Question about "junk" DNA.

[philadiddle]

Before anyone else jumps in, I'd like to get 1 or 2 responses from YECs on this.

About 98.5% of our DNA appears to have no function.

The human genome is much more gene-sparse than was initially predicted at the outset of the Human Genome Project, with only about 1.5% of the total length serving as protein-coding exons, with the rest of the genome comprised by introns or so-called junk

Although some may have functions we are unaware of, it's safe to say that most of it is extra information from copying errors or what have you.

My question is this, since Adam and Eve were made perfect, did they have extra bits of useless DNA in them already? If so, why did God put it there?

Or did the junk DNA appear on it's own after the fall, as humans started to reproduce?

 

[laptoppop]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/junk_dna.asp
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392305
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm

 

[sur]

Exons of DNA r Exported as proteins --- while ----

rest of it(introns) performs VERY important function of "REGULATING" :- replication/where to start/where to end etc etc.

 

[philadiddle]

laptoppop, could you summarize some of your links? I've been skimming AiGs link but it's a lot of information i'm familiar with, I just want to know what their conclusions are. Maybe I'm being lazy, but how much DNA does AiG think is actually unused DNA? A different amount then what the human genome projet has so far determined to be inactive?

 

[philadiddle]

Exons of DNA r Exported as proteins --- while ----

rest of it(introns) performs VERY important function of "REGULATING" :- replication/where to start/where to end etc etc.

This accounts for how much of the 98.5% of so called "junk" DNA?

 

[sfs]

This accounts for how much of the 98.5% of so called "junk" DNA?

About 4% of non-coding DNA is thought to be functional.

 

[Macca]

Before anyone else jumps in, I'd like to get 1 or 2 responses from YECs on this.

About 98.5% of our DNA appears to have no function.
Although some may have functions we are unaware of, it's safe to say that most of it is extra information from copying errors or what have you.

My question is this, since Adam and Eve were made perfect, did they have extra bits of useless DNA in them already? If so, why did God put it there?

Or did the junk DNA appear on it's own after the fall, as humans started to reproduce?

Answering your question with a question:
Does anyone have any idea how much DNA is no longer used since sin entered the world?
One area is talking to animals: Gen:3 1ff.
"The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the Lord God had made. One day he asked the woman, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?”
2 “Of course we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,” the woman replied. 3 “It’s only the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God said, ‘You must not eat it or even touch it; if you do, you will die.’ ”
4 “You won’t die!” the serpent replied to the woman. 5 “God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.”
Holy Bible : New Living Translation. . Ge 3:1-5
And how many other facilities have we lost as well?

 

[KerrMetric]

Does anyone have any idea how much DNA is no longer used since sin entered the world?

Well - there's no arguing with that one, is there? There is also no rationale for it either but what the heck.

 

[laptoppop]

"Junk DNA" seems to be following a similar curve to "vestigial organs" Little by little we learn more and more of God's glorious engineering. We still have a long way to go.

 

[Assyrian]

Birds seem to do well with a lot less than we have. I makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary pov. Junk build up because DNA is very good at replicating itself. At the same time mechanisms for removing excess junk are dangerous, removing coding DNA by mistake will probably be fatal. However a smaller genome equates to smaller lighter more efficient cells, for birds lighter is much much better so there is a serious advantage in a trimmed down genome.

But why would designer building from scratch give us such a huge amount of bloatware that birds seem not to need at all?