Posted on 06/14/2007 10:14:44 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
And note that Michael Behe -- using ID -- predicted 10 years ago that "junk DNA" would be found not to be junk.
No worries! I don't consider it a duplicate, since they're different articles on the same subject. I just thought the other one might be of interest as well.
So many predic...er, expectations, so little space on the cutting room floor...
...that many of the most active DNA sequences in humans would be prevalent in other mammals, too, because evolution tends to save and reuse what works best. But more than half were not found in other creatures, which suggests they may not be that important in people, either, said Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, England, a coordinator of the Encode effort.
"I think of them as gate-crashers at a party," Birney said. "They appeared by chance over evolutionary time . . . neither to the organism's benefit nor to its hindrance. That is quite an interesting shift in perspective for many biologists."
"Gate-crahsers at a party"
And this is supposed to be serious, objective science.
Excuse me while I laugh.
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.