Discovery of Intron Function Interrupts Evolutionary Paradigm

“Discovery of Intron Function Interrupts Evolutionary Paradigm”

...
Intron Function and the Case for Creation

Scientists who view biology through the lens of the evolutionary paradigm are quick to conclude that the genomes of organisms reflect the outworking of evolutionary history. Their perspective causes them to see the features of genomes, such as introns, as little more than the remnants of an unguided evolutionary process. Within this framework, there is no reason to think that any particular DNA sequence element, including introns, harbors function. In fact, many life scientists regard the “evolutionary vestiges” in the genome as junk DNA. This clearly has been the case for introns.

Yet, a growing body of data indicates that virtually every category of so-called junk DNA displays function. We can now add introns—cooperative interrupters—to the list. And based on the data on hand, we can make a strong case that most of the sequence elements in genomes possess functional utility.

Could it be that scientists really don’t understand the biology of genomes? Or maybe we have the wrong paradigm?

It seems to me that science is in the midst of a revolution in our understanding of genome structure and function. Instead of being a wasteland of evolutionary debris, most of the genome appears to be functional. And the architecture and operations of genomes appear to be far more elegant and sophisticated than anyone ever imagined—at least within the confines of the evolutionary paradigm.


But what if the genome is viewed from a creation model framework?

The elegance and sophistication of genomes are features that are increasingly coming into scientific view. And this is precisely what I would expect if genomes were the product of a Mind—the handiwork of a Creator.

Now that is a discovery worth talking about.

Discovery of Intron Function Interrupts Evolutionary Paradigm

 

And here I thought I was mostly human. Go figure.

Are you suggesting that the formerly “junk” DNA (based on a strictly evolutionary paradigm), which the article is addressing, is bacterial? Do you have links for studies showing that?

 

By the way, the general complaint non-designerists “level” at those who conclude that the design we see in nature, whether in the heavens or on earth, really is design is that considering the design possibility seriously precludes “doing science.”

In this case, the vestigial mindset of evolutionists appears guilty as charged instead. As more and more evidence comes in, this seems to be the case across the scientific board. Denying a Creator had any hand in the creation is… What was that word Dawkins used? Oh, yeah …Delusional.

But, as a Baptist, I suspect you well understand this, even if your rhetoric doesn’t clearly show it.