Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
No, it is a problem when it is not consistent with first principles.

So here we have proof that huge chunks of DNA are completely unnecessary. So much for being irreducible. So much for showing intelligence in design. I have some of your (now banned) compatriots on record as saying there is no such thing as junk DNA. That is a failed prediction.

To the best of my knowledge, no mainstream biologist is on record as saying that because mutations can occur, they must. The question of why conservation occurs will be settled in the laboratory, someday.

35 posted on 06/04/2004 9:41:32 AM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: js1138
So here we have proof that huge chunks of DNA are completely unnecessary.

Nope. Read the article. Redundancy.

37 posted on 06/04/2004 9:44:13 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson