The weight of evidence shown in this high-profile study does nothing to overturn the Darwinian evolution theory of species that's based on pressure of natural selection and advantageous adaptability of certain phenotypes that determines successful passing down of inherited gene traits that supports such transgenerational geno-environmental fit. But, it does place some suspicion on the validity of a widely-accepted assumption that environment-driven mutagenesis is an important player that fosters such adaptation machinery and evolution process. And the thought of genetic material important for a species survival will pass down as "conserved domain" in the genome of evolutionary pedigree may not always be true. All in all, none of the evidence presented herein really show slight leaning that perhaps evolution theory should make way for a better alternative theory of species origination, like that of "intelligent design" propounded in certain religion.
Could you enlighten me as to which part of the conclusions or any paragraph mentioned in this paper that came up to rebuke evolution theory as flawed? Or is there any indication there pointing to a better theory of species origination? Or is there any single finding or suggestion that points to the theory of "intelligent design" may be a better, alternative explanation for these findings? The whole study is just suggesting that it is *possible* that most DNAs that were believed in the past to be non-functional, are perhaps having some role to play especially in the regulatory aspect of genes and epigenetic remodeling. I cannot help but to wonder why you thought this study could be a good piece of evidence that contravenes the evolution theory. Even if it really does I don't see it lends any support for creationism or possibility of some sort of "intelligent design".
狗仔卡
樓主
