Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Discovery Institute ^
| June 15, 2007
| Casey Luskin
Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
Another great article from the Discovery Institute.
1
posted on
06/16/2007 1:09:20 AM PDT
by
balch3
To: balch3
2
posted on
06/16/2007 1:28:28 AM PDT
by
Dustbunny
(The BIBLE - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth)
To: balch3
So they predicted that there are things that we don’t know and offered no clue as to what they were?...
That’s a brilliant prediction.
3
posted on
06/16/2007 1:32:34 AM PDT
by
ndt
To: balch3
[A] surprising group is
embracing the results: intelligent-design advocates.
_________________________________________________________
Please tell me how, how does one "embrace a result"?
Agree with, yes I'll go with that, but embrace?? come on...
You embrace your wife, your child, your mother/father not a freakin idea/result/(fill in the blank)
4
posted on
06/16/2007 1:34:01 AM PDT
by
ThreePuttinDude
()... Hey Lindsay ...I'm one of the Loud ones...and pretty proud of it....()
To: balch3
In case anyone is curious. A functional definition of Junk DNA is “a section if DNA for which no function is known”.
In other words to “predict” that some of it might do something is not a prediction at all.
5
posted on
06/16/2007 1:47:41 AM PDT
by
ndt
To: balch3; gcruse
Definition of ‘Junk DNA’
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13535
Junk DNA: Noncoding regions of DNA that have no apparent function.
The term “junk DNA” is a disparaging one, expressing some of the disappointment felt by geneticists when they first gazed upon sizable segments of the genetic code and, instead of seeing one wonderful gene after another, they saw a few exons surrounded by vast stretches of “junk DNA.”
Exons are the regions of DNA that contain the code for producing the polypeptide molecules that make up protein. Each exon codes for a specific portion of the complete protein. In humans and some other species, the exons are separated by long regions of junk DNA.
However, junk DNA has been found to be even more conserved than protein-coding regions of the DNA in humans and other mammalian species. The extent of conservation indicates that there is some function for junk DNA that remains to be determined. Junk DNA may prove not to be junk.
6
posted on
06/16/2007 2:28:18 AM PDT
by
CarrotAndStick
(The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
To: balch3
As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter
Typical behavior of the high priests of Evolutionism. Dissenting voices, even from acredited scientists, are not welcome if they aren't drinking the kool-aid.
7
posted on
06/16/2007 3:11:15 AM PDT
by
Westbrook
(Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it!)
To: ndt
Not really, the evo answer to the following question is: JUNK
The question: What is this apparently useless chain of DNA?
Evolutionary theory relied on this being true for 50 years now
Creationism never did.
It is another example of genuine science once again proving evolutionary science is JUNK.
8
posted on
06/16/2007 3:21:30 AM PDT
by
RaceBannon
(Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
To: RaceBannon
More desperate babbling by the ID-iot crowd. “Junk DNA” is a journalists term.
9
posted on
06/16/2007 4:04:24 AM PDT
by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: Westbrook
Consider the odds, of randomly occurring, a thousand stars in the universe accurately arranged to spell out a sentence in English, or a billion bits of mater accurately arranged to form a human DNA string.
I just cant help but lump evolutionist together with global warming believers, they have their own religion going.
10
posted on
06/16/2007 4:45:33 AM PDT
by
Mark was here
(Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
To: balch3
Quite frankly, this article is stupid. Despite what is posted, no one seriously thought that "Junk" DNA was never going to be found to have a function. In fact, there are many, many theories as to what it was, and what it did. We simply didn't know, so a flippant name for it "Junk DNA" was coined, and it caught on because the name was kinda cool. I don't know ANY geneticist that thought it was really Junk, every one I ever talked to about it, had a different idea about what its true purpose was. I had/have my own ideas, but that is based more one some ideas by a Greg Bear, a speculative fiction author (very, very smart guy for just a layman).
But I guess its simply easier to say "Look, the Scientists were wrong, therefore, it was Adam and Eve afterall!"
11
posted on
06/16/2007 4:54:08 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment.)
To: balch3
All I want to know is, am I their father or not their father!
12
posted on
06/16/2007 5:00:20 AM PDT
by
Bringbackthedraft
(This Tagline has been temporarily suspended by order of Col. Chavez.)
To: balch3
When I saw “Junk-DNA” in the title I thought that it was an article about the Houston Crime Lab.
13
posted on
06/16/2007 5:00:20 AM PDT
by
FreePaul
To: ThreePuttinDude
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
em·brace
..............
4. To take up willingly or eagerly: embrace a social cause.
5. To avail oneself of: "I only regret, in my chilled age, certain occasions and possibilities I didn't embrace" (Henry James).
14
posted on
06/16/2007 5:14:54 AM PDT
by
Banjoguy
(Don't buy Chinese.....you can do it!)
To: ThreePuttinDude
“Please tell me how, how does one “embrace a result”?
Agree with, yes I’ll go with that, but embrace?? come on...”
I believe it’s an example of analogous predication. In other words, you don’t literally “embrace a result”, rather you assume a relationship with respect to a result that is analogous in some way to the relationship you assume when you physically embrace a loved-one.
15
posted on
06/16/2007 6:04:33 AM PDT
by
Ozone34
To: CarrotAndStick
I am not an expert in this, but I was always disturbed by the term “junk DNA.” We are only just beginning to understand DNA. It seems presumptous to call a sequence “junk” just because you don’t see its function. To determine that something is useless you first have to know that which is useful. Are the spaces between these words something useful or are they useless? Would someone who was never exposed to reading and writing understand the usefulness of empty spaces between words? Or would the spaces be seen as useless “junk?”
16
posted on
06/16/2007 6:06:27 AM PDT
by
Wilhelm Tell
(True or False? This is not a tag line.)
To: Wilhelm Tell
It seems presumptous to call a sequence junk just because you dont see its function. To determine that something is useless you first have to know that which is useful. Are the spaces between these words something useful or are they useless? Would someone who was never exposed to reading and writing understand the usefulness of empty spaces between words? Or would the spaces be seen as useless junk?Hear! Hear!
17
posted on
06/16/2007 6:14:10 AM PDT
by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: muir_redwoods
Journalists did not invent the concept of “junk’ DNA. Journalists only repeated what the keepers of the false religion of evolution told them. :)
18
posted on
06/16/2007 7:50:22 AM PDT
by
RaceBannon
(Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
To: balch3
Another great article from the Discovery Institute. Another steaming pile from the anti-science Discovery Institute.
If anyone is laboring under the delusion that the Discovery Institute has the furtherance of science anywhere in their thoughts, all they need to do is read the Institute's Wedge Strategy.
And one of the greatest lies is that ID is science. Here is what the wedge document says:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Get that part, "replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions?" Just think of all the sciences that would be "replaced" under such a system:
- Geology--those fools can't get the age of the Grand Canyon right. GONE!
- Archaeology--can't find any evidence of a global flood. GONE!
- Astronomy--that big bang stuff, and all those really old ages. GONE!
- Genetics--all those similarities to chimps, and common descent. GONE!
- Egyptology--those Egyptians didn't notice the global flood. GONE!
- Planetary sciences--all those annoying facts we can't explain away. GONE!
- Radiometric dating--those fools can't get the dating right either. GONE!
- Biology--they started that evilution stuff and figured out how the eye really developed. GONE!
- Paleontology--millions of inconvenient fossils that are all fakes. GONE!
- Physics--that pesky 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. GONE!
- Linguistics--can't get the development of languages right. GONE!
Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.
19
posted on
06/16/2007 8:01:52 AM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
My my. Aren't we in a tizzy. Your atheistic religious beliefs have been offended.
Get used to it. Here is a news flash for you: Science is not defined as that which confirms atheistic materialism.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson