Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Here is an amusing "argument." Richard Sternberg is over at the Discovery (sic) Institute's Ministry of Misinformation asking this:
I have long questioned the assumption that most genomic DNA sequences are "nonsensical" or "junk." And given the data that have emerged over the past seven or so years, a functionalist view of genome has robust empirical support. It is for this reason that I think many of the arguments presented by the Biologos Foundation are "wrong on many counts," to borrow a phrase from Darrel Falk.
Exactly what fraction of the transcribed 88.5% of our DNA are you willing to say "plays no role" or can be harmful? All I am asking for is a prediction, such as "90% of these DNA letters is superfluous" ("or 79.5% of the RNAs are nonsensical").
Once again, IDC is reduced to impotent creation science-like cavils about evolutionary theory while being unable to explain why IDC, which has explained so little, should be preferred to a theory which has explained so much.
Why, yes it is!
Now he is paid a "fellowship," probably greater than the money he has ever been paid before, to sit around and make silly arguments.
You'd almost think he was a lawyer!