Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3145Fwd: "Junk" DNA from Jonathan Wells (underlining added)

Expand Messages
  • Phil Skell
    May 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >On ID generating scientific hypotheses: ID (unlike Darwinism) suggests that
      >most biological features are designed. The difference can be seen in a
      >number of cases; I'll use so-called "junk" DNA as my example. When it was
      >discovered several decades ago that the majority of DNA in the human genome
      >does not code for protein, Darwinian theory suggested that it was merely
      >evolutionary noise, accumulated through mutation over millions of
      >generations. We now know that this so-called "junk" DNA is absolutely
      >essential: If the "junk" is removed, the remaining DNA is biologically
      >inert. It turns out the the "junk" consists of regulatory regions, without
      >which a multicellular organism would be unable to differentiate its cells
      >into muscle, nerves, skin, etc. If biologists 20 years ago had been
      >operating with an ID view rather than a Darwinian view, they would have been
      >much more motivated to look for the function of this DNA rather than dismiss
      >it as junk, and our understanding of the genome would now be much more
      >advanced.
      >
      >On whether one would set up experiments differently: Most successful
      >research programs in biology already operate as though ID were true. That
      >is, they implicitly assume that something is designed, then try to
      >understand function through "reverse engineering." An ID view would not
      >change this, but would simply encourage more of what already works best.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic