Re: [asa] Re: "junk" DNA

From: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Date: Fri Jun 15 2007 - 17:00:40 EDT

Pim writes:

>>> PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> 6/15/2007 1:17 PM >>>
On 6/15/07, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, there is a problem of what exactly is ID. ID advocates have
> been saying that "junk DNA" isn't junk. However, whether or not one

You mean creationists have been saying this. And although Meyer seems
to have suggested that this was a prediction which followed from ID,
it clearly does not.

Ted comments:
Pim, for a few years (though not presently) I was involved with a private
list comprised mostly of ID advocates and supporters, with a few agnostics
such as myself thrown in. One of the most frequently repeated claims on
that list, throughout the time I was on it, was precisely this: "junk DNA
isn't junk." I doubt that this claim follows in some strictly rigorous way
from ID assumptions, but very few scientific claims IMO follow strictly from
premises of a theory. It's highly consistent with ID, however, to argue
that purposefully designed organisms are likely to have purposefully placed
DNA, and those organisms with similar designs (and I realize that putting
precision on this particular point is not easy) ought to have similar DNA.
It makes sense to me, on this view, that there would presently be lots of
DNA with unknown functions, in similar locations in various organisms: that
DNA is not "junk," and it's there purposefully rather than by accident. To
discover that some of it in fact is not "junk," surely does not count
against this view and seems partly at least to count in its favor.

If not, Pim, what am I missing?

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jun 15 17:01:16 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 15 2007 - 17:01:16 EDT