Quote:
Originally Posted by leewong
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
“Consider the term "junk DNA."
Dont have to. It was a slightly throwaway phrase to describe very interesting phenomena that were discovered in the 1970s. You do realize genetics is a relatively new field, right? Our knowledge isnt static. Scientists now know a good percentage of this "junk DNA" is used in regulation.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...s-in-junk-dna/
From the article above:
"Should we be retiring the phrase “junk DNA” now?
Yes, I really think this phrase does need to be totally expunged from the lexicon."
"Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. "
"A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html |
Well that wasn't actually the point of that particular quote. The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research. Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you.