<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Junk DNA and the Central Dogma: More Failure for the ToE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://truthmatters.info/2008/11/09/junk-dna-and-the-central-dogma-more-failure-for-the-toe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://truthmatters.info/2008/11/09/junk-dna-and-the-central-dogma-more-failure-for-the-toe/</link>
	<description>Because the truth really does matter!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:50:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: lordkalvan</title>
		<link>http://truthmatters.info/2008/11/09/junk-dna-and-the-central-dogma-more-failure-for-the-toe/#comment-1567</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lordkalvan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 12:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://afdave.wordpress.com/?p=168#comment-1567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although you didn&#039;t provide a link to the Science Daily article, I did manage to find and read it. You seem to be misrepresenting the article by appearing to claim that because some elements of DNA that were previously categorized as &#039;junk DNA&#039; actually have a purpose, then all &#039;junk DNA&#039; has a purpose and evolutionary theory is thereby rendered invalid in some way. It is interesting that the article does not come to the same conclusion. Indeed, if anything the result of this research seems to support evolution:

&#039;This research also shows that these repeats are anything but &quot;junk DNA,&quot; since they provide a great source of evolutionary variability and might hold the key to some of the important physical differences that distinguish humans from all other species.&#039;

and

&#039;Dr. White also added, &quot;This hypothesis for formation of new species through episodic distributions of families of gene regulatory DNA sequences is a powerful one that will now guide a wealth of experiments to determine the functional relationships of these regulatory DNA sequences to the genes that are near their landing sites. I anticipate that as our knowledge of these events grows, we will begin to understand much more how and why the rat differs so dramatically from the monkey, even though they share essentially the same complement of genes and proteins.&quot;&#039;

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081104180928.htm

Your research technique seems to be to trawl through articles such as this one for selected nuggets that can be presented as casting doubt on evolutionary theory, while ignoring those parts of the same articles that indicate quite the contrary.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although you didn&#8217;t provide a link to the Science Daily article, I did manage to find and read it. You seem to be misrepresenting the article by appearing to claim that because some elements of DNA that were previously categorized as &#8216;junk DNA&#8217; actually have a purpose, then all &#8216;junk DNA&#8217; has a purpose and evolutionary theory is thereby rendered invalid in some way. It is interesting that the article does not come to the same conclusion. Indeed, if anything the result of this research seems to support evolution:</p>
<p>&#8216;This research also shows that these repeats are anything but &#8220;junk DNA,&#8221; since they provide a great source of evolutionary variability and might hold the key to some of the important physical differences that distinguish humans from all other species.&#8217;</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>&#8216;Dr. White also added, &#8220;This hypothesis for formation of new species through episodic distributions of families of gene regulatory DNA sequences is a powerful one that will now guide a wealth of experiments to determine the functional relationships of these regulatory DNA sequences to the genes that are near their landing sites. I anticipate that as our knowledge of these events grows, we will begin to understand much more how and why the rat differs so dramatically from the monkey, even though they share essentially the same complement of genes and proteins.&#8221;&#8216;</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081104180928.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081104180928.htm</a></p>
<p>Your research technique seems to be to trawl through articles such as this one for selected nuggets that can be presented as casting doubt on evolutionary theory, while ignoring those parts of the same articles that indicate quite the contrary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

