[balch3]

Another great article from the Discovery Institute.

[Dustbunny]

Excellent read.

[ndt]

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.

[ThreePuttinDude]

[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)

[ndt]

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.

[CarrotAndStick]

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.

[Westbrook]

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.

[Paradox]

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!"

[Bringbackthedraft]

All I want to know is, am I their father or not their father!

[FreePaul]

When I saw “Junk-DNA” in the title I thought that it was an article about the Houston Crime Lab.

[Coyoteman]

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.

[RightWhale]

a prediction of intelligent design

Wow! That makes ID a science! BTW, if a watchmaker makes a watch and leaves it on a beach is it a watch before somebody who knows what a watch is finds it?

[mjp]

Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA as much as possible to exhibit function.

William Dembski, Intelligent Design,1999

[DaGman]

"The Wired Magazine article openly and unashamedly confuses intelligent design with creationism,"

They're the same thing. Nothing to be ashamed of here. The article also sounds like talking about it is something that should be in the closet like homosexuality. I guess I'm "outed" every time I talk about ID being the same as creationism.

[Psycho_Bunny]

It’s impossible to read phrases like “Neo-Darwinian Paradigm” and take the author seriously.

[mjp]

First

intelligent design has made successful predictions on the question of "junk-DNA."

then

A physicist demonstrates that God is consistent with laws of physics.

[Moonman62]

I’m confused. Does this mean scientists aren’t really part of a conspiracy against creationism?

[Stultis]

Stephen Meyer explaining that this is a prediction of intelligent design

Uh, yeah. Hey, Steve, how is "this is a prediction of intelligent design"? [...cue crickets...]

IOW how do otherwise unexpected, and usefully specific, predictions about the function of DNA sequences follow deductively from the mechanisms and empirical claims of ID. (Especially when ID has no mechanism and makes no empirical claims!)

[GodGunsGuts]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/creationism/zuck-is-out-of-luck-marsupial-findings-vindicate-behe-denton-hoyle/#more-2438