RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2006,05:24   

People who read DaveScot's thread on Paul Meyers shouldn't neglect the post just below that, where non other than William A. Dembski asks for help from the team of crack researchers gathered on Uncommon Descent:
       
Quote
Junk DNA that isn’t
by William Dembski on November 21st, 2006 · 15 Comments

I suspect that the “junk DNA” hypothesis was originally made on explicitly Darwinian grounds. Can someone provide chapter and verse? Clearly, in the absence of the Darwinian interpretation, the default assumption would have been that repetitive nucleotide sequences must have some unknown function.

I would think that anyone who makes his living criticizing evolution should know something about the topic before he opens his mouth.  Apparently that's only true in non-Evangelical circles.

I would also think that in the presence of Darwinian interpretation, the default assumption would have been that repetitive nucleotide sequences must have some unknown function else they would have been attrited by mutations long ago.  I think Dembsk is missing a whole new line of whinging here.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]