Isn’t your belief that the beta subunit of ATP synthase was produced by RV+NS a product of your imagination that you confuse with empirical facts?
You think? You are going to need actual evidence.
You think? See above.
The logic here is about as bad as saying only 2% of a screwdriver is functional since only 2% is in contact with the screw head, as if the structural length of the screw head counts for nothing. In the animations provided, one can see the importance of the structural parts of the DNA.
The ability of DNA to fold and bend and extend loops is important. I just provided a video of EXTRUDING LOOPS, how will a loop extrude if the DNA doesn’t have adequate structural length?
And recall, structural properties are affected by sequence.
1 Like
And if they find function in 0.1% of intron sequence, how does that support the claim that nearly all DNA in the human genome has function? ID/creationists seem to forget the importance of percentages.
That’s incompatible with the wide variation in intron length in similar species.
1 Like
Your logic is that since screwdrivers have function and are made of iron then all atoms of iron on the Earth must also have function.
Any sequence of DNA will bend, even random sequence. You also have not shown how much DNA in a loop is needed, nor what percentage of the genome is found in these loops.
What percentage of sequence in a loop is needed for structural proteins?
2 Likes
Have you figured out how speciation works yet and why it kills the GE idea?
What percentage of genes have introns with conserved lengths, and how many introns in those genes have conserved lengths? Again, percentages are important.
1 Like
Note that this was a search specifically for genes that showed intron conservation, and they found only a few. This means that length-related function can only be found in a small number of genes. It can’t be used to infer function in the great majority of introns. Do you even read the stuff you cite?
4 Likes
C’mon now, be fair. Bill repeated some sciency words he heard someone else say. Then he Googled the sciencey words and found some sciency stuff. Doesn’t matter that he didn’t read it or understand it, it’s sciency stuff therefore it must support ID-Creationism. 
1 Like
Yes I read it however how wide this is has not been quantified. I don’t claim 80% function personally however it would not surprise me that 80 is indeed functional when the dust settles on this speculative subject.
That can be added to the estimates of enhancer content, since the interactions are similar. Adds maybe 1 or 2 % to my estimates. In other words, changes nothing, @stcordova.
No, that one is based on the empirical reality that there is significant amounts of nesting hierarchical structure in the sequences of the clade of P-loop NTPases that make up the catalytic hexamer proteins.
I believe I linked you a phylogenetic tree of related proteins here.
You see Gilbert, here’s the problem. You already accept this type of evidence, explicitly. In your advancing Gpuccio’s FI calculations, you are accepting phylogenetic inferences of relatedness.
So which one is it going to be, you accept or reject statistically significant nesting hierarchical structure in sequences of of shared similar genes as evidence for relatedness, or you do not?
1 Like
Then why did you bring it up? Finding a tiny, tiny percentage of the genome that has function does nothing to change the conclusion that most of the human genome is junk.
The conclusion that most of the genome is junk is speculative nonsense. We will understand function a few bits at a time.
I predict Gil will reject the nested hierarchical structure as evidence of relatedness, while accepting Gpuccio’s claims which rely on determining relatedness thru the nested hierarchical structure.
IOW, Gil will reject logic in favour of dogma.
Care to make a bet on that? 
Only if I can bet with you instead of against you.
1 Like
Well, there’s a nice unfalsifiable claim for you. A thousand years from now, when there remains no function found for 90% of the human genome, creationists will still be saying “We will understand function a few bits at a time.”
No, it’s based on multiple lines of evidence, none of which you have confronted. Chief among those is the lack of sequence conservation we would expect if function depended on sequence. Analogously, if function depended on length we would find length conservation. In most cases we do not. And it isn’t that we haven’t looked. The paper you yourself cited look at lots of introns and found an absence of length conservation in most of them. So how do you explain that result?
2 Likes