The Discoveroids’ Top Story for 2012

As we told you in Discoveroids’ Christmas Gift: A Coppedge Story, the Discoveroids — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page — are posting a year-end extravaganza touting their Top Ten accomplishments for the year 2012.

They’ve been working their way up from the bottom, and we’ve skipped most of them. The only two we’ve mentioned are the one about Coppedge — a case they lost — and the one about Tennessee’s new creationism law. That was a giant step backwards for science education, and therefore a great victory for the Discoveroids.

Today they’ve finally announced their Number One triumph — this is the biggie: ENCODE Project Buries “Junk DNA”. They say, with bold font added by us and their links omitted:

We will have more to say about these blockbuster findings from ENCODE researchers in coming days, but for now, let’s simply observe that it provides a stunning vindication of the prediction of intelligent design that the genome will turn out to have mass functionality for so-called “junk” DNA. ENCODE researchers use words like “surprising” or “unprecedented.” They talk about how “human DNA is a lot more active than we expected.” But under an intelligent design paradigm, none of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what ID predicted.

It’s extremely amusing that this is their best story — because it’s all about nothing. We’ve explained that before, for example, see: The Intelligent Designer’s Latest Triumph, and also ICR Goes Ape Over the ENCODE Research.

Nevertheless, the Discoveroids continue to cavort around, celebrating their “prediction” that the genome contains no junk at all — which is far from the case. Unfortunately for their claims about the perfect handiwork of their magical Designer — blessed be he! — there’s overwhelming evidence that DNA isn’t a lean, mean, intelligently designed machine.

As we’ve written before, A Japanese Plant Has the World’s Biggest Genome. That plant’s genome is 50 times longer than the genome of a human being. Also, the amoeba has a genome far larger than ours. So how can it be that there’s no junk in DNA? Not only that, but there’s an even more recent discovery — the genome of the Christmas tree is being decoded. See Huge DNA code of the Christmas tree being revealed. PhysOrg reports:

How big is a conifer genome? Consider the towering Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center in New York City. It’s a Norway spruce, so its genome is six times bigger than that of anybody skating below it. Other conifer genomes are even larger.

Anyone who claims that DNA is perfectly designed has a lot of explaining to do. And if the “failure” of junk DNA is the Discoveroids’ top story for the year, then they’ve got nothing — nothing at all. But you already knew that.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

11 responses to “The Discoveroids’ Top Story for 2012

  1. Charley Horse

    Wait a sec…are you saying plants are living things?

    Morris III begs to differ if you are saying that.
    QUOTE: ” Obviously, animal and human life are different from plant life. In fact, the Bible uses the Hebrew word chay (life) and its derivatives 763 times in the Old Testament, never applying that term to plants or vegetation. No place in Scripture attributes chay to plants; only living creatures possess life.

    Plants are indeed marvelous, beautiful, complex, and able to reproduce “after their kind,” but they are designed by the Creator to be a source of energy to maintain life. Plants are food—they are not alive.”

    This is so confusing….

  2. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”
    John 12:24
    “Thou fool, that which thous sowest is not quickened, except it die”
    1 Corinthians 15:36

  3. Plants can’t be alive, because there was no death before the fall, but animals ate plants (for example, T Rex used its big sharp teeth to crack coconuts), which would obviously have killed them if they has been alive.

  4. Jim Thomerson

    Because it costs resources to make and maintain DNA, I have always doubted that “junk” DNA would have no function. Natural Selection Theory suggests otherwise, I think.

  5. doodlebugger

    Caaaaaasey. You got some ‘splaining to do!!!!! Lol

  6. Alas, none of the Tooter’s top ten stories have anything to do with the “theory” of ID which, of course, doesn’t exist, so I guess that’s not surprising.

    Top ten gripes would be more like it since the list consists of complaints about the scientific modern theory of evolution, legal battles, useless philosophical opinion and blasts from the past including mention of the ONLY so-called “ID-friendly” paper to be published in a real scientific journal.

    Of course, the Tooter’s left out the most fascinating aspects of the Meyer publication back in 2004. Like how Meyer and Sternberg conspired to sneak the article into the journal for which Sternberg was an editor. Like how it wasn’t peer-reviewed. Like how none of the other associate editors saw the article. Like how the article was the only one without an abstract for review. Like how the article was the only one in which the galley proofs from the publisher were “lost.” Like how Sternberg had been reprimanded by the editorial board previously for sneaking in a creationist article. And like how Meyer’s article was retracted on the very day the journal hit the stands. Oh, and, finally, how Meyer’s “ID-friendly” article neither presented the results of research but was instead a sloppy collage of previous published essays and blog postings, hardly even a review of the subject, nor how it only once mentioned “intelligent design,” and that in the conclusion with no discussion prior in the paper the “theory of intelligent design;” not at all whatsoever. It just sort of appears like a bunny out of a hat. Or a gerbil out of his … never mind.

    How did the Tooters spin it? Oh, yeah, senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID . Groundbreaking? That’s a laugh! After eight years, no citations. More like another wheelbarrow load from the same stinking manure pile. Advocating ID? Well, if you consider “advocating” to be “blah blah blah Cambrian Explosion blah blah blah” then I guess so.

    One retracted review article in eight years. Great job, Tooters! And that brings the total number of ID research articles published in scientific journals in the entire World to exactly – drum roll – ZERO! Being a kind-hearted person I’m wishing the Tooters for 2013 to double, nay, triple that number of publications! I know they can do it.

  7. How do I get my info on your page.

  8. @Jim Thomerson

    You may be right but it would make more of a difference in terms of relative resource utilization for microbes than for mammals. We know deletion of some segments of noncoding dna has no effect on the organism. I think we will ultimately find that some introns are truly junk and some, maybe most, will have some function on which selection can act. Regardless this does not disprove the ToE nor lend any support to the nonexistent theory of intelligent design nor any other form of creationism.

  9. Be a bit more subtle, evolveinthegenes.

  10. Thanks for your response, as the links that I have on my page, I would like to transfer around. Are they overwhelming?

  11. ////Because it costs resources to make and maintain DNA, I have always doubted that “junk” DNA would have no function. Natural Selection Theory suggests otherwise, I think.///
    Evolution is not just by natural selection, it’s also by random genetic drifts. Genes get randomly duplicated, deleted, inverted or translocated to produce copy number variations. Although some of these variations can have beneficial or harmful results and therefore get naturally selected, many of them produces junk DNA that have no particular role. They still persist in the genome since there’s no selective pressure to get rid of them, and so they’re “invisible” to natural selection. This is the reason why we see huge genomes in relatively simple living things that are way less complex than humans.
    Evolutionary theory can explain this easily because evolution is a messy business that leaves a lot of relic. On the other hand, ID can never explain the disparity between organism complexity and the size of its genome.