Junk DNA: “The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe”
|October 2, 2012||Posted by News under 'Junk DNA', News|
In “Why the Case for Junk DNA 2.0 Still Fails” (Evolution News & Views,
September 27, 2012), David Klinghoffer notes,
Confronted with the ENCODE results that attribute “function” to at least 80% of the genome, some Darwinist bloggers and critics of intelligent design have established a defensive perimeter around the precious idea of Junk DNA. It truly is that critically important to them. Their favored critique of ENCODE — call it the case for Junk DNA 2.0 — is that ENCODE’s definition of functionality is wrong. “Well, maybe it’s technically functional,” they say, “but it really isn’t.”
In the end, will our DNA turn out to be 80% functional, or 70% functional, or 90% functional? Committed anti-ID people like Larry Moran (University of Toronto) and Dennis Venema (BioLogos) will always define “function” to minimize the number. There’s not much point in squabbling with them about it. But whatever the number is now, we have every reason to expect the discovery of more and more genuine function in DNA, under any reasonable person’s definition.
The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe, insisting that the vast ocean around them is nothing to worry about.
They could resolve their problem by evolving already into whales. They say it is not even hard …
Follow UD News at Twitter!