THE first concerted effort to understand the inner workings of the DNA molecule is overturning a host of long-held assumptions about the nature of genes and their role in human health and evolution. The new perspective reveals DNA to be a dauntingly complex operating system (GOS*) that processes many more kinds of information than previously appreciated."There now appear to be thousands of places in the genome that were long thought to be useless or meaningless, but which we now see to have a functional role," ENCODE researcher Thomas Tullius of Boston University told the Boston Globe. "But we don't really understand what that role is."
"Most of the time, the human genome is operating on the 'first and second floor,' with 5 percent of the genome doing what needs to be done on a daily basis," Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute said at the news conference. "But over evolutionary time, a much larger part of the genome, the stuff in the attic, becomes important. It's waiting for natural selection to call for it."
Storyunteller: ENCODE researcher Thomas Tullius of Boston University
New findings challenge beliefs about DNA
Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle
Wikapedia - What is Junk DNA?
Story Research: Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute
Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
* Inserted (God's operating System)
.jpg)
Posts
7 comments:
So, since you're so sure junk DNA has a function, please explain why the onion genome is five times bigger than the human genome.
If you can't, then you're the one telling stories here. As is usual with creationists, who have the biggest just-so stories of anyone, hands down.
For a hint, you can start by reading the Story Research article and the referenced citations:
"Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm"
Here we go again. Selective excerpts from a 2nd, 3rd or 4th-hand source &/or portions of responses to questions (w/out questions being published) being held up as 'yet another example' of how evolutionists are not only wrong but silly.
No you didn't say the latter portion of my statement, but it's obvious what you're trying to do. I've had many students over the years (well a handful actually, but certainly too many) who claimed to either be "simple truth seekers" or freshman claiming that they alone "could prove all of genetics, geology & paleontology wrong".
The first thing all of you Must prove to those of us who are educated in these fields is an actual understanding of what science is and what it can & cannot do. Then try to demonstrate that you know more than what you've read in some anti-evolution pop 'science' book or online by being able to engage a scientist in an truly intelligent conversation without using tricks of persuasion or other rhetoric.
Better yet, just open your mind & take 10 years of course work, specializing in any one of these sciences. Then speak to the world about what you 'know better than science does'.
Dear Dr Collins
Thank you for your comment. I reposted it with changes to provide better context for your views and to include the rest of your quote".
The body of all posts do not contain my own views but simply portions of articles published in the media reporting on the work of Scientists that touch on Darwin's theories. In some cases, where the ordinary public has free access, the original scientific papers are referenced.
I appreciate the feedback and DO try to reflect as clearly as possible the actual views of the scientists that are featured on my site.
Kind regards
Dolly
Dear Ms. Sherrif,
You seem to enjoy referencing stories on evolution in the popular and scientific media in a derisive way. Could you perhaps be a little more specific as to what your objections to them are? Also perhaps you could explain why you are so focussed on evolution as opposed to science in general or any other topic. Or can I look forward to such future stories as "How the electron got its charge" or "Why the apple falls to the ground"?
Dear Rorschach
We try to only feature stories where the scientist has had to use his considerable imagination to "fill in the gaps" (e.g. See how the Whale learnt to swim by Charles Darwin). Our position is not that the scientist is wrong, but that his story is just one of many "just so" stories that attempt to explain the universe. When one looks at all the stories on this site together, one has the uneasy feeling that in most cases, scientists are following the dominating scientific paradigm of the day with which to explain nature's mysteries. In most cases, these stories fall far short of being satisfying explanations to "all things bright and beautiful"
Sorry, but I don't see that you _have_ a position. Other than replies to occasional posts like mine, you provide no information on your own views whatever. As I say, all you do in general is present the the stories in a mildly derogatory way. It is your presentation of the stories that is "Just So", not the stories themselves. It is easy to mock but if you wish to critique these stories in any kind of credible way you're going to have bring a little more argument to to the table than this. Also, despite referring to the "scientific paradigm", you have left my question, as to why all the stories on this site refer to evolution and not science in general, completely unanswered.
Post a Comment