Sunday, November 20, 2011


I'm sure that was very unpleasant for you. I'm not even going to look at it. I'm not that way in real life, all morbid and depressive. I bottle it all up, like real men should. FP is where I allow things to leak out. It has its own fascination, for all that it's tiresome. But no one holds a gun to your head.

Just needed some sleep, is all. But I make it a habit of integrity to always say everything that comes into my head. Everyone always finds that utterly charming.

I'm finally looking at The Myth of Junk DNA. It's the sort of think I love. And hate. The shoddiness of the Evolutionist logic is, well, shoddy. Really, really breathtakingly bad, their reasoning such as it is. A primer in logical fallacy, and hypocrisy, and blindness. So it's irritating, being exposed to it, as is required in a book like this.

Every protein is made from the blueprint of a corresponding gene. No protein is made without a corresponding gene. Chromosomes are rife with psuedogenes, however -- genes that do not code proteins. Ah ha! Evolution is true! For what Designing Intelligence would allow so much extraneous trash to clutter up his elegant, um, design. QED.

See? The materialist presumes to know the mind of the God that he does not believe in. The materialist supposes that his own grasp on theology is more subtle that that of the religionists. Well, I'm arrogant too. Some arrogance is merited. Some is not.

The "theological" and logical error of the atheists lies in supposing that what is now called junk is actually junk. Non-coding genes could, first, simply be unexpressed -- environmental factors, known to epigenetics, have not yet activated them. They represent unselected but real potentials -- like unordered items on a menu: simply because no one has ordered the sautéed rat fetuses does not mean the cook isn't ready to fry them up. Second, some genes could indeed be obsolete, in the sense that they are mutated into non-functionality. What powers, what attributes, might all lifeforms possess, were these genes to become active, as they would have been before the Fall? If silent genes are not junk, than what might we suppose of Baalam's talking ass? Well, we see talking asses all the time. Wherefore dost thou smite them?

Yes, the Fall, a theological concept, but also a scientific one, completely unacknowledged by the Evolutionist who presumes to refute the Intelligent Design position. Because strawmen are so much easier to beat, than real men.

The clutter of the current genome, demonstrated in mutations if not by Evolutionarily vestigial DNA, is comparable to any other product of entropy. Decay, death, is not part of God's primary design. Vandalism has occurred. God's masterpiece, his paradise, was ruined. So? What great artist would put a useless ugly mustache on the face of a beautiful woman? Clearly, such a mustache is the work of randomness, not of a great artist. But, um, hey, stupid, it is not da Vinci who put the mustache on his Mona Lisa. That you pretend to suppose any serious person would think so is just surreal. Git it? Is it not possible to start with a high order of organization, and fall away from it? If one supposes otherwise, I commend him to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I don't have my copy with me, but last year Dawkins said 95% of the human genome was junk, and the year before another polemicist said it was 50%, and that alone tells us that one or both of these dudes is pulling the numbers out if his or their butt or butts. Well, when you're right, facts don't really matter, eh?

And we've been told about the long strings of mindlessly reproduced DNA, somehow recopied and mislocated on other parts of the double helix. And because, we are told, genes are selfish, they somehow, for hundreds of millions of years, trick or manipulate an organism, or species, or order, no, class -- well, phylum and kingdom ... no, all biology, life itself -- to carry the baggage of these parasitical genes. Even though natural selection conserves resources, rewards efficiency, and pares away useless attributes as a non-adaptive drag, this principle does not apply at the genetic level. ??? Sure.

I've only finished chapter two. It's a short book, but all intro so far. Upshot is, though, that the presumption is demonstrably wrong, that genes must either code for proteins or else be junk. It is known that very much "junk" DNA regulates RNA -- a non-coding process, but a vital one. Well, I had not known that. I haven't paid a lot of attention to this field for the past 10 years. It's been a hard decade. But all along I have not bought the idea of junk DNA, or of useless strings of replicated and misplaced material.

Because there's this thing called polyploidy. Common in plants, and I do recall occurring in fish -- were whole sections of DNA are mistakenly reproduced, and are expressed in the resulting creation of a whole new sustaining species. I think I have a chapter on this, in one of my books, but it's been 15 years so the the precise examples escape me.

See? The same genetic information, cut and pasted onto a different part of the double helix, is or can be functional, adaptive, and vital. What does this do to the heart of "junk" DNA as support for random Evolution? I leave the answer to one's own capacity for logic and critical thought. Of course refuting a given position need not prove some other. But how many of this monster's heads need to be cut off, before it dies? Always, it seems, at least one more. Thus with all religions. Gods can die, and still be worshiped.

Well, I wish this were a discussion group, in which we could go paragraph by paragraph through the book. The author is very solid -- coldly logical, which is my favorite. Here. Or you could borrow my copy, but you'd need to return it.

I am generally so reclusive now, or publicly non-communicative, that it's a bit of a waste, my vast knowledge and amazing intellect. Every once in a while someone is lucky enough to enjoy my tutelage, but it's rare. So sad.

At least they have something to be thankful for.

Like the chicks, who are all so into me, and always listen when I talk about the things in my head, and they're all like, Oh Jack you are so hot and I'm like sure I know that bitch, now go make me some toast, and be quick about it.



bob k. mando said...

I'm sure that was very unpleasant for you.

seeing you 'endorse' ( even if momentarily ) Gingrich? yeah, that was pretty bad.

Anonymous said...

Of the field, he's my man. Like Giuliani last time. I no longer care about character or ideology. I care about getting a reasonable job done.

bob k. mando said...

and Newt will not get a *reasonable* job done.

he's already on board with open boarders and global warming. you think he's going to be any more impressive refusing to continue funneling money to the parasites in the banks?

and then there's the flat out un-electability problem. it's not enough that he's a fat pig ( and therefore hardly telegenic ), he divorced his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer. or at least that's her story.

bob k. mando said...

"open borders", sigh.

blinded by your brilliance, i was rendered momentarily incapable of speeling.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's all quite salient ... yet I am strangely unmoved. I think he trends right, and it's not his position on supposing there is "globular worming", but what he supposes the cause is, and cure if any. Re open borders, that may be an overstatement. I want them all gone, the illegals ... we gave one amnesty, and that's enough. But that won't happen. So ... what? Deal with reality. Some kind of slimy unethical deal. Then "close" the borders. Etc.

What I like is not "likability," but competence. No one is shrewder. And the acid test is: who do you want across the table from Putin.