Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + + + + Line 19:
Line 26: +
adding Dawkins on Junk DNA
In fact, the evolutionists were proven wrong yet again: there is no known "junk DNA." Function(s) of introns are slowly being elucidated.
In fact, the evolutionists were proven wrong yet again: there is no known "junk DNA." Function(s) of introns are slowly being elucidated.
==[[Evolutionism]] vs. [[Science]]==
Starting from his [[evolutionism|evolutionary]] world-view, biologist [[Dawkins]] expressed his following [[belief]]s about the "junk DNA" in his book ''Devil's Chaplain''<ref>{{cite book |author=Richard Dawkins |title=A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |year=2004 (reprint) |page=99|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=loVMMlxC1XoC&dq=Dawkins+Devil+chapel&q=littered#v=snippet&q=littered&f=false}}</ref>:
<blockquote>''[[Genome]]s are littered with nonfunctional [[pseudogene]]s, faulty duplicates of functional [[gene]]s that do nothing, while their functional cousins (the word doesn't even need scare quotes) get on with their business in a different part of the same genome. And there's lots more DNA that doesn't even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, "tandem repeats", and other nonsense which may be useful for [[forensic science|forensic]] detectives but which doesn't seem to be used in the [[body]] itself. Once again, [[creationist]]s might spend some earnest time speculating on why the [[Creator]] should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.''</blockquote>
Yet, there have been new [[scientific discovery|discoveries]] made arguing that "mysterious" tightly packed section of the vast, non-coding sections of genomes, widely dismissed by geneticists as "junk," and previously thought by scientists to have no discernable function at all, may actually offer various functions.<ref>{{cite web |author=Casey Luskin |title=Et tu, Pseudogenes? Another Type of "Junk" DNA Betrays Darwinian Predictions |pulisher=Evolution News & Views |date=April 25, 2011 |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/et_tu_pseudogenes_another_type046121.html |accessdate=December 11, 2014}}</ref> For example, thanks to a novel sequencing technique developed by biologists at [[Texas A&M University]], ''"nothing more than biological trash"'' in the human genome may offer a treasure trove of insight into complex genetic-related [[disease]]s such as [[cancer]] and [[diabetes]].<ref>{{cite web |title=The Treasure Hunt Continues: More Uses for Non-Coding DNA |pulisher=Evolution News & Views |date=October 17, 2014 |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_treasure_hu090431.html |accessdate=December 11, 2014}}</ref>
Biologist Jonathan Wells calls Junk DNA an anti-scientific [[myth]] that ignores the [[evidence]], impedes research and is based more on [[theology|theological]] speculation than good [[science]].<ref>{{cite book
Biologist Jonathan Wells calls Junk DNA an anti-scientific [[myth]] that ignores the [[evidence]], impedes research and is based more on [[theology|theological]] speculation than good [[science]].<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Myth of Junk DNA
|title=The Myth of Junk DNA
*[[Empirical science]]
*[[Empirical science]]
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biology]]