Thursday, January 11, 2007

Why Junk DNA Is Important to Discuss

I've posted a good bit regarding Junk DNA. The comments on this post help explain why.
It was once supposed that 98% of the human genome was junk. To the Darwinists this was evidence of bad design, and further more, they said “junk” in the genome is more consistent with a mindless, wasteful evolutionary processes than intelligent design.

One prominent researcher wrote me an unsolicited e-mail and said I should disbelieve the design hypothesis because of the “pathetic architecture of the human genome”. He was apparently referring to the “junkDNA”.

These scientific developments appear to refute the “junkDNA” arguments.

Also, and this is far more technical, in order to rescue evolutionary theory they had to invoke junkDNA to solve a problem posed by geneticist Motoo Kimura. Kimura realized the overwhelming majority of the molecules in organisms are not subject to natural selection, nor could they ever have been…

Therefore, it became evident that finding large amounts of functionality in the 3.5 giga base pairs of our genome and in the genomes of other creatures would signify that there exists very many designs in nature that cannot be theoretically accounted for by Natural Selection. That amount of base-pairs is too many for natural selection to create one-base-pair at a time given the number of possible individuals within each species.

That is why there is strong institutional bias against the work of Dr. Pellionisz and others. The new findings fly in the face of everything they have been asserting for decades. Pellioniz work which can improve medical research can also be used to bash evolutionary biology.
From and empirical and theoretical standpoint let me point out, these developments combined with the work of Kimura and elaborated by ReMine and Standford (and Designer-willing many more) have shown that Natrual Selection can’t be the source of these designs.

To illustrate, consider that you have a mouse-like creature, how much functional change to it’s genome can you expect on average over time per generation? Not much. Evolution has a limited amount of parts it can add even under favorable situations. If 3.5 giga base pairs of DNA are mostly functional, there is simply not enough time and resources to build such a fabulous structure.

In addition to that, there are serious rumblings that DNA could be only a fraction of the real information storage of the cell. A FRACTION! ID-friendly researcher James Shapiro (he is not formally an ID proponent) is doing exciting work on this topic. It may be, the whole cell, and not just the DNA is a wonderfully recursive memory storage device where almost every molecule counts for something!

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?