Skip to comments.Jumping 'Junk' DNA May Fuel Mammalian Evolution ('Junk' DNA not junk at all...ID Vindicated Again)
Posted on 06/21/2007 5:55:18 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Tiny, jumping bits of DNA are looking less like genomic junk and more like significant players in mammalian evolution, according to a new analysis...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
Dembski on ID Vindication:
AiG Creationists nailed this a long time ago:
I don’t follow this stuff closely, but I must say, the concept of “junk” DNA, just because we couldn’t immediately figure out its function, seriously flunked the smell test.
From the getgo, I had problems with so-called scientists researching DNA biology and announcing that there were so many "useless" segments of DNA:
Translation - if I can't understand it, it must serve no positive dunction.
What sort of science is that?
Even the popular name, 'junk DNA' gives the game away.
Didn’t pass the smell test indeed!
More from National Geographic:
First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise (but not for ID/Creation scientists!):
==Funny how AiG and Dembski arent the ones who researched this, it was them durn evilutionists who figured this out!
Wrong...see links in post #2
The Darwiniacs have been fooled over and over by their own paradigm. This is just the latest episode where they got egg all over their face. See links in post #2 to see how IDers/Creation scientists predicted this turn of eventsâGGG
“Putting thousands of animals aboard the Ark could have had a dual purpose. Not only did it preserve their lives, but also it would probably allow transfer of genetic material and/or activation of latent genes simultaneously in all land animals. Under the relatively crowded Ark conditions, transfer of genetic material from one species to another through broad host range viruses, parasitic mites or fleas would be facilitated. This might have produced a distribution of AGEs in species in such a way as to defy evolutionary phylogeny, as is seen for the Tc1/mariner family and in the gypsy family of retrotransposons.”
That isn’t science...
It’s called speculation. They nevertheless predicted that Junk DNA would turn out to be functional DNA, as did the IDers.
re: “Junk” DNA
Church of Darwin 0
My main point is that it is sorry science to even contemplate a concept such as 'junk DNA'.
On the eternal shouting match level, my attitude is a pox on both their houses!
And if it flunks a buzzard's smell test...
==My main point is that it is sorry science to even contemplate a concept such as ‘junk DNA’.
Actually, it makes perfect sense from the Darwinian perspective. The problem is, science has once again proved them wrong.
Did it (smell bad enough to) knock him off the wagon?
They also believe the Earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old...
No, it’s not science. It’s total rubbish.
Anyone who thinks genetic material is transmitted by fleas should consider the dog.