Re: Can anyone help with genetics question

Posted by anyman on Feb 18, 2004 at 18:35

Re: Can anyone help with genetics question (Amaranth Rose)

no junk DNA?!!!

that's great amaranth, a considerable change from a year or two ago and a huge change from three years ago when most were saying that junk DNA was just junk

you are absolutely right, there is no junk DNA (or perhaps a little, but certainly not much if any at all)

i largely agree with what you are saying here, but three years ago, two years ago even, i was the only one on this board saying what you are saying now

no room for extra baggage, eh?

you right again, but how does that affect the evolutionary contention/agenda for "vestigial" organs etc?

you remember, of course, that shortly after the dawn of the twentieth century, and most notably at the time of the "scopes monkey trial" (c 1925), depending on which source one consulted, there were anywhere from 180 - 200+ vestigial organs, muscles, teeth, etc in the human body (what a joke, common sense alone says that there wouldn't be much room for anything functional in the human body with so much "evolutionary leftover junk" lurking about, but be that as it may)?

fortunately we don't have to rely on common sense alone, science has now explained (though those explanations were long in coming because the evolutionary teaching caused many to ignore or put little emphasis on researching "junk" since it surely was not playing any active role in modern human physiology) that virtually everyone of those alleged "vestigial" organs etc has been demonstrated to be active at some point in modern, present day human existence...

including the appendix, the coccyx, and virtually every other that was on those lists at one time

the problem was that just because their role was not then understood, they were relegated to the vestigial dustbin

the parallel is perfectly analagous, that which is now not yet understood is again assigned the "junk" designation

what matt ridley wrote a few years ago, very accurately expressed the "beliefs" of the vast majority of biologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, etc

and there was a reason that they wanted to keep folks believing (including themselves) that the human genome was 97% "junk"

but I'll pick that thought up in my next note, gotta run for now

in any event, i'm glad to hear you now expressing these sentiments...

as i have said many times on this board, and long before dano made it one of his mantras...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence :-)

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]