Re: Junk DNA

Hey Susan,

I'm sick again, ugh. But no matter: it gives me more time to email, though less energy for thinking. 

Jon has turned out to be a fount of ideas to tick off to you. I imagine that a discussion between the two of you would cover much more ground more quickly. On the other hand, Jon's tendency towards beligerence, and our more developed relationship suggests to me that you and I have a better chance of convincing each other than you and him. 

Anyways, he makes the interesting point that there is more evidence that evolution took place than there is that the earth orbits the sun. There is no direct proof of either; there is only indirect evidence that supports these ideas, and testable hypotheses that come from these theories. But I belive that even you believe in the helio-centic theory based on all the indirect evidence that exists (you do, don't you?).  

As for the genetic entropy book, I've all but given up on it. I got about 70 pages into it and I've learned nothing, been convinced of nothing, and find his arguments contradictory, rambling, and frustrating. I try to keep an open yet sceptical mind with all that I read. For instance, I am not convinced by every argument that Dawkins makes in his books, though I am enthralled by most. Your creationist author did not even have convincing halves of arguments. Yes, he had lots of footnotes, but there's no reason to look at his sources since he never eeks out a coherent argument about anything. Most of the time I was left wondering, what is his point?  

Not only that, he's boring! There's nothing interesting in the book. I don't know how you can read it! And his news flashes make me want to punch him in the face (I tried to keep an open mind about them, but they got more annoying as time went on). 

If you want to bring up something that he touched on, feel free, but I got nothing from the book and so am left with nothing to talk about. 

The main problem with the book is that it sets out to punch holes in evolutionary theory by building up this really squirrelly idea that the human genome is deteriorating. Well, he does a terrible job of showing that the human genome is deteriorating, and he does a worse job of showing this would imply that evolution doesn't work. 

And what's with his crazy princess and the pea analogy? He totally goes through this whole thing about how natural selection can't ever possibly happen because of interactions at the genetic level, and then he goes on to say it does happen in the intra-species case.

Also, his math comes across very bad in a couple spots. 

Blech. 

Dawkins makes the point that if evolution is false, then there should be pretty easy tests that could be performed to disprove it. Go and find a fossil in the wrong layer. Find a clock that gives a different age of the earth. Find an animal with a shocking set of DNA. Don't go through some agonized description of one leaky idea like the genetic entropy book does.

Meanwhile, you have this other theory that says the earth is 10,000 years old. I have given you many, very simply understood tests for how to disprove that (e.g. The distance of stars). And the tests disprove it. You have to concoct some very crazy ideas to get around any of the tests. 

Why are you so resistant to tests? Come up with a couple. We'll carry them out.

-Brandon

PS I don't find junk DNA to be of crucial importance. I think you are latching onto the idea because it is a place where you see there might not be a scientific concensus. Just because scientists might be arguing about one detail of a theory doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong.