Wednesday, April 18, 2007

ID vs ERVs-- Part 7: This is never going to end, is it?

This next post covers the first 6.5 pages of Sternbergs groundbreaking paper on 'junk DNA' and 'epigenetics.'

So groundbreaking, in fact, its release upon the earth in the year 2002 created a black hole in New York which sucked this paper into The Void. You and I went about our daily activities for 5 years, not knowing this beautiful paper existed. But through means unknownable to modern man, with our clunky 'materialistic thinking', Sternbergs paper finally reemerged in our dimension through the brain of Sal Cordova. Behold its beauty!

For a 'biologist' (**WINK!**), Sternberg doesnt seem to mind replacing things he personally doesnt understand with magic/philosophy/incorrect logic/BS. Take this classic misrepresentation of epigenetics:

"This belief, namely, that DNA=genome and that genome+developmental program, has nonetheless been seriously thwarted by the realization that chromosomal sequence data must be placed into the framework of epigenetics. The paragenetic function of chromosomes is also apparent. But all of this is an indirect admission that the DNA=genome=developmental program formula is incorrect in principal."
No. Epigenetics does not 'thwart' the idea that your genes make you. Epigenetics is an evolved mechanism for controlling gene expression, just like siRNA. Just like positive/negative feedback loops. How does Mr. Black Hole think epigenetic landscape changes are mediated? Sing along everyone, you know the words: MAGIC! YAY!
"Where is the decision-making locus (sensu lato) that determines with messenger RNA (mRNA) will arise from RNA editing and/or alternate splicing of hnRNA (heterogeneous nuclear RNA)?"
Oh dear. 'Decision-making locus'? Ugh.
Lets look at a nice small genome for an example of how mRNA isnt magic. How about HIV:OMFG! The HIV genome contains overlapping/alternate splicing! Look at all those overlapping genes!! HOW DOES HIV DO IT???? How does it KNOW how to splice????

Positive/Negative feedback. See? No magic required.

After listing a few more equally idiotic 'subquestions' (dont ask, I dont know whats up with 'subquestions'), he finally brings up ERVs.
"One sub-question looms so prominently that it desrves immediate attention, namely: what is the function of the repetitive DNA fraction of chromosomes?"
The function? Dont you mean 'what are the functions'? Surely he doesnt think all repetitive DNA only has one, THE, function? Ah, but he does! They all have A function, or they all have NO function, NO other options! He breaks scientists down into three groups:
  • Selfish DNA Narrative
  • REs are integrally functional components of the genome, cell, and epigenetic process
  • Appeasers (lol)
Guess which group ID Creationists fall in! Every little sperm/base pair is sacred!

Group 1 is made up of those evil Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists. Selfish DNA, he says, is 'an endless source of just-so stories.' These Neo-Darwinists who say RE have no function, theyre only selfish bits of DNA, are so prevalent he had to go all the way back to 1980 for a reference. Thats like saying Aristophanes was stupid because he didnt know how to use a computer. Lame. But you know ID Creationists, if they couldnt beat up their straw men, theyd have no one to beat up at all.

Group 2. Ah, angelic Group 2! They understand that REs are integral (his word) parts of 'the software system.' Common, you didnt think youd get to read an ID Creationists paper without an inappropriate analogy, did you? Mr. Black Hole then laments this group has few proponents, mostly 'theoreticians with a commitment to explore the possibility of integral function.' ROFL! All the scientists that figure out an RE has a function are tainted by Group 1 and create Group 3.

The last group is made up of Save-able scientists brainwashed by Neo-Darwinists-- The appeasers. Some REs have been cooped by their host genomes (Mr. Black Hole speaks of this option with obvious disdain) for direct use, a different function entirely, chromosomal rearrangement, etc. And, some REs are just plain old garbage. Seems reasonable, right?

WRONG, dear readers! This stance is 'tepid'! Either REs ALL have A function or they ALL have NO function, says Mr. Black Hole! Jesus, readers, grow a pair! Take a stance! ALL OR NONE!


Cause thats how biology works, right?

Up next: 'Part Eight: Nothing Escapes the Black Hole of ID!'

No comments: