JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 20 2007,18:35) | From Wikipedia:
| Quote | | Recent evidence suggests that "junk DNA" may in fact be employed by proteins created from coding DNA. An experiment concerning the relationship between introns and coded proteins provided evidence for a theory that "junk DNA" is just as important as coding DNA. This experiment consisted of damaging a portion of noncoding DNA in a plant which resulted in a significant change in the leaf structure because structural proteins depended on information contained in introns. |
|
That passage is bullshit, Daniel. "Junk" DNA is in no way homogeneous, and real scientists don't classify introns as "junk."
The ID approach to "junk" DNA is profoundly dishonest; it ALWAYS depends on equivocating between a tiny fraction of junk and all of the junk.
Every time any IDer talks about it, that dishonesty is displayed. Are you being dishonest or gullible in this case?
|
