Somebody, I think David Tyler, wrote:
>This is classic demarcation in action. Examples of predictions
>that ID advocates could make are:
>* "junk" DNA is misnamed (it has a function);
When will we know it has no function? The reason for this question is that it
seems to me that we christians too often look to the future to get us out of
our difficulties today. This, IMO, is a form of procrastination because if I
take this position, I no longer have to be bothered with the facts as they are
today because the future will prove me right. I also no longer have to really
defend my position, because no one can prove me wrong or present evidence
which will disprove me. The future will bear me out.
This can only be a prediction if there is some event or time at which we know
there is no function for the junk DNA
>* abiogenesis research will always reveal "gaps" in the chain of
>natural cause and effect
Once again an appeal to the future to continue, but this one is acceptable
because if abiogenesis creates one living being, then this prediction of ID
becomes false.
>* developmental biology will remain largely ignorant about why
>one cell develops into an elephant and another cell develops into
>a mouse until it drops its reductionistic fantasy about the role
>of DNA.
Are you saying that DNA has nothing to do with the development of organisms?
I would suggest Scott Gilbert's _Developmental Biology_ He writes:
"Nuclear control of cell morphogenesis and the interaction of the
nucleus and cytoplasm are beautifully demonstrated by studies of Acetabularia.
This enormous single cell (1-2 inches) consists of three parts: a cap, a
stalk, and a rhizoid. The rhizoid is located at the base of the cell and
holds it to the substrate. The single nucleus of the cell resides within the
rhizoid. The size of Acetabularia and the location of its nucleus allow
investigators to remove the nucleus from one cell and replace it with a
nucleus from another cell. In the 1930's, J. Hammerling took advantage of
these unique features and transferred nuclei from one species A. mediterranea
- into the enucleated rhizoid of another species - A. crenulata. As Figure 6
shows , these two species have very different cap structures. Hammerling
found that when the nucleus from one species was transplanted into the stalk
of another species, the newly formed cap eventually assumed the form
associated with the donor nucleus. thus, the nucleus was seen to control
Acetabularia development.
"The formation of a cap is a complex morphogenic event involving the
synthesis of numberous proteins, the products of which must be placed in a
certain portion of the cell. The transplanted nucleus does indeed direct the
synthesis of its species-specific cap, but it takes several weeks to do so.
Moreover, if the original nucleus is removed at an early time in Acetabularia
development, before the cap is formed, a normal cap is formed weeks later,
even though the organism will eventually die. This suggests that (1) the
nucleus contains information specifying the type of cap produced (i.e., it
contains the genetic information that specifies the proteins responsible for
the production of a certain type of cap), and (2) the information enters the
cytoplasm long before cap production occurs. The information in the cytoplasm
is not used for several weeks.
"One hypothesis proposed to explain these observations was that the
nucleus synthesizes a stable mRNA, that lies dormant in the cytoplasm until
the time of cap formation. More recent evidence based on an observation that
Hammerling published in 1934 supports this hypothesis."~Scott F. Gilbert,
Developmental Biology, (Sinauer, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1991), p.
9,10
This would seem to imply that the nucleus, which is mostly DNA controls
development.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm