Skip to comments.The slow, painful death of junk DNA (what will the Evos do without it?)
Posted on 06/09/2009 8:09:42 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
So-called “junk DNA” has fallen on hard times. Once the poster child of evolutionary theory, its status has been increasingly challenged over the past several years. Functions for junk DNA have been cited at other places on this website1 and in the Journal of Creation2. In The Great Dothan Creation Evolution Debate,3 my opponent’s main argument, to which he returned again and again, rested on junk DNA. I warned that this was an argument from silence, that ‘form follows function’, and that this was akin to the old vestigial organ argument (and thus is easily falsifiable once functions are found). We did not have to wait long, however, because a new study has brought the notion of junk DNA closer to the dustbin of discarded evolutionary speculations....
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
And Cretins don’t have a clue about genetics. More BS from the Cretin spin machine.
“Unused” DNA was the basis for Francis Collins’ (head of human genome project) conclusion of “theistic evolution” in his book “The Language of God”.
Junk DNA isn’t junk... it’s genes that are turned off by evolution, as new adaptations provide a greater chance of surviving in a changing environment.
==Junk DNA isnt junk... its genes that are turned off by evolution
Wrong. Project ENCODE has demonstrated that at least 93% of the genome is active.
PS How exactly would you determine that “evolution” turned a gene off?
So called “junk” DNA may well have a specific purpose. It just isn’t known at this point, and so it is called “junk” DNA.
You don’t label something junk just because you are not sure what it does. “Junk” DNA got its name because the Evos thought that 97%+ of our genome was comprised of functionless DNA fossils leftover from our evolutionary past.
I can’t wait until these guys get around that pesky “gravity” nonsense.
Hooray for “creative falling”.
I can see that you disagree with the opinions expressed in this piece, but what specific facts in it have been proven wrong? Instead of insulting, why not educate, calmly and rationally? Your response shows pure emotion, not science.
From the article:
To recap for emphasis: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldanes work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. Think about it; in the evolutionary model there have only been 36 million years since humans and chimps diverged. With average human generation times of 2030 years, this gives them only 100,000 to 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. This includes at least 35 million single letter differences,10 over 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA,10 nearly 700 extra genes in humans (about 6% not shared with chimpanzees),11 and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements. Also, the chimp genome is about 13% larger12 than that of humans, but mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres. All this has to happen in a very short amount of evolutionary time. They dont have enough time, even after discounting the functionality of over 95% of the genomebut their position becomes grave if junk DNA turns out to be functional. Every new function found for Junk DNA makes the evolutionists case that much more difficult.
I personally don't label DNA anything. I was just indicating that what is called "junk" DNA today should not be tomorrow when/if a function is found.
Junk DNA got its name because the Evos thought that 97%+ of our genome was comprised of functionless DNA fossils leftover from our evolutionary past.
I'd not heard that specific number before, but I have heard the rest of that claim. I was always a bit amused by that, because it only showed there was a lot of conclusion jumping going on.
Have the Evos finally gotten around to labeling gravity nonsense? Given all the other aspects of reality they must deny in order maintain Darwin’s fanciful creation myth, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least.
Why don’t you explain to us what gravity is?
==it only showed there was a lot of conclusion jumping going on.
Quite so. As the article demonstrates, the Evos had to put forward the idea of “junk” DNA, otherwise they could not explain how so many mutations could become fixed in such a short amount of time. Of course, Creationists (and later) IDers predicted that the so-called “junk” regions would prove to be functional based on the notion that the Designer would not be so wasteful and inefficient.
Current genetic research proves that junk/dormant genes can be turned back on or stimulated, or blocking proteins can be disabled to allow bird (chicken) embryos to grow teeth, hard vertebrate tails, extensive scales, and similar traits to literally retro-engineer a ‘dino bird’.
Many examples of this exist, and completely blow your crevo claims.
Nobody but God knows what gravity is, we only know *that* it is, and how it behaves. But we do not know what it is, or why it is.
I appreciate these postings. Great way to track the triumphant advance of science.
If you don’t know why mock the efforts of people who are trying to find out?
I've always been suspicious when a so-called "expert" geneticist says that 'junk dna' is not really needed and doesn't do anything. After all, how would you feel if you had your engine rebuilt and the mechanic handed you a bunch of parts that "weren't needed"?
Ask GGG to explain “Gay” in terms of “intelligent design”
These people watched The Flintstones and believed it! Dinosaurs and people living together! And they want to have rational debates with scientists!?
“Gay” has nothing to do with the origins argument.
It is simply man giving in to unnatural “desires”. I could give you the verse, but don’t think you’d appreciate it.
The computer in your car contains all the information for all the options availible on your **series** of cars, but half the code is turned off because you don’t have those **options** on your **model**.
Does this make it easier to understand?
Thanks for the ping!
Excellent point. Made all the more relevant by the fact that said engine was designed!
Is these the kinds of cartoonish caricutures you resort to when the debate goes over your head?
Science is a useful tool to discover God through His creation. It takes faith to follow where the clues take you.
projection pr& JEK sh&n: the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself
I’m glad you are finally coming to terms with your M.O. Now do something about it.
You mean like post #6?
You have no clue what you’re talking about. As I have stated many times, Project ENCODE has demonstrated that at least 93% of the genome is functional. Moreover, the ability to turn on genes that produce teeth, tails, scales, etc, is much better explained by a code that was created by a common designer. We see this all the time in designs created by humans—especially with respect to computer software. Conversely, we have never observed random processes plus survival create the same...that is pure speculation by the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.
There’s a tremendous amount of rewriting of history there. The discovery that there seemed to be a lot of dna that had no function came as a surprise - and many objected that such dna could exist BECAUSE of Darwinism. The notion of “neutral selection” came many years AFTER the discovery of such dna and it took many years to become a popular idea (and, IIRC, it’s based primarily on the fact that different codons code for the same amino acid and not “junk dna”).
As for the mathematics - according to the fossil record, it’s expected that humans share a common ancestor with chimps about 6-7 million years ago. Various studies have come out saying that humans have about 100-200 mutations per conception. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate)
Let’s put it at 150, with generation time of 20 years, and 6 million years separating us and chimps, that would be:
6,000,000/20 = 300,000. 300,000 * 150 = 45 million.
So we’re already at 45 million. And don’t forget that chimps have been mutating during that time as well, so we’d have to double that to 90 million. There’s a lot of uncertainty with the mutation rate, but knock the estimate in half and it still plenty high enough.
Don’t blame creationists for placing the Earth at the center of the solar system. That came from the pagan astrologers and astronomers of Greece and Rome.
Heck...ask GGG to explain how HIV does not cause AIDS.
....or why all those cows and humans that drowned in the Flood that also killed all the dinosaurs were not fossilized right there with the dinosaurs.
You seem to have an answer for everything - except the truth.
I’ve seen that done some some computer hardware and especially software.
Is that the kind of rational, reasoned response that we are supposed to expect from those who pride themselves on their objectivity?
If evos don't like being called on their epic fail of labeling anything they don't understand as "junk", perhaps they should exercise a little restraint in making their pronouncements that they expect everyone to take as written in stone.
Creationists have always maintained that what scientists labeled as junk would prove to not be so, using the scientifically unacceptable rationale that anything God made, He made for a purpose so that evos would find that *junk* was not junk after all.
And so it has proved.
So, then, what's your complaint about the article besides that you don't like things from creationist sources?
Not according to most evos. Most evos consider belief in the ToE to not be a matter of faith because of those clues (evidence) that you refer to; the mountains of evidence that make faith unnecessary.
So, which is it?
This is our Father’s world. God reveals himself both in Scripture and through his creation. These sources cannot be contradictory. Often it appears they are. It takes faith to understand that the apparent contradictions that come up are due to our lack of complete understanding.
When’s the popcorn gonna be ready?
Nothing to concern your pretty little head about.
The report I'm reading says they found that 93% of it is transcribed, which is not the same as functional. In fact, the report goes on to say,
As with other ENCODE-detected elements, it is difficult to identify clear biological roles for the majority of these transcriptsI expect creationists to sit back and wait for scientists to figure out what the stuff is good for, and then claim victory because they always said it was good for something.
As for the whole "junk DNA" thing, here is a good explanation of the very limited sense the person who coined the term meant it in. It also points to several articles--dating back to 1971--that propose functions for the noncoding DNA, giving the lie to the claim that "evos" were unanimous in thinking the "junk" was useless.
“Dr Carter” certainly appears among the more qualified “creation scientists” at least having a genuine earned doctorate in a field of biology (marine science) from a second/third tier, but academically “real” university (U of Miami). Let us examine his record a bit more.
He evidently completed his degree in 2003, requiring seven years to complete his doctorate. Four years would be more the norm for those acknowledged by peers as excellent scientists five years post Ph.D., but certainly some good people have taken longer. Including his dissertation, Dr Carter lists three (3) research publications during his graduate education. This is more or less “normal” but is a long way from exceptional, especially given a seven year Ph.D.
In the six years since, Dr Carter claims one research publication. In contrast, the CV for a good working scientist would typically list ten to forty(40)research publications at a six year post PH.D. career point.
Not surprisingly, Dr. Carter does not appear by his own CV to have ever held a faculty position at even a third tier college. His only claim to employment since 2005 appears to be as “Head Scientist” for “Creation Ministries International.” Even in a context a bit like claiming to be the "Chief Sommelier" for the WCTU, I am not sure this is a “real job.”
The single post Ph.D. research publication [Carter RW (2007) Mitochondrial diversity within modern human populations. Nucleic Acids Research 35(9):30393045.] is in several ways interesting. First, no research publications (zero) would be “more normal” for a recently minted Ph.D. that does not gain an academic or research position. Second, the publication is in an area outside of his doctoral training in marine biology. So, methinks I should read it. So what do I find?
Much to my surprise, it has the appearance of a “real” study, providing an analysis of publicly available mitochondrial DNA data from other researchers with the frame of reference being what is called the “Eve Hypothesis.” The latter is appropriately credited to molecular evolutionist Alan Wilson's work from the 1980’s [see Cann, R. L., Stoneking, M. & Wilson, A. C. (1987) “Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution” Nature 325, 31-36.]
Like all exciting and provocative scientific findings, Wilson's work spawned lots of follow up study including a few arguments and some methodological controversy. Though a long time after the original science, Carter's study is offered as an analysis of publicly available data sets supposedly culled of the method flaws and nits argued about by 20 years of normal science.
Boring stuff if it confirms original findings - less boring if it gives origin to some new view.
We can cut to the chase by saying that Carter's analysis certainly did not seem to me to reveal anything new, right down to reiterating some of Wilson's original findings and interpretive conclusions. Normally such stuff is not published in real scientific journals. The most interesting aspect is that his language does not once betray a hint of being in the the “cretin science” camp.
Now the rest of the story.
As to motive, it also should not escape notice that anything labeled the “Eve Hypothesis” got lots of attention from Cretin Scientists. They have been either failing to understand what it means or intentionally distorting conclusions that may be drawn from it since Wilson first mentioned “Eve.” And it should not escape notice that Carter appears to be serving as a spokesperson for them. Absent this single publication, however, he has no germane credentials for that position.
Now why did Carter publish in “Nucleic Acids Research?” This “on-line” journal supposedly attempts to be a credible vehicle for rapid publication of “breaking” scientific discovery, but in contrast to most conventional scientific journals charges a substantial (several thousand British pounds) publication fee. Supposedly, “vanity publication” is discouraged by an author's “ethics statement”, including disclosure of funding sources and any conflicts of interest, but publication turn-around time is too short to support more than minimal “peer review”. Maybe I am wrong. But I conclude the primary point of Carter's single publication funded by somebody is to provide a “cover story.” Somebody paid what certainly appears to me to be a vanity publication fee. Notice that I am not saying that Carter's "study" is bogus.
More interesting than what you find when you look at most that would claim to be “creation scientists.” But not atypical in highlighting at best mediocrity in “scientific credentials.”
I emailed the author of the OP with a few questions of my own, and he emailed me back. He said he took a look at my FR thread, and noticed your reply in #37. Here is what he said:
“Comment 37 (Goodusername) gets it wrong. The argument is not about mutation rate, but about fixation rate. How long would it take any single new mutation to spread out and fix itself in a population? A long time. Haldane concluded that you could get approximately one fixed mutation per generation. How, then, can there be millions of mutations that separate us from chimps? Oh, junk DNA! DNA that can mutate freely without the need for natural selection is necessary. This does not completely solve the problem, however, for it still takes a long time to fix new mutations via random drift, but at least billions of individuals do not have to get weeded out by natural selection in the process.”
Just thought I’d pass it along.