Junk DNA. It was hailed as being akin to a fossil missing link of evolution that lies within all of us. What happens when that is disproven? Same thing. All that DNA proves evolution.
Cornelius Hunter of Darwin’s God writes:
Tandem repeats are short stretches of DNA that are repeated head-to-tail. “At first sight,” explains evolutionist Marcelo Vinces, “it may seem unlikely that this stutter-DNA has any biological function.” This is an example of how evolutionary thinking harms science. Since life is an accident, biology must be straightforward. If we do not immediately perceive how something works, then it must be non functional junk. Over and over this evolutionary expectation has turned out wrong. And now again with tandem repeats:
unstable junk DNA allows fast shifts in gene activity, which may allow organisms to tune the activity of genes to match changing environments–a vital principle for survival in the endless evolutionary race.
The tandem repeats allow for swift adaptation to environmental demands, so cells with more repeats stand a better chance. As the evolutionists explain, “Their junk DNA saved their lives.” We are now to believe that evolution created this sophisticated system of adaptation so that evolution could occur. Evolutionists are flipping between absurdities in what is increasingly looking like a parody. The evolution literature looks more and more like a spoof. As if sensing the problem, the science writer reporting on the new research hastened to add that it is to be published in a reputable journal.
So, there you have it. Instead of junk DNA that records the evolutionary history of a species, junk DNA now actively drives adaptation. Regardless of the evidence, the conclusion is always the same, “Evolution is true!” Can I hear a ‘praise Science?’
Reference:
From One Absurdity to the Next
Tags: evolution, Intelligent Design, scientism
May 30th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I went to my doctor, and I may be having gall bladder issues. During his talk with me, the doctor broke into a vestigial organ diatribe, “We don’t even know what the gall bladder does, BUT during our evolution….blah, blah, blah etc etc etc! And at the end of his little instructional ditty, I said, “Oh, were you talking to me!”
He had said absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, because he doesn’t know what the _ell he’s talking about!
Sound familiar? M. I. U. A. T. Go, or “miuatgo!”
May 30th, 2009 at 11:41 am
That’s sad because some functions of the gall bladder are actually well known. Evolutionary explanations in medicine have absolutely no use, and it seems that some think it’s an intelligent way of saying, “I don’t know.” But it doesn’t sound too intelligent to me!
May 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
It is sad! And I need to not let it get under my skin so much, but, quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing fairy tales and excuses on this subject. And, of course, I know I am not alone;-)
Have you, Shrink, had a chance to read Hunter’s book, by the same title?
May 30th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
What’s the point of this story, Country Shrink? Presumably it’s not supposed to be an example of how design theorists have made an important contribution to on-going research in biology. And the realization that many regions of non-coding DNA have some important biological functions was not reached by design theorists.
Of course you can say, “if design theory were the dominant paradigm in biology instead of this silly evolution nonsense, we wouldn’t have wandered down the cul-de-sac of ‘junk DNA’ to begin with!” Hindsight is (almost) always 20/20.
The question remains: what would have happened if design theory had been the dominant paradigm? Presumably we would have still been left trying to figure out what the exact function is of all these interesting regions of DNA — just as we are now!