ID/creationism can't explain exon and intron divergence

[Thermos aquaticus]

Continuing the theme of the previous thread on the nested hierarchy, in this post I would like to discuss sequence divergence between exons and introns across species.

ID/creationists try to claim that their ideas are better scientific explanations for the things we see in biology. In my experience, nothing could be farther from the truth. ID/creationism can't explain some of the most basic and fundamental observations in biology, and this discussion on exons and introns will again illustrate that point just as the nested hierarchy did in the previous thread.

For those who are not familiar with exons and introns, these are DNA segments that make up genes in eukaryotes. When the gene is transcribed into RNA the introns are clipped out and the exons are pasted together to produce a mature messenger RNA. That mRNA is then translated into a protein.

If we compare the exons and introns between species, what does ID/creationism predict we will see, and why? (the "why" is just as important as the what) There are 3 distinct choices:

1. There will be more shared bases between introns than between exons.

2. There will be more shared bases between exons than between introns.

3. There will be about the same number of shared bases in exons and introns.

So what does ID/creationism predict, and why?

 

[Quintessence]

The only forms of creationism that would need to make such a prediction are those that actively deny that biological evolution is the mechanism by which the gods operate (aka, people who are not theistic evolutionists). I presume you meant to address those creationists, specifically?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The only forms of creationism that would need to make such a prediction are those that actively deny that biological evolution is the mechanism by which the gods operate (aka, people who are not theistic evolutionists). I presume you meant to address those creationists, specifically?

By "ID/creationism" I mean those who reject common ancestry (between species or "created kinds") and also reject the mechanisms of evolution (e.g. random mutation, speciation, natural selection, neutral drift) as being the cause of differences between species and species groups.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By "ID/creationism" I mean those who reject common ancestry (between species or "created kinds") and also reject the mechanisms of evolution (e.g. random mutation, speciation, natural selection, neutral drift) as being the cause of differences between species and species groups.

That is a reasonable standard. I go a bit nuts when creationists rely upon ID supporters (who have been refuted anyway) that accept common descent and simply have the belief that God had a hand in evolution. Michael Behe comes to mind. He accepts common descent but he is used by YEC's and OEC's all of the time as a "refutation" of evolution.

And I thought you knew by now that creationists do not make testable claims. They may be slow, but after getting burned hundreds of times they have learned better. With no evidence for their claims they can only attack the theory of evolution with distortions of what actual scientists find.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And I thought you knew by now that creationists do not make testable claims. They may be slow, but after getting burned hundreds of times they have learned better. With no evidence for their claims they can only attack the theory of evolution with distortions of what actual scientists find.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This video is tied to the OP since it deals with a very specific intron:

Dropbox - CHR2.mp4

This link cannot be watched in the U.S., though I did see it before it was blocked:

 

[Father Heathen]

The only forms of creationism that would need to make such a prediction are those that actively deny that biological evolution is the mechanism by which the gods operate (aka, people who are not theistic evolutionists). I presume you meant to address those creationists, specifically?

Well, yeah, because nobody really groups theistic evolution with creationism. It's about the process.

 

[Valjean]

ID/creationists try to claim that their ideas are better scientific explanations for the things we see in biology. In my experience, nothing could be farther from the truth. ID/creationism can't explain some of the most basic and fundamental observations in biology, and this discussion on exons and introns will again illustrate that point just as the nested hierarchy did in the previous thread.

ID/Creationist ideas aren't explanations at all, they're assertions of agency. There's no science to them -- no observed facts, no hypothesis derivation or testing, no falsifiability, no predictiveness. The bulk of their "science" consists of arguments attempting to undermine the facts, observations, scientists and conclusions supporting the ToE.

It seems to me the entirety of ID can be summed up by "Goddidit."

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

ID/Creationist ideas aren't explanations at all, they're assertions of agency. There's no science to them -- no observed facts, no hypothesis derivation or testing, no falsifiability, no predictiveness. The bulk of their "science" consists of arguments attempting to undermine the facts, observations, scientists and conclusions supporting the ToE.

It seems to me the entirety of ID can be summed up by "Goddidit."

I have been to scientific conferences, and have even heard talks about the evolution of different bacterial proteins. I have never seen a scientific presentation where a scientist goes on and on about how there is no evidence for ID/creationism, and then concludes that the biological feature they are focused on must have evolved since there is no evidence for ID/creationism. Never has this happened. Instead, they offer positive evidence for how the protein or biological system evolved without ever mentioning ID/creationism.

ID/creationists can't do the same thing, as this thread continues to illustrate. When asked to explain an observation using ID/creationism, they have nothing. If they can't argue against evolution, they have nothing to talk about.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's been 11 days and I have yet to see an ID/creationist make any predictions as to the relationship between exons and introns with respect to sequence divergence.

Perhaps it would be easier if we break this down into simple questions.

Question #1:
A designer copies a gene from one species and uses it to create another species. What reason would this designer have for changing the intron sequence when using it in a new species?

 

[Valjean]

To test our faith?