You are familiar with the proposition promoted by the Discovery Institute that complex, improbable, yet functional things exhibit a property they call specified complexity, which to them is a virtually incontrovertible signal of intelligent design.
That is why they insist that our DNA is not laden with “junk,” i.e., non-functional material. The designer — blessed be he! — does everything for a purpose, and he wouldn’t do sloppy work. Because we know (don’t we?) that the designer created us, it follows as the night the day that there can’t be any junk in our divinely fashioned DNA. See Discovery Institute: Junk DNA Dismay.
Knowing that this, shall we say, “purity of essence” is a conclusion of intelligent design theory, we sometimes take delight in mentioning the existence of other organisms that have genomes far larger than ours. For example, we have previously pointed out that an onion’s genome is five times larger than that of a human.
Onions aren’t the only creatures with a genomic endowment that makes us look inferior. A Japanese Plant Has the World’s Biggest Genome, which is 50 times longer than the genome of a human being. Also, the amoeba has a genome far larger than ours. If that’s not humbling enough, the genome of the Christmas tree is being decoded — see Huge DNA code of the Christmas tree being revealed — informing us that the Norway spruce has a genome six times bigger than ours, and other conifer genomes are even larger.
If the “science” of the Discoveroids is valid, then we must cower in fear at the wonders that surely must be concealed within such well-endowed yet unobtrusive organisms. Aware that their genomes conceal abilities beyond our imagining, all we can do is await the day when they reveal their plans for conquest, aided by the super powers with which their intelligently designed genomes have equipped them. This is humbling indeed.
But humility is good. We must always remember that it was mankind’s arrogance that caused the Fall of Adam & Eve, followed by the divine judgment of the Flood, and then other lesser punishments like the linguistic confusion we suffered at Babel. Now that we see how inferior we truly are regarding our genome size, it should dawn on us that our species pride is the most arrogant sin of all — and judgment day is sure to come!
To enhance your humility, dear reader, we bring you news of yet another genomic wonder. This is reported in Physorg: Simple moss plants outperform us by gene number. Moss? Egad! Let’s see what the article says, with bold font added by us:
At the genetic level, mosses are more complex than humans: A group of German, Belgian and Japanese scientists, coordinated by Professor Ralf Reski from the University of Freiburg, Germany, published a new study where they describe 32,275 protein-encoding genes from the moss Physcomitrella patens. This is about 10,000 genes more than the human genome contains.
Are you feeling inferior, dear reader? That’s good. Here’s a bit more:
For their recent study the scientists collected all available information on the moss genome as well as transcript evidence and used this data for a completely new bioinformatic analysis. The result is freely available on the community resource http://www.cosmoss.org,
Here’s a better link and we’re giving it a better title: The moss computational biology toolbox. It’s not a website for amateurs. We went there and looked around. They may have it somewhere, but we couldn’t find a statement that compares the moss genome’s length to the human genome, in terms of base pairs. All we have to go on is that moss has 10,000 more genes than we do.
There’s no need for us to excerpt any more information. If you’re interested in moss, that link is the mother lode. Our interest is far more cosmic — we’re concerned about man’s place in the great scheme of things. From what we’re learning about the inferiority of our genome, we’re about equal to pond scum. That’s the conclusion one must draw from intelligent design theory.
In closing, we’ll restate an offer we’ve expressed before, inspired by this clip from The Simpsons:
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.