”) elsewhere, and I know what the junk proponents are saying. And if there is no junk, they are wrong. You have not offered a single logical objection to my proposal. You will have to ask Graur why he doesn’t use the argument.