Re: [asa] Junk DNA

I think 'design that in' is an idea that depends on the context. I'd see it
as a potential argument against an ex nihilo species of the being in
question (unless someone was going to argue the junk was accumulated after
the original introduction of the species through whatever means.) But it
wouldn't work against a TE argument, and may actually add to the case of
design in that perspective.

So I'd say junk DNA does nothing to prove or disprove design. All it can
really do is inform what kinds of design are more plausible to consider.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Dr. Campbell said:
> " More fundamentally, the presence of "junk" DNA is not a good argument
> against design..."
>
> But I would think the presence of _copied_ junk DNA is a good argument
> against design... stuff that is shared with lower life-forms but appears to
> have no use (even though it does have a use in lower lifeforms)... why would
> a designer design that in?
>
> Pseudogenes are evidence of copying from lower life forms. I think it is
> "junk DNA," but just a subset of "junk DNA." No one has ever discovered any
> use for a pseudogene (sub category of "junk DNA"), have they?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of David Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:28 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Junk DNA
>
> > 'Junk' DNA Proves Functional; Helps Explain Human Differences From Other
> Species
> >
> > ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2008) - In a paper published in Genome Research on
> > Nov. 4, scientists at the Genome Institute of Singapore (GIS) report that
> > what was previously believed to be "junk" DNA is one of the important
> > ingredients distinguishing humans from other species...
>
> This is a bit misleading, as this refers to a specific component of
> the non-protein coding DNA rather than to all "junk" DNA. It is true
> that much of the genome once thought to be non-functional actually has
> function. On the other hand, there are plenty of bits that do not
> have any particular function, yet they show patterns as expected
> evolutionarily. For example, as long as introns can properly be
> identified as such and properly processed, much of the sequence does
> not matter, yet there are evolutionary patterns in the degree of
> sequence similarity (unfortunately often obscured by divergence
> between multiple copies in an individual mollusk).
>
> More fundamentally, the presence of "junk" DNA is not a good argument
> against design, nor is the presence of function for DNA previously
> considered junk a good argument for design. More specific predictions
> are needed in either direction.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 6 17:16:01 2008