「後出しジャンケンで負ける」Casey Luskin

MarkHによれば、ジャンクDNAに機能があるのはインテリジェントデザインの証拠だとCasey Luskinが大喜び
Proponents of intelligent design have long maintained that Neo-Darwinism's widely held assumption that our cells contain much genetic "junk" is both dangerous to the progress of science and wrong. As I explain here, design theorists recognize that "Intelligent agents typically create functional things," and thus Jonathan Wells has suggested, "From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk'." [4] Design theorists have thus been predicting the death of the junk-DNA paradigm for many years:

インテリジェントデザイン支持者は、我々の細胞が非常に多くの遺伝子のジャンクを含んでいるというネオダーウィニズの仮定が科学の進歩に対して、危険で間違っていると長く主張してきた。私がここで説明するように、デザイン理論家は「インテリジェントエージェントは典型的に機能的なものを創る」と認めている。したがって、Jonathan Wellsは「しかし、インテリジェントデザインの見方からすれば、生物がこんなに多くのジャンクを保存し継承するのにリソースを使うというのは、ほとんどありえない。」[4]と示唆した。デザイン理論家たちは、したがって、ジャンクDNAパラダイムの死を長年予言してきたのだ。

As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this sentiment in First Things:

遡ること1994年には、インテリジェントデザイン支持な科学者であり、Discovery InsituteのフェローであるForrest Mimsが、ジャンクDNAが役に立たないという仮定に反対する警告のletterをScienceに出した。Science誌はMimsのletterを掲載しなかったが、すぐあとの1998年には、指導的インテリジェントデザイン理論家William DembskiがFirst Things誌でこれを再度主張した。

[1] Forrest Mims, Rejected Letter to the Editor to Science, December 1, 1994.
[4] Jonathan Wells, “Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, 3.1.2 (Nov. 2004).
[Casey Luskin: Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm (2007/06/16) on Discovery Institute公式ブログ]

R Nowak: Mining treasures from 'junk DNA', Science 4 February 1994:Vol. 263. no. 5147, pp. 608 - 610 (DOI: 10.1126/science.7508142)

Researchers have considered the 97% of the DNA in the human genome that does not encode protein as 'junk DNA.' ... Most of this enormous, silent genetic majority has long been thought to have no real function--hence it's name: `junk DNA.' But one researcher's trash is another researcher's treasure, and a growing number of scientists believe that hidden in the junk DNA are intellectual riches .... Rather than being considered a catalogue of useful genes interspersed with useless junk, each chromosome is beginning to be viewed as a complex `information organelle,' replete with sophisticated maintenance and control systems--some embedded in what was thought to be mere waste. ... when geneticists started studying complex, multicellular organisms, it was easy to dismiss the vast reaches of non-protein-coding DNA as a wasteland. Now, however, that notion is being overturned as researchers find that junk DNA is not a single midden heap ... but a complex mix of different types of DNA, many of which are vital to the life of the cell. ... now it seems that patches of really important regulatory elements can be buried among the junk DNA. ... These key regulatory elements can even occur in what many geneticists have considered the ultimate in genetic detritus: the repetitive sequences scattered throughout the genomes of higher organisms. These genetic stutters have come to epitomize junk because their structures are simple to the point of absurdity, sometimes including only two or three nucleotides repeated thousands of times. In addition, the lengths and compositions of these repetitions often vary wildly between species, between organisms of the same species, even between cells of the same organism. ... Now, however, it appears some repetitive sequences may contain stretches of DNA needed for gene regulation. ... in a dramatic reversal, the repetitive sequences, once thought to be the epitome of genetic debris, now seem to be needed to maintain the integrity of the chromosomes. ... the status of junk DNA ... is likely to keep on rising over the next couple of years. Enough gems have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmuted into scientific gold.







[quoted by Stephen E. Jones]

Forrest Mimsは生物学の動向に疎かったようで、このNowak[1994]が掲載された同じ1994年12月にLetterを投稿している。ただの二番煎じではrejectされて当然。

にもかかわらず、1998年にDr. William Dembskiも、生物学の動向に気がつかないままに、次のように書いている:
[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))

どうも、インテリジェントデザイン支持者たちは生物学の動向に疎いようだ。Casey Luskinもブログ記事を書く前に、google scholarくらい検索しておけば、アホをさらすこともなかったのだろうに。
でも、そうしないのが「後出しジャンケンで負ける」Casey Luskinということなのだろう。
posted by Kumicit at 2007/06/20 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]