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.