“Junk” DNA?
Many researchers approach the study of biology, genetics, and related fields from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Often, this view has led them to false conclusions. For example, early Darwinists classified certain organs, such as the appendix, the pituitary gland, and the tonsils, as vestigial. They considered them to be evolutionary leftovers because these organs seemed no longer to have any function. In time, however, the important role of these organs came to light. Evolutionists, therefore, had to discard their earlier views.
A similar development recently occurred in the field of genetics. Early research suggested that about 98 percent of the DNA in humans and other organisms had no function. Hence, many who were influenced by the theory of evolution ******* that this DNA was “evolutionary junk”—a view that quickly became orthodox.
Once again, however, an ********** rooted in Darwinism proved to be false. Recently, scientists have discovered that “junk” DNA plays a vital role in the body by yielding special forms of RNA (ribonucleic acid) that are vital for life. John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Australia, feels that the hasty acceptance of the “junk” DNA theory is “a classic sto...
“Junk” DNA?
Many researchers approach the study of biology, genetics, and related fields from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Often, this view has led them to false conclusions. For example, early Darwinists classified certain organs, such as the appendix, the pituitary gland, and the tonsils, as vestigial. They considered them to be evolutionary leftovers because these organs seemed no longer to have any function. In time, however, the important role of these organs came to light. Evolutionists, therefore, had to discard their earlier views.
A similar development recently occurred in the field of genetics. Early research suggested that about 98 percent of the DNA in humans and other organisms had no function. Hence, many who were influenced by the theory of evolution ******* that this DNA was “evolutionary junk”—a view that quickly became orthodox.
Once again, however, an ********** rooted in Darwinism proved to be false. Recently, scientists have discovered that “junk” DNA plays a vital role in the body by yielding special forms of RNA (ribonucleic acid) that are vital for life. John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Australia, feels that the hasty acceptance of the “junk” DNA theory is “a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective ******** of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century.” This failure, he adds, “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
Is it not much wiser to view DNA as having an intelligent Designer? People with such a viewpoint realize that in time the reasons for puzzling aspects of ***’s handiwork usually come to light. And instead of disillusioning them, such findings fill them with even greater awe.
(more)