Evolutionists come up with some of the goofiest theories imaginable, one of which was the notion of “Junk DNA”. This is “theistic” evolutionist Francis Collins in his 2007 book, “The Language of God”, discussing “Junk DNA”:
“Some of these [”Junk DNA”] may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as “junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.” [Collins, Francis S., “The Language of God.” Free Press, 2007, Chap.5, p.136]
A mere 8 years later, Collins had completely changed his tune, as reported in the New York Times:
“In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”” [Zimmer, Carl, “Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?” New York Times, March 5, 2015]
Perhaps a better question to ask Collins would have been, “How on earth could you believe such silliness in the first place?”
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
"Evolutionists come up with some of the goofiest theories imaginable, one of which was the notion of “Junk DNA”. " "Junk DNA" is a term, like "Big Bang", which attained great popular cachet for being both short and descriptive.
The latest thinking on "junk DNA" is that some small part of it may indeed serve certain purposes.
Other parts may represent ancient characteristics now "turned off" in modern species which do, occasionally through mutations, get "turned back on".
This potential "turning off" and "turning on" of certain DNA functions can make "random" mutations far less than "random".
Kalamata: "Perhaps a better question to ask Collins would have been, 'How on earth could you believe such silliness in the first place?' "
Nobody has ever claimed that science, then or now, has "all the right answers", only that scientists continue to search for better explanations whenever evidence suggests they should. ![]()