[ Post a Response | No Answers in Genesis Discussion Board ]
Posted by Walter on June 16, 2009, 10:22 am
75.144.111.193
Over a long period of time, "junk" DNA was an important weapon in the Darwinistic arsenal of arguments for the righteousness of their theory.
The argument would go something like:
Why would a designer create something that was 95% useless?
He wouldn't.
Therefore, "junk" DNA disproves design.
Particularly in the period from the discovery of the genetic code itself in the 1950's to the beginning of its detailed analysis in the 1980's, this argument had the merit of not having been contradicted.
But now as the first decade of the 21st century draws to an end, 70% transcription rates of genomic elements has proven to be quite common, not the 5% expected 25% years ago.
Transcription would seem to suggest usefulness. If not, I'd sure like to know why not.
Further, I'd like to know why, if less than 30 years after genetic analysis has started in earnest, we are up to 70% of the genome functioning, genetics isnt now CONFIRMING design and therefore disproving evolution?
The excuses should be interesting.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread