Junk DNA means no God.

God, the FSM, and everything else.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:09 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Kwan

Definitely not omnibenevolent in the Old Testament. But the modern Christian church tends to think of his, her, or it that way.

Yep....religious leaders teach a lot that is baseless and even flat out wrong....even within the context of their own authorities. The flock believes what they are told (endlessly and repeatedly). Its what hoomans do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:43 pm

xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:All those defects that you mention might have been put there deliberately for a purpose you are not privy to.
Like making people worship said deity and pray to him for relief from their ills?
:lol:

I'm not making an claim as to why.

I have no knowledge of the motives or objectives of this alleged deity. And I am skeptical of those who do claim to know.
That's the point: We can't know the motives of an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent being. Christians claim the Bible is the word of God. If so, than he craves faith and worship...which would be a motive for his actions. However, that's a quite large "if."
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:53 pm

Before the whateveritwas hired god to be the creation contractor, it would have been nice to see the Request For Proposal.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:44 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:All those defects that you mention might have been put there deliberately for a purpose you are not privy to.
Like making people worship said deity and pray to him for relief from their ills?
:lol:

I'm not making an claim as to why.

I have no knowledge of the motives or objectives of this alleged deity. And I am skeptical of those who do claim to know.
That's the point: We can't know the motives of an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent being. Christians claim the Bible is the word of God. If so, than he craves faith and worship...which would be a motive for his actions. However, that's a quite large "if."


That was exactly my point to Lance. His argument assumes knowledge of the creator's motives or design objectives. A "defect" is something that fails to meet the design objectives. If a "feature" does in fact meet the design objectives, then it is not a "defect". And that is the primary flaw in Lance's argument. Why are we still debating this obvious point?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:48 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I believe I can offer admittedly personal and, therefore, utterly subjective evidence against the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator


You must be reading a different Bible to me, because I certainly didn't get the sense that God was supposed to be "omni-benevolent"!
Because I didn't get that notion from the Bible, obviously. Plenty of modern-day Christian sects portray their version of the biblical deity as omni-benevolent, contrary to biblical evidence.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:02 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Before the whateveritwas hired god to be the creation contractor, it would have been nice to see the Request For Proposal.
Creator, talking to self during Blue Sky R&D of "human"...

The One: "Wait...so you're just going to leave the testicles dangling there, easily subject to damage?!"
The Other One: "Well, yes. Sperm require temperature regulation, and I've cooked up a neat little contract-relax mechanism that pulls them closer to the body when it's cold, and lets them dangle when it's too warm."
The One: "I saw that...pretty cool. Still, I think we should give them an exoskeleton."
The Other One: "Don't be silly! That would completely defeat the purpose!"
The One: "The purpose is to reproduce, you ninny! Which won't happen if they get damaged, obviously."
The Other One: "You're gonna have to trust me on this one. What are you working on, anyway?"
The One: "Teeth. Why?"
The Other One: "I like the varied design of the different teeth for different foods. Ha! The vegans'll have a tough time with that one someday. Why aren't you making them more durable?"
The One: "Moral lesson."
The Other One: "Sensible. You do realize they won't invent dentistry for millions of years, right?"
The One: "So? They won't need it, really, until after they invent refined sugar."
The Other One: "Right, right. Still, I think you should use stainless steel."
The One: "How stupid would that look? Silver teeth. I really wonder about you at times."
The Other One: "How can you? I'm you, remember."
The One: "Sometimes, I wonder."
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:17 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I believe I can offer admittedly personal and, therefore, utterly subjective evidence against the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator


You must be reading a different Bible to me, because I certainly didn't get the sense that God was supposed to be "omni-benevolent"!
Because I didn't get that notion from the Bible, obviously. Plenty of modern-day Christian sects portray their version of the biblical deity as omni-benevolent, contrary to biblical evidence.


Then why are you attacking a conception of God that isn't even compatible with scripture? All your line of argument tells us is that God can't be all-benevolent; it doesn't tell us that God can't exist.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:29 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I believe I can offer admittedly personal and, therefore, utterly subjective evidence against the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator


You must be reading a different Bible to me, because I certainly didn't get the sense that God was supposed to be "omni-benevolent"!
Because I didn't get that notion from the Bible, obviously. Plenty of modern-day Christian sects portray their version of the biblical deity as omni-benevolent, contrary to biblical evidence.


Then why are you attacking a conception of God that isn't even compatible with scripture? All your line of argument tells us is that God can't be all-benevolent; it doesn't tell us that God can't exist.
FIFY

Your conclusion contains errors of logic and of reading comprehension.
1. I did not argue against the existence of a creator; I specifically argued against the existence of "an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator."
2. All scriptures were written by human beings. There is no proof that scriptures are inspired by, guided by, or in any way representational of any actual deity, should one exist. Therefore, my argument does not need to be compatible with scripture.
3. My subjective evidence, therefore, still stands as proof against the existence of a creator with the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:34 pm

And 75% junk DNA stands as strong evidence against a deity that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. That tends to be a definition of God for modern day Christians. If you want to widen the definition, where do you stop? By a perfectly reasonable standard, Joseph Blow is God to his dog.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:And 75% junk DNA stands as strong evidence against a deity that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.


Please explain how you justify that assertion.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:26 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I believe I can offer admittedly personal and, therefore, utterly subjective evidence against the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator


You must be reading a different Bible to me, because I certainly didn't get the sense that God was supposed to be "omni-benevolent"!
Because I didn't get that notion from the Bible, obviously. Plenty of modern-day Christian sects portray their version of the biblical deity as omni-benevolent, contrary to biblical evidence.


Then why are you attacking a conception of God that isn't even compatible with scripture? All your line of argument tells us is that God can't be all-benevolent; it doesn't tell us that God can't exist.
FIFY


There is nothing wrong with my use of the term "conception" in that context. You may be a feminazi, but that doesn't mean you have to be a spelling & grammar Nazi too.

Your conclusion contains errors of logic and of reading comprehension.
1. I did not argue against the existence of a creator; I specifically argued against the existence of "an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator."


If this were really the case then you would have promptly and unambiguously rebuked Lance when he first proposed his idiotic argument. As it stands you have assumed that all three properties are non-negotiable features of an almighty God.

2. All scriptures were written by human beings. There is no proof that scriptures are inspired by, guided by, or in any way representational of any actual deity, should one exist. Therefore, my argument does not need to be compatible with scripture.


Then your argument can't be applied to any conception of God posited by scripture either. Which means that your argument is largely irrelevant, unless our primary concern is the God believed in by Little Ole Ethel the lapsed Presbyterian.

3. My subjective evidence, therefore, still stands as proof against the existence of a creator with the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.


No, your "evidence" only applies to all-benevolence as a property of God; it has nothing to do with His purported omniscience or omnipotence.
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:29 pm

Xouper

You already know.
But, here it is again.

An omnibenevolent deity is not going to create suffering, because, you know, he, she or it is all benevolent, unable to do harm. 75% junk DNA creates suffering because it builds in health defects and reduces the advantages that good DNA would confer. I am sure, Xouper, that you are very aware of how imperfect the human body is, and how that imperfection leads to health problems and suffering.

Of course, an omnibenevolent deity could create suffering if it lacked the ability or knowledge required to prevent it. But, hey, this deity is omnipotent and omniscient.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:54 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:An omnibenevolent deity is not going to create suffering, because, you know, he, she or it is all benevolent, unable to do harm. 75% junk DNA creates suffering because it builds in health defects and reduces the advantages that good DNA would confer. I am sure, Xouper, that you are very aware of how imperfect the human body is, and how that imperfection leads to health problems and suffering.


You are correct I am aware how imperfect the human body is, as judged by my personal requirements.

However, I must still ask how you justify the part in yellow.

How do you justify the assertion that "75% junk DNA creates suffering because it builds in health defects and reduces the advantages that good DNA would confer."

How do you justify the assertion that "junk DNA" does anything at all?

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:57 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:And 75% junk DNA stands as strong evidence against a deity that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.


Even if it really is "junk" (and you don't know for a fact that it is), so what?

That tends to be a definition of God for modern day Christians.


Who exactly? And if this is the case, then their definition of God doesn't even pass their own scriptural tests. So why are you even bothering to attack it in the first place?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:45 am

Junk DNA occupies 75% of the genome. That means that useful DNA is displaced. Geneticists already know that, in many cases, more than one gene is used for a specific purpose, and that this doubling up of capacity strengthens gene function. In purely physical terms (length and weight), the amount of DNA packed into the nucleus is staggering. One estimate is that if all the DNA in the human body were unravelled and placed end to end, it would reach as far as the planet Pluto, four TIMES! Even the DNA in a single nucleus is something like three meters long. And 75% is wasted. The benefits that would come of making all that DNA truly functional could not be overstated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:03 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The benefits that would come of making all that DNA truly functional could not be overstated.

1. You just did.

2. How's that?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:36 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Then why are you attacking a conception of God that isn't even compatible with scripture? All your line of argument tells us is that God can't be all-benevolent; it doesn't tell us that God can't exist.
FIFY
There is nothing wrong with my use of the term "conception" in that context. You may be a feminazi, but that doesn't mean you have to be a spelling & grammar Nazi too.
:roll: Here's a little tip for you: Working for gender equality and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals. While I'm at it, here's another one: Correcting improper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals. You may consider this a correction of your two ridiculously illogical analogies. You're welcome.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Your conclusion contains errors of logic and of reading comprehension.
1. I did not argue against the existence of a creator; I specifically argued against the existence of "an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator."
If this were really the case then you would have promptly and unambiguously rebuked Lance when he first proposed his idiotic argument. As it stands you have assumed that all three properties are non-negotiable features of an almighty God.
Oh, dear. Two more logic fails.
1. Why would I have bothered addressing Lance's argument when xouper already was?
2. Your assumption about my assumption is incorrect. I merely made those three properties elements of my argument; I did not say they were non-negotiable features. YOU assumed that because of your monotheistic belief.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:2. All scriptures were written by human beings. There is no proof that scriptures are inspired by, guided by, or in any way representational of any actual deity, should one exist. Therefore, my argument does not need to be compatible with scripture.
Then your argument can't be applied to any conception of God posited by scripture either. Which means that your argument is largely irrelevant, unless our primary concern is the God believed in by Little Ole Ethel the lapsed Presbyterian.
I strongly suggest you sign up for a basic course in Logic. And English. My argument is not based on a "conception" of a creator, but a "concept." Your counter argument misses that point by a mile.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:3. My subjective evidence, therefore, still stands as proof against the existence of a creator with the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.
No, your "evidence" only applies to all-benevolence as a property of God; it has nothing to do with His purported omniscience or omnipotence.
It has everything to do with both omniscience and omnipotence. Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright? Why would an omnipotent creator not use more durable materials? And a thousand other questions.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Junk DNA occupies 75% of the genome. That means that useful DNA is displaced. Geneticists already know that, in many cases, more than one gene is used for a specific purpose, and that this doubling up of capacity strengthens gene function. In purely physical terms (length and weight), the amount of DNA packed into the nucleus is staggering. One estimate is that if all the DNA in the human body were unravelled and placed end to end, it would reach as far as the planet Pluto, four TIMES! Even the DNA in a single nucleus is something like three meters long. And 75% is wasted. The benefits that would come of making all that DNA truly functional could not be overstated.


None of that answers my questions. For your convenience, here they are again:

1. How do you justify the assertion that "75% junk DNA creates suffering because it builds in health defects and reduces the advantages that good DNA would confer."

2. How do you justify the assertion that "junk DNA" does anything at all?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:48 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Junk DNA occupies 75% of the genome. That means that useful DNA is displaced. Geneticists already know that, in many cases, more than one gene is used for a specific purpose, and that this doubling up of capacity strengthens gene function. In purely physical terms (length and weight), the amount of DNA packed into the nucleus is staggering. One estimate is that if all the DNA in the human body were unravelled and placed end to end, it would reach as far as the planet Pluto, four TIMES! Even the DNA in a single nucleus is something like three meters long. And 75% is wasted. The benefits that would come of making all that DNA truly functional could not be overstated.


None of that answers my questions. For your convenience, here they are again:

1. How do you justify the assertion that "75% junk DNA creates suffering because it builds in health defects and reduces the advantages that good DNA would confer."

2. How do you justify the assertion that "junk DNA" does anything at all?


Maybe it would help if I broke it down into smaller pieces.

1.a. How do you justify your assertion that "75% junk DNA creates suffering"?

1.b. How do you justify your assertion that "75% junk DNA builds in health defects"?

1.c. How do you justify your assertion that "75% junk DNA reduces the advantages that good DNA would confer"?

2. How do you justify your assertion that "junk DNA" does anything at all?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The benefits that would come of making all that DNA truly functional could not be overstated.


The volume ratio of Junk DNA to active DNA is already evolved and modifies the evolutionary rate of the species.

If you eliminated Junk DNA you would eliminate the sequential back up genes that become active, if the primary genes undergoes a fatal mutation. Additionally as back up genes also go through mutation you would be eliminating new mutations entering the phenotype if the primary gene fails.

May I suggest a review of mitochondrial dating where accumulated mutations occurs at a higher rate to non-mitochondrial DNA and allows for dating the separation of different new species.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:10 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Then why are you attacking a conception of God that isn't even compatible with scripture? All your line of argument tells us is that God can't be all-benevolent; it doesn't tell us that God can't exist.
FIFY
There is nothing wrong with my use of the term "conception" in that context. You may be a feminazi, but that doesn't mean you have to be a spelling & grammar Nazi too.
:roll: Here's a little tip for you: Working for gender equality and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals.


Working for gender equality?! :lol: You've already GOT your gender equality sweetheart, and then some! And you'll continue to have it until such time as men - be they Western men or otherwise - decide that it's no longer required.

As a matter of fact, the so-called gender equality that people like you are working towards does coincide with active extermination of a religious population, because it works to reduce both the birth rate and the morale of said population to unsustainably low levels. And if you don't believe it coming from me, then maybe you'll believe it coming from a bearded {!#%@} when he beats you half to death for daring to expose your head in public.

While I'm at it, here's another one: Correcting improper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals. You may consider this a correction of your two ridiculously illogical analogies. You're welcome.


Attempts to police the language of others however, can go and have gone hand-in-hand with genocidal ambitions. Again there was nothing wrong with my use of that word, and your eagerness to chide me over such a preposterous red-herring is demonstrative that language policing is never far removed from thought policing.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Your conclusion contains errors of logic and of reading comprehension.
1. I did not argue against the existence of a creator; I specifically argued against the existence of "an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent creator."
If this were really the case then you would have promptly and unambiguously rebuked Lance when he first proposed his idiotic argument. As it stands you have assumed that all three properties are non-negotiable features of an almighty God.
Oh, dear. Two more logic fails.
1. Why would I have bothered addressing Lance's argument when xouper already was?


Because your argument against an omni-benevolent God is both pointless and an indirect endorsement of Lance's line of argument.

2. Your assumption about my assumption is incorrect. I merely made those three properties elements of my argument; I did not say they were non-negotiable features. YOU assumed that because of your monotheistic belief.


Then you admit that your argument is pointless, because no omni-benevolent God has been posited by the Bible or any other source of any consequence.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:2. All scriptures were written by human beings. There is no proof that scriptures are inspired by, guided by, or in any way representational of any actual deity, should one exist. Therefore, my argument does not need to be compatible with scripture.
Then your argument can't be applied to any conception of God posited by scripture either. Which means that your argument is largely irrelevant, unless our primary concern is the God believed in by Little Ole Ethel the lapsed Presbyterian.
I strongly suggest you sign up for a basic course in Logic. And English. My argument is not based on a "conception" of a creator, but a "concept." Your counter argument misses that point by a mile.


Stop trying to thought-police me and try to actually address the argument I made instead.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:3. My subjective evidence, therefore, still stands as proof against the existence of a creator with the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.
No, your "evidence" only applies to all-benevolence as a property of God; it has nothing to do with His purported omniscience or omnipotence.
It has everything to do with both omniscience and omnipotence. Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?


What makes you think He did?

Why would an omnipotent creator not use more durable materials? And a thousand other questions.


Why would He use more durable materials? If humans are not made of durable materials, then how is that any skin off His Divine Nose??
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Junk DNA occupies 75% of the genome. That means that useful DNA is displaced.


No it doesn't.

And 75% is wasted.


You don't actually know that.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:42 am

No, I do not KNOW that 75% of the DNA is wasted. I am not a geneticist. But I read, and when a true expert says that 75% of the DNA ( and remember that this is a minimum) is non functional, then I am not going to argue that point.

Clearly, because it exists, having that much junk DNA is something that can be tolerated. But is it desirable . Short answer. No.

A basic principle throughout biology is redundancy. Where possible, things are duplicated. We have two kidneys. Two lungs. Enough brain tissue that illnesses causing death of some of that tissue can be survived. Even loss of some heart tissue can be survived. Mostly, the genome is doubled, with two of each kind of chromosome, and equivalent genes, if not identical, on each of a pair. The redundancy principle applies even at genetic level. Yet a minimum of 75% of the DNA is junk. You do not have to be terribly smart to see that as a waste.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:58 am

We are constantly carrying parasites that have an effect orders of magnitude greater than having to carry a few billion extra basepairs.

Since DNA copying efficiency and fidelity is paramount, adding selection pressure to DNA length would be too risky: chances are you would lose something you need.
Any machine is wasteful, organic or not. It's an unavailable feature.
It really is a big stretch to try to make this into a theological argument.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:59 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Clearly, because it exists, having that much junk DNA is something that can be tolerated. But is it desirable . Short answer. No.


I can accept that in your opinion, you consider it undesirable. That does not seem to be an unreasonable opinion, but it is still nothing more than a personal opinion.

Are you suggesting that a (hypothetical) creator is also required to consider it undesirable?

Or are you willing to allow that the junk DNA might be there for some purpose that said creator has not told you about?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:02 am

EM

It has been pointed out on this thread that a deity might not have worried about doing a good job, or caring about the creation. So I have modified my argument to restrict this to one kind of deity, the current Christian view of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator God. Caring about the creation kinda goes with the territory for this kind of deity.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:20 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

It has been pointed out on this thread that a deity might not have worried about doing a good job, or caring about the creation. So I have modified my argument to restrict this to one kind of deity, the current Christian view of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator God. Caring about the creation kinda goes with the territory for this kind of deity.


Revising your argument is acceptable. I have no complaint about that.

However, that revision does not remove the primary defect in your argument.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:10 pm

And my argument is that, with all the way more obvious {!#%@} that comes from thinking rationally about an Abrahamic God, talking about unused DNA fragments doesn't really add anything and just serves to confuse.
At the very least, these fragments are very useful for humans - provided they are evolutionary geneticists.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:30 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:There is nothing wrong with my use of the term "conception" in that context. You may be a feminazi, but that doesn't mean you have to be a spelling & grammar Nazi too.
:roll: Here's a little tip for you: Working for gender equality and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals.
Working for gender equality?! :lol: You've already GOT your gender equality sweetheart, and then some! And you'll continue to have it until such time as men - be they Western men [b]or otherwise - decide that it's no longer required.[/b]

As a matter of fact, the so-called gender equality that people like you are working towards does coincide with active extermination of a religious population, because it works to reduce both the birth rate and the morale of said population to unsustainably low levels. And if you don't believe it coming from me, then maybe you'll believe it coming from a bearded {!#%@} when he beats you half to death for daring to expose your head in public.
Even your ad hominems lack logic. :roll: They also show your lack of observational skills, pathetic insecurity, recognition that you've lost this argument, and zero sense of humor.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:While I'm at it, here's another one: Correcting improper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and active extermination of a religious population are not equal goals. My argument is not based on a "conception" of a creator, but a "concept." Your counter argument misses that point by a mile.
Attempts to police the language of others however, can go and have gone hand-in-hand with genocidal ambitions. Again there was nothing wrong with my use of that word, and your eagerness to chide me over such a preposterous red-herring is demonstrative that language policing is never far removed from thought policing. Stop trying to thought-police me and try to actually address the argument I made instead.
I was not "policing your language." You literally used the wrong word. My argument is based on a "concept" of a creator...an objective, abstract idea. Your counter argument is based on your "conception" of your particular god...a subjective, specific description derived from the tenets of your faith. Where exactly in my argument did I mention Yahweh? Right. I didn't.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:1. Why would I have bothered addressing Lance's argument when xouper already was?
Because your argument against an omni-benevolent God is both pointless and an indirect endorsement of Lance's line of argument.
Arguments against mythical beings in whom billions of people blindly believe are never pointless. My argument was not an endorsement of Lance's, indirectly or otherwise, because:
1. I specifically defined the creator against whose existence I was arguing; I did not refer to "God."
2. My argument took an entirely different approach.
Again, you make huge assumptions. You must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions you can't support.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:2. Your assumption about my assumption is incorrect. I merely made those three properties elements of my argument; I did not say they were non-negotiable features. YOU assumed that because of your monotheistic belief.
Then you admit that your argument is pointless, because no omni-benevolent God has been posited by the Bible or any other source of any consequence.
I don't admit that at all. Nor do I agree that your statement speaks to the validity of my argument, especially since "omni-benevolence" was only one quality of the creator in my argument.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?
What makes you think He did?
The clearly inadequate design of the vertebral column, hip joints, knee joints, ankle joints, and arches, to name a few.

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator not use more durable materials? And a thousand other questions.
Why would He use more durable materials? If humans are not made of durable materials, then how is that any skin off His Divine Nose??
*facepalm* Inherently poor design is obvious proof against both omniscience and omnipotence. An omniscient being would have foreseen the need for more durable materials and a better design. An omnipotent being would have created more durable materials and a better design. This is called "logic."
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:49 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote: The benefits that would come of making all that DNA truly functional could not be overstated.


The volume ratio of Junk DNA to active DNA is already evolved and modifies the evolutionary rate of the species.

If you eliminated Junk DNA you would eliminate the sequential back up genes that become active, if the primary genes undergoes a fatal mutation. Additionally as back up genes also go through mutation you would be eliminating new mutations entering the phenotype if the primary gene fails.

May I suggest a review of mitochondrial dating where accumulated mutations occurs at a higher rate to non-mitochondrial DNA and allows for dating the separation of different new species.

Besides the redundancies, junk DNA consists of genome sequences that have been mutated/modified into nonfunctionality. To get rid of them, there would have to be chemical mechanism that would cut the DNA, snip out the non-functional gene, then reattach the DNA pieces; all without any more errors than in RNA replication. Lance, can you show how this would be less energy expensive than carrying the old gene?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:39 pm

Oleg

To argue by metaphor.
It is like carrying a load of rocks. Which is the best, to stop and unload most of the rocks, or to carry on walking for the next ten kilometers, carrying all the rocks because you do not want to waste the effort involved in unloading ?

We have been carrying all that junk for millions of years.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Oleg

To argue by metaphor.
It is like carrying a load of rocks. Which is the best, to stop and unload most of the rocks, or to carry on walking for the next ten kilometers, carrying all the rocks because you do not want to waste the effort involved in unloading ?

We have been carrying all that junk for millions of years.

Unloading rocks is easy. Please describe the chemical pathway necessary to expunge extraneous DNA. Justify your claim that it would require less energy than carrying the old stuff.

So far in this thread, you have been wandering, like gorgeous, from one unjustifiable assertion to another. Slow down and justify, you might find it cathartic. ;)
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:57 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . Inherently poor design is obvious proof against both omniscience and omnipotence. An omniscient being would have foreseen the need for more durable materials and a better design. An omnipotent being would have created more durable materials and a better design. This is called "logic."


Please show the intermediate steps (the unstated premises and assumptions, etc) in your syllogism. Thanks.

Specifically, please justify the (implied) assertion that the design does not meet the design objectives of the (omniscience and omnipotence) creator. Or please explain on what basis the creator should consider the design to be "poor".

Also, why does being omniscient mean that the creator should have foreseen the need for a better design or foreseen the need for better materials?

Why does being omnipotent mean the creator should have created more durable materials and a better design?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know™. :D

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:11 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?
What makes you think He did?
The clearly inadequate design of the vertebral column, hip joints, knee joints, ankle joints, and arches, to name a few.


Seems to me the design is sufficient (adequate) to allow walking upright. Seems to me, but I could be mistaken, I've been walking upright for a number of years. ;)

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby TJrandom » Tue Aug 01, 2017 10:40 pm

xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?
What makes you think He did?
The clearly inadequate design of the vertebral column, hip joints, knee joints, ankle joints, and arches, to name a few.


Seems to me the design is sufficient (adequate) to allow walking upright. Seems to me, but I could be mistaken, I've been walking upright for a number of years. ;)


I don`t know your age or level of physical activity - but where I live, most people over mid 60`s suffer from back pain, and if involved in agriculture (manually intensive here) many walk with a 90 degree bend at the waist. Few people over 80 walk without a cane.

40 countries have life expectancies over 80, and Japan has over 65,000 centenarians and rising. I`d vote vertebral column and knee joints (from a mild sufferer) to be poor design. Deities might differ.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:02 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?
What makes you think He did?
The clearly inadequate design of the vertebral column, hip joints, knee joints, ankle joints, and arches, to name a few.


Seems to me the design is sufficient (adequate) to allow walking upright. Seems to me, but I could be mistaken, I've been walking upright for a number of years. ;)


I don`t know your age or level of physical activity - but where I live, most people over mid 60`s suffer from back pain,


And what about the people under mid 60's?

and if involved in agriculture (manually intensive here) many walk with a 90 degree bend at the waist. Few people over 80 walk without a cane.


If you constantly drive your VW Beetle off-road for years on end, is it the fault of VW when your car gets completely wrecked as a result?

40 countries have life expectancies over 80, and Japan has over 65,000 centenarians and rising. I`d vote vertebral column and knee joints (from a mild sufferer) to be poor design. Deities might differ.


If you have a better design idea then let us know. In the meantime, perhaps we should think twice before complaining about inferior functionality years after the warranty period has expired.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:57 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: . . . years after the warranty period has expired.


Perhaps I'll get slammed for encouraging such things, but that made me chuckle. :lol:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9888
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:44 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:Unloading rocks is easy. Please describe the chemical pathway necessary to expunge extraneous DNA. Justify your claim that it would require less energy than carrying the old stuff.



It is the time factor.
Carrying rocks for two hours takes more effort than for one hour.
Carrying junk DNA is something our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of millions of years.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:28 am

xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . Inherently poor design is obvious proof against both omniscience and omnipotence. An omniscient being would have foreseen the need for more durable materials and a better design. An omnipotent being would have created more durable materials and a better design. This is called "logic."


Please show the intermediate steps (the unstated premises and assumptions, etc) in your syllogism. Thanks.

Specifically, please justify the (implied) assertion that the design does not meet the design objectives of the (omniscience and omnipotence) creator. Or please explain on what basis the creator should consider the design to be "poor".

Also, why does being omniscient mean that the creator should have foreseen the need for a better design or foreseen the need for better materials?

Why does being omnipotent mean the creator should have created more durable materials and a better design?

Enquiring Minds Wanna Know™. :D
I'm not speaking to motivation or design objectives here, xouper, only the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence. It's a completely subjective argument, not necessarily a strictly logical one. As I stated previously, we can't imagine these three qualities in any case, so it's an exercise in futility.

Omniscience implies knowing how the design will work out in practice, prior to actually building it, instead of ending up with something like Formula 409 because the first 408 formulae didn't work. Omnipotence implies the ability to create materials with properties appropriate to the task for which the design is intended, not building a battering ram from aluminum foil. Omni-benevolence implies the empathy to create a design pleasing to those who will be inhabiting it, not one that starts breaking down the instant it's mature, is subject to dysfunction, etc. The human body fails on all three counts.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:29 am

xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Why would an omnipotent creator fail to allow for humans evolving into creatures that walk upright?
What makes you think He did?
The clearly inadequate design of the vertebral column, hip joints, knee joints, ankle joints, and arches, to name a few.


Seems to me the design is sufficient (adequate) to allow walking upright. Seems to me, but I could be mistaken, I've been walking upright for a number of years. ;)
Barely adequate, but not superior.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest