Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The idea of junk DNA has not been abandoned by mainstream science. In fact, the idea hasn't changed much, and the fraction of the genome thought to be junk hasn't changed much since the first speculations on the subject. If anything, it's a little higher now.What is needed is a publication of some kind from before the idea of "junk DNA" was abandoned by mainstream science
The idea of junk DNA has not been abandoned by mainstream science. In fact, the idea hasn't changed much, and the fraction of the genome thought to be junk hasn't changed much since the first speculations on the subject. If anything, it's a little higher now.
“In The Myth of Junk DNA, Jonathan Wells draws together published evidence over the past decade which clearly pulls the rug from under the concept that the majority of the human genome is ‘junk DNA’ (functionless DNA). Breathtaking discoveries since the publication of the Human Genome Project in 2001 have demonstrated that most, if not all nuclear DNA is transcribed.
The proponents of Darwin’s theory claim that junk DNA provides evidence for Darwinian evolution as it represents molecular accidents which are the indelible signatures of evolutionary histories. This argument now has been turned on its head.
I strongly recommend The Myth of Junk DNA, a lucid account of the evidence that junk DNA has many diverse biological functions. It is an important reference source with an excellent bibliography and notes. The Myth of Junk DNA clearly demonstrates that the concept of junk DNA is now dead.”
—Norman C. Nevin, OBE, MD
Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics
Queen’s University, Belfast
“Jonathan Wells has clearly done his homework. In The Myth of Junk DNA, he cites hundreds of research articles as he describes the expanding story of non-coding DNA—the supposed ‘junk DNA.’ It is quite possibly the most thorough review of the subject available. Dr. Wells makes it clear that our early understanding of DNA was incomplete, and genomics research is now revealing levels of control and complexity inside our cells that were undreamed of in the 1980s. Far from providing evidence for Darwinism, the story of non-coding DNA rather serves to increase our appreciation for the design of life.”
—Ralph Seelke, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbial Genetics and Cell Biology
University of Wisconsin-Superior
“Citing hundreds of peer-reviewed articles which show that more and more of the genome is functional, Jonathan Wells delivers a powerful and carefully researched broadside against the ‘junk DNA hypothesis.’ Even biologists who firmly reject the notion of intelligent design must surely acknowledge on the evidence presented in this timely book that appealing to ‘junk DNA’ to defend the Darwinian framework no longer makes any sense.”
—Michael Denton, Ph.D.
Medical Geneticist and Author of Nature’s Destiny
“This is an excellent and in-depth discussion of several key points of the subject of ‘junk-DNA.’ The author shows for many prime examples still advanced by leading neo-Darwinians that the ‘Darwin-of-the-gaps’ approach doesn’t function or is at least doubtful.”
—Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Department of Molecular Plant Genetics
Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research (retired)
“There is a box in the biological sciences into which all evidence must be placed. That box is called Darwinian evolution. In The Myth of Junk DNA Jonathan Wells tells the intriguing story of ‘junk’ DNA—the idea that non-protein coding DNA, which accounts for the majority of the DNA in the genome, is non-functional and without purpose; the result of the unguided purposeless process of random mutation and natural selection that produced it. In recent years, however, numerous researchers—not necessarily opponents of Darwinian evolution or advocates of intelligent design—have discovered many functions for non-protein coding DNA, which are thoroughly reviewed by Wells in this book. Unfortunately, in their effort to keep the ‘junk’ label attached to non-protein coding DNA so that it remains in the box of Darwinian evolution, a number of prominent Darwinists continue to insist, in spite of the recent results to the contrary, that it is largely left-over waste from the evolutionary process. As Wells clearly demonstrates in his book, this dogmatic commitment inhibits the scientific process. Science needs to be guided by objective evaluation of the evidence, and scientists should not allow their thinking to be arbitrarily restricted by dogmatic ideas. We need scientists who think outside the Darwinian box. Wells’s book not only informs its readers of very recent research results, but also encourages them to think objectively and clearly about a key discovery in biology and to approach biological research with more creativity. It is a great read.”
—Russell W. Carlson, Ph.D.
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Georgia
“For years, Darwinists have claimed that most DNA is left-over detritus from failed evolutionary experiments. This ‘junk DNA’ has been offered as evidence for Darwinism and evidence against intelligent design. The only problem with the claim, as Jonathan Wells shows in this fascinating book, is that it’s not true. Careful scientists have known for some time that the non-coding regions of DNA have all manner of function, so it is surprising to see prominent Darwinian scientists and their spokesmen continue to push the party line. Now that the evidence against the junk DNA story is indisputable, its defenders will want to beat a hasty retreat. The Myth of Junk DNA will make it hard for them to cover their tracks.”
—Jay Richards, Ph.D.
Co-Author, The Privileged Planet, and Editor, God and Evolution
The Myth of Junk DNA | Discovery Institute Press
Oh, goodness gracious no. Why would I consult Wells' book? I'm more qualified to have an opinion on the subject than he is. More to the point, I base my opinion on reading the primary literature, listening to talks by the people doing the research, and talking to them in person.The Myth of Junk DNA is a book which deals with the subject and which has excellent reviews as those posted below.
The Myth of Junk DNA is a book which deals with the subject and which has excellent reviews as those posted below.
That has nothing to do with the questions in the opening post. If your conclusions are that 100% of every genome is 100% functional, then use that information to answer the questions.
When comparing the human and mouse genomes, what should you see and why should you see it:
1. More differences in the exons.
2. More differences in the introns.
3. About equal number of differences in the exons and introns.
When comparing the human and chimp genomes, what should you see and why should you see it:
1. More differences in the exons.
2. More differences in the introns.
3. About equal number of differences in the exons and introns.
As everyone can see, ID/creationists have thus far been unable to answer these very simple questions. I will also add that there is a very consistent observation when it comes to exons and introns and their divergence in the human, mouse, and chimp genomes. Evolution can fully explain these observations. It appears that ID/creationism can not.
I prefer Sarah's answer to that of: "Well, that's just how the chemicals decided to do it!"
But that is the only inference available since mindless reactions would not mimic a planning organizing mind. What you are asking us to believe is simply too fantastic to accept from a logical perspective. Seems more like wishful thinking and an appeal to magic.Ow goody. Again with the strawman of chemicals making "decisions", even after it has been pointed out to you countless times that nobody is saying that.
But that is the only inference available since mindless reactions would not mimic a planning organizing mind.
What you are asking us to believe is simply too fantastic to accept from a logical perspective.
Seems more like wishful thinking and an appeal to magic.
But that is the only inference available since mindless reactions would not mimic a planning organizing mind.
I prefer Sarah's answer to that of: "Well, that's just how the chemicals decided to do it!"
But that is the only inference available since mindless reactions would not mimic a planning organizing mind. What you are asking us to believe is simply too fantastic to accept from a logical perspective. Seems more like wishful thinking and an appeal to magic.
It's fantastic to suggest that chemicals react in certain ways and these reactions can be observed and quantified? Absurd indeed.But that is the only inference available since mindless reactions would not mimic a planning organizing mind. What you are asking us to believe is simply too fantastic to accept from a logical perspective. Seems more like wishful thinking and an appeal to magic.
They are definitely not magic. Never claimed that process itself involved is. Magic kicks in if we attribute abilities to chemicals which only a mind can arrange in sequences that indicate a purpose. Only then does it become an appeal to magic. Claiming that mindlessness codes DNA and creates a brain is clearly an appeal to magic as much as claiming that mindlessness can program a computer via coded information.Argument from incredulity.
We are appealing to observed natural mechanisms. Notably, we are pointing to the expected patterns of divergence for introns and exons due to the observed natural processes of vertical inheritance, random mutations, and and selection. Which of these are you saying is magic?
What you should be asking is why a designer would precisely mimic these natural processes.
Please answer post 44.They are definitely not magic. Never claimed that process itself involved is. Magic kicks in if we attribute abilities to chemicals which only a mind can arrange in sequences that indicate a purpose. Only then does it become an appeal to magic. Claiming that mindlessness codes DNA and creates a brain is clearly an appeal to magic as much as claiming that mindlessness can program a computer via coded information.
Mindless chemicals code information? There you go again! Got to give you credit though. That's one heck of a fantasy!A coded message certainly would. Just coded information, probably not.
I guess you've never heard of Claude Shannon.Mindless chemicals code information? There you go again! Got to give you credit though. That's one heck of a fantasy!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?