"JunkDNA" (98.7% of DNA in human) is not "Junk" - requiring a generalization of the "Gene concept". On http://www.junkdna.com website news items are posted (some of them reproduced here from http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html ) - to be discussed. My "two cents" is FractoGene (see similar website and upcoming book), a geometrization that has received now experimental support for its first prediction.
... If the evidence is so strongly in favor of evolution, and if intelligent design is so clearly wrong, what is the Darwinian establishment afraid of?
(article by Tristan Abbey, see in http://www.junkdna.com/new_citations.html )
posted by Dr. Andras J. Pellionisz at 10:12 AM
See my professional page at http://www.usa-siliconvalley.com
1 Comments:
"Intelligent Design" (or "Creation contra Evolution") is not at all a new debate - and it focuses not even on science (but on politics). It is not new since it is arguable if e.g. trees are "intelligently designed" since the same blueprint to grow one leaf can be used to grow many, or the "design" is not that intelligent, since lots of trees "junk" all their leaves in the fall. (Or if "built-in obsolence" may be the truly intelligent design e.g. for the car industry, perhaps Nature is "intelligent" likewise?) The vehemence (vitriol, rather) of the new flare-up of an old debate around "junkDNA" is portrayed here only to show that the "Junk/Regulatory DNA" scientific and technological explosion leaves no stone unturned. Fortunately, Stanford "deserves an explanation" mainly of the regulatory function of 98.7% of (human) DNA...
9:24 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home