NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful (Introduction)
DAVID: Another blogger objects, but the key is still that only a tiny portion of DNA has been studied. Junk DNA is not gone and there always will be some, but no one at this juncture knows how much is junk and how much has some function:-http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2012/09/07/reports-of-junk-dnas-demise-have-bee...-From the article: "This is, unfortunately, another case of a scientist acting irresponsibly by distorting the importance and the significance of the data. It's getting to be a serious problem and it makes it hard to convey real science to the general public. The public now believes that the concept of junk DNA has been rejected by scientists and that our huge genome really is full of wonderful sophisticated control elements regulating the expression of every gene."-The heading of this article is: "Reports of Junk DNA's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated", which may be so, but when the author writes how hard it is to convey "real science" to the general public, perhaps he should keep in mind that the uselessness of all junk DNA was also conveyed as "real science" until not so long ago. There is always going to be a gap between scientific fact and scientific interpretation, and every broadside fired at the creationists can be fired with equal justification at the atheists. Regardless of religious beliefs and non-beliefs, and of how much DNA is or isn't junk, I have no difficulty whatsoever in believing that "our huge genome really is full of wonderful sophisticated control elements", even if not of every gene. If it wasn't, why has it taken so long for our scientists to unravel the vast number of governing codes? By all means let theists attribute these to a designing intelligence, and let atheists attribute them to random mutations and Nature's process of selecting whatever works best, but why pretend the control elements aren't even there? Is that "real science"?
Complete thread:
- Junk or useful -
David Turell,
2011-09-12, 17:22
- Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-08-16, 02:36
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 15:05
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 16:09
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 18:18
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 19:19
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-07, 15:34
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-07, 20:02
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-08, 01:23
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
dhw,
2012-09-09, 14:32
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-09, 15:33
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-10, 15:14
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-11, 18:44
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: James Shapiro -
David Turell,
2012-09-13, 21:03
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: DNA mechanics -
David Turell,
2012-09-14, 15:49
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Complexity -
David Turell,
2012-09-19, 00:08
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Complexity -
David Turell,
2012-09-24, 15:49
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Creationist view -
David Turell,
2012-10-03, 15:36
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Creationist view -
dhw,
2012-10-03, 19:45
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Jumping genes -
David Turell,
2012-11-27, 14:44
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Jumping genes -
David Turell,
2012-11-29, 15:41
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: embryology -
David Turell,
2012-12-04, 05:18
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Encode - David Turell, 2012-12-05, 15:08
- Jumping genes; an essay shows importance -
David Turell,
2016-03-19, 18:37
- Jumping genes; an essay shows importance -
dhw,
2016-03-20, 18:10
- Jumping genes; an essay shows importance - David Turell, 2016-03-20, 18:56
- Jumping genes; an essay shows importance -
dhw,
2016-03-20, 18:10
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: embryology -
David Turell,
2012-12-04, 05:18
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Jumping genes -
David Turell,
2012-11-29, 15:41
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Jumping genes -
David Turell,
2012-11-27, 14:44
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Creationist view -
dhw,
2012-10-03, 19:45
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Creationist view -
David Turell,
2012-10-03, 15:36
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Complexity -
David Turell,
2012-09-24, 15:49
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Complexity -
David Turell,
2012-09-19, 00:08
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: DNA mechanics -
David Turell,
2012-09-14, 15:49
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: James Shapiro -
David Turell,
2012-09-13, 21:03
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-11, 18:44
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-10, 15:14
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-09, 15:33
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
dhw,
2012-09-09, 14:32
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-08, 01:23
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-07, 20:02
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-07, 15:34
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 19:19
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 18:18
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 16:09
- NEO-DARWINISM JUST DIED: Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-09-06, 15:05
- Junk DNA or useful -
David Turell,
2012-08-16, 02:36