Junk DNA: goodbye!: RNA many new uses (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, July 03, 2020, 18:53 (1387 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "Evolutionists have already failed this burgeoning field by relegating RNAs they didn’t understand to the “genetic junk” bin. And ever since, after all these years of discovery, all they can do is speculate about what “might have evolutionary underpinnings.” This is a great time for design advocates to read the messages in RNA and find out what they are saying." (David’s bold)

David's comment: A typical ID article pointing out how the research in RNA has opened a huge field for new discoveries. As the last paragraph shows, ID design experts will have different interpretations of the 'facts'.

TONY: Well, he's not wrong. Evolutionary biologist did relegate what they didn't understand, and have thus spent decades being surprised. The reason that their 'surprise' is so telling is that a good scientific theory makes predictions, and you're only surprised when the predictions are wrong. The extreme level of complexity makes the entire prospect of random chance and natural selection relatively ludicrous, but then, the entire theory of evolution has too much of a strangle hold to be dislodged by something as inconvenient as facts or the scientific method. As theories go, it has been wrong a lot.... like a lot a lot.

dhw: On this website we have long since agreed that random chance as the source of all the complexities is “relatively ludicrous”. Natural selection in itself simply means that Nature will preserve whatever works, and will get rid of what doesn’t. What is ludicrous is the claim that it creates anything. Darwin’s “Origin of species by means of natural selection” is therefore horribly misleading, as his form of speciation depends initially on random mutations, not natural selection. However, none of this invalidates the theory of evolution itself in the sense of common descent, and indeed as Darwin says at the end of his book (later editions): “There is grandeur in the view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” For years now, we have been discussing the theory that evolution has advanced by means of cooperation between intelligent cell communities (as opposed to random mutations), possibly created by your God and responding in their different ways to different conditions. I don't remember hearing your views on this theory, but if you have told us, perhaps you could give us a reminder?

I think Tony has given much of what He thinks right here. It seems he has just trashed natural selection, and I've said I don't think very much of it as having any value in any form of the theory such as expressed by dhw. But I hope Tony will pitch in a little more.