Rethinking junk DNA

<< < (3/8) > >>

Mefiante (July 17, 2009, 11:23:50 AM):
For the first part of the reply, go here.

The null hypothesis concerning junk DNA is that is just that: more or less neutral genetic junk that has accumulated through evolutionary processes over the history of the genotype because DNA rarely “trims the fat” so to speak. That this hypothesis is increasingly being challenged in various ways from various quarters is the result of mounting evidence that in this case the default position (i.e., a non-positive claim) will very probably need careful scrutiny. That is how science works. These facts are neither indicative that intentional design or directed purpose need be assumed or even should be, nor are they evidence for the validity of such a thoroughly anti-scientific suggestion. To think otherwise is to ride roughshod over the very principles that account for the scientific method’s unrivalled success.

'Luthon64
Teleological (July 17, 2009, 12:30:36 PM):
For the first part of the reply, go here.

The null hypothesis concerning junk DNA is that is just that: more or less neutral genetic junk that has accumulated through evolutionary processes over the history of the genotype because DNA rarely “trims the fat” so to speak. That this hypothesis is increasingly being challenged in various ways from various quarters is the result of mounting evidence that in this case the default position (i.e., a non-positive claim) will very probably need careful scrutiny. That is how science works. These facts are neither indicative that intentional design or directed purpose need be assumed or even should be, nor are they evidence for the validity of such a thoroughly anti-scientific suggestion. To think otherwise is to ride roughshod over the very principles that account for the scientific method’s unrivalled success.

'Luthon64

Mmm, where did you get this hypothesis? Who's idea is it? Could you perhaps point to any scientifically peer-reviewed articles stating this hypothesis. I am interested.

These facts are also NOT indicative of no intentional design or NO directed purpose either. Such claims are outside the scope of science.
cyghost (July 17, 2009, 13:28:56 PM):
Quote
These facts are also NOT indicative of no intentional design or NO directed purpose either.
Exactly. So to hold such a hypothesis makes no sense whatsoever in the face of absence of evidence for it. If the facts doesn't support a particular hypothesis, it has to be discarded as unproven (in the layman's term)and / or useless.

Quote
Such claims are outside the scope of science
It is gratifying that you know this. What you do not seem to realise that if there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. Not proof, perhaps not very strong evidence either, but evidence nonetheless.
Teleological (July 17, 2009, 14:12:55 PM):
Quote
These facts are also NOT indicative of no intentional design or NO directed purpose either.
Exactly. So to hold such a hypothesis makes no sense whatsoever in the face of absence of evidence for it. If the facts doesn't support a particular hypothesis, it has to be discarded as unproven (in the layman's term)and / or useless.
Which facts have rendered which hypothesis useless?

Quote
Such claims are outside the scope of science
It is gratifying that you know this. What you do not seem to realise that if there were indications of design or directed purposes, science would have picked it up. Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. Not proof, perhaps not very strong evidence either, but evidence nonetheless.
Hold on, are you actually proposing that science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds? That is new. How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward? Do elaborate on this wild idea of yours.
And what evidence in nature will yield evidence of other minds (other than human that is) for you? You do believe humans have minds don't you?
cyghost (July 17, 2009, 14:54:09 PM):
Which facts have rendered which hypothesis useless?
The absence of facts. Please pay attention!
Quote
Hold on, are you actually proposing that science can scientifically prove the presence of other minds? That is new. How do you think science can do that? Which methods would you put forward? Do elaborate on this wild idea of yours.
And what evidence in nature will yield evidence of other minds (other than human that is) for you? You do believe humans have minds don't you?
lol. I'm not sure you have one! I was not speaking about minds at all. re-read?

EDIT: it suddenly struck me that I know you and there is something that you hate. "I don't know"

How does this apply? Quite easily. By analogy if you will. We found an object. Is this object designed or not? The default position is "We don't know". To change this position we need evidence either way. Or, and I know this will kill you, it stays "We don't know"!

The onus of evidence resides on your shoulders, you claim design.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page