But, notes NC Times writer Bradley J. Fikes: "Using only one number also caused confusion in the popular press, which incorrectly interpreted the 80 percent number as the amount of proven-necessary DNA in the human genome."
Still debating
Over time, some scientists have accepted a theory of "junk DNA" that says some, even perhaps most human DNA has no function. Pro-evolution writers like Richard Dawkins, author of "The Greatest Show on Earth," scoff at the idea that a creator would do that. "It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us."
Creationists insisted functions would eventually be found for so-called junk sequences. Last week, many of them claimed vindication.
"As for me, I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here and that's what bothers me," said Wood. "First, why should I think that every aspect of design has to have a 'function'? ... What use is a Statue of Liberty or a painting of soup cans? It seems to me that insisting that designs must be functional is sort of like a person who goes to an art museum and constantly complains, 'What's that for?' "
Wood also noted that, like a creationist, an evolutionary biologist would predict more functionality in DNA, since wasting energy to perpetuate a mostly useless genome goes against Darwinian principles of selection. The arguments volley back and forth between sides.
"Given my inability to make a coherent argument out of all this, it seems to me that a lot of this boils down to semantics. Some people like to say that 'junk DNA' precludes 'design,' which prompts others to insist that DNA must be 'functional' and therefore 'designed,' " Wood said, adding his understanding of design doesn't demand a specific degree of functional design. The questions leave him wondering "if ENCODE is really a victory for anyone," he said.
EMAIL: lois@desnews.com, Twitter: Loisco
- Photo gallery: Tornado rips Oklahoma suburb
- Fire chief says search almost complete in...
- Journalists criticize Obama administration,...
- Should we let wunderkinds drop out of high...
- Top scandals and controversies of each United...
- Car dealership apologizes for radio ad
- World War II munitions with mustard agent...
- Mile-wide tornado churns through Oklahoma...
- Mitt Romney talks IRS, AP records,...
65 - Journalists criticize Obama...
37 - Associated Press CEO calls records...
23 - White House insists Obama was not...
22 - More Obama aides knew IRS targeted...
19 - House chairman sees IRS targeting as...
16 - Supreme Court to weigh in on...
16 - Former IRS chief to Congress: Can't say...
15



ENCODE not a victory for anyone? ENCODE is a huge victory for science and medicine. ENCODE wasn't actually setting out to prove or disprove evolution, and the goal of evolutionary scientists (of which I am one) is certainly not to disprove the More..
I am still confused by any argument that relates the percentage of functional DNA has to intelligent design. How in the world are the two mutually exclusive of each other? Neither do I see how elements of evolution are contradictory to creationism. More..
In my blog on science and Mormonism, I give a lot of details explaining why I believe that God used evolution as one of his tools of creation. Changes in DNA is the key to evolution. Creationism is an interesting philosophy, but it is not science!