What “Was Once Thought to Be Unnecessary ‘Junk’ DNA”

[Anguspure]

Could hardly have put it better myself. This article from David Klinghoffer serves as a reminder of the sort of dogmatic and evidence free just so stories that the Materialist crowd like to entertain in the name of thier faith:

"This is about as vital and intimate a reminder as there could be that “junk” DNA isn’t the garbage that Darwinists once uniformly insisted it is.

The supposed junk is the 98 percent of human DNA that does not code for proteins, formerly dismissed as functionless debris left over from random, unguided evolutionary processes. Developing ovaries if you’re a female or testes if you’re a male turns out to be a valuable service of some non-coding DNA — in mice, but likely in men, and women, too.....

.....The “junk” view, once a prized piece of evidence for neo-Darwinian theory, is thus reduced to the province of the benighted, the reactionaries who “still refer to [it] as ‘junk’ DNA,” after science has already passed them by. Having volumes of garbage lying around was a logical prediction of Darwinism that is in the process of being falsified. Now, it seems likely that non-coding regions have not trivial but “drastic effects.”

This reversal helps explain why evolutionists like Richard Dawkins have radically revised a key claim. Dawkins himself, in the space of three years, went from assuring us that junk validates Darwinism to claiming that function is what it expects. What a theory! It can never, ever be wrong."

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/a...-was-once-thought-to-be-unnecessary-junk-dna/

 

[sfs]

Could hardly have put it better myself. This article from David Klinghoffer serves as a reminder of the sort of dogmatic and evidence free just so stories that the Materialist crowd like to entertain in the name of thier faith:

"This is about as vital and intimate a reminder as there could be that “junk” DNA isn’t the garbage that Darwinists once uniformly insisted it is.

The supposed junk is the 98 percent of human DNA that does not code for proteins, formerly dismissed as functionless debris left over from random, unguided evolutionary processes. Developing ovaries if you’re a female or testes if you’re a male turns out to be a valuable service of some non-coding DNA — in mice, but likely in men, and women, too.....

.....The “junk” view, once a prized piece of evidence for neo-Darwinian theory, is thus reduced to the province of the benighted, the reactionaries who “still refer to [it] as ‘junk’ DNA,” after science has already passed them by. Having volumes of garbage lying around was a logical prediction of Darwinism that is in the process of being falsified. Now, it seems likely that non-coding regions have not trivial but “drastic effects.”

Pretty much everything you quote displays thorough-going confusion about junk DNA. Biologists have never dismissed all noncoding DNA as junk; they've known about functional noncoding DNA for as long as they've had the concept of junk DNA. Junk DNA was also never evidence for Darwinian evolution, since it isn't a prediction of that theory. If anything Darwinian evolution would expect an absence of junk, not its presence. Finally, the fraction of the genome that's thought to be functional hasn't changed much over decades. It was originally guesstimated at 20%, was shown to be at least 6% with the sequencing of the mouse genome, and is now estimated to be in the range of 8% - 12%.

 

[Jimmy D]

Could hardly have put it better myself. This article from David Klinghoffer serves as a reminder of the sort of dogmatic and evidence free just so stories that the Materialist crowd like to entertain in the name of thier faith:

"This is about as vital and intimate a reminder as there could be that “junk” DNA isn’t the garbage that Darwinists once uniformly insisted it is.

The supposed junk is the 98 percent of human DNA that does not code for proteins, formerly dismissed as functionless debris left over from random, unguided evolutionary processes. Developing ovaries if you’re a female or testes if you’re a male turns out to be a valuable service of some non-coding DNA — in mice, but likely in men, and women, too.....

.....The “junk” view, once a prized piece of evidence for neo-Darwinian theory, is thus reduced to the province of the benighted, the reactionaries who “still refer to [it] as ‘junk’ DNA,” after science has already passed them by. Having volumes of garbage lying around was a logical prediction of Darwinism that is in the process of being falsified. Now, it seems likely that non-coding regions have not trivial but “drastic effects.”

This reversal helps explain why evolutionists like Richard Dawkins have radically revised a key claim. Dawkins himself, in the space of three years, went from assuring us that junk validates Darwinism to claiming that function is what it expects. What a theory! It can never, ever be wrong."

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/a...-was-once-thought-to-be-unnecessary-junk-dna/

Frankly I’m disappointed. Has Jonathon Wells got nothing to say on the subject?

Do you have an affiliation with evolutionnews.org?

 

[tas8831]

Could hardly have put it better myself. This article from David Klinghoffer

Cool - Klinghoffer the angry journalist/propagandist rants some more. What strikes me the most about this essay from ENV - and every other essay/article/'research' paper from IDcreationists, for that matter - is that we never, ever, see headlines like "God power demonstrated" or "fossils of human riding a stegosaurus discovered" or "mechanism for intra-Kind variation demonstrated".

What we only ever see are these breathless rants about how 'evolution said this, but that is wrong!'-type nonsense.

Always.

Mice do fine without 'junk DNA'

 

[tas8831]

Frankly I’m disappointed. Has Jonathon Wells got nothing to say on the subject?

Do you have an affiliation with evolutionnews.org?

I'm thinking the unwarranted and, frankly, a little creepy, fawning over Axe says much.

 

[SkyWriting]

If anything Darwinian evolution would expect an absence of junk, not its presence.

So you agree it fails then. Good you admit defeat.

 

[Speedwell]

So you agree it fails then. Good you admit defeat.

OK, you win. What happens next?

 

[sfs]

So you agree it fails then. Good you admit defeat.

So you agree that this entire line of argument is a load of hooey. Good that you admit that.

 

[Ophiolite]

OK, you win. What happens next?

The sky will darken, the seas will rise in tempestuous fury, the heavens will open, pouring cascades of water upon the Earth, wild animals will flee to shelter, birds will cower in hedgerows, powerful winds will sweep across the land and the air will be rent by the crash of thunder and blinding flashes of lightning. As a result today's cricket at Lord's has been cancelled.

 

[sfs]

So you agree it fails then. Good you admit defeat.

By the way, in case anyone is actually interested, the presence of large amounts of junk
DNA does indeed falsify a kind of strict Darwinian evolutionary theory, which treated essentially all genetic variation as being under positive or negative selection. That theory was pretty much abandoned, at least as universally true, in the 1960s, with the advent of the Neutral Theory of Kimura.

 

[SkyWriting]

Pretty much everything you quote displays thorough-going confusion about junk DNA. Biologists have never dismissed all noncoding DNA as junk; they've known about functional noncoding DNA for as long as they've had the concept of junk DNA. Junk DNA was also never evidence for Darwinian evolution, since it isn't a prediction of that theory. If anything Darwinian evolution would expect an absence of junk, not its presence. Finally, the fraction of the genome that's thought to be functional hasn't changed much over decades. It was originally guesstimated at 20%, was shown to be at least 6% with the sequencing of the mouse genome, and is now estimated to be in the range of 8% - 12%.

I predict that 100% of DNA will be found to perform it's intended function.
Though that function is not yet recognised.

 

[tas8831]

I predict that 100% of DNA will be found to perform it's intended function.
Though that function is not yet recognised.

Weird then that it differs in amount from person to person ...

Then of course, there is this:

Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.
Nóbrega MA1, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM.
Author information
Abstract
The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially 'disposable DNA' in the genomes of mammals.

 

[HitchSlap]

Could hardly have put it better myself. This article from David Klinghoffer serves as a reminder of the sort of dogmatic and evidence free just so stories that the Materialist crowd like to entertain in the name of thier faith:

"This is about as vital and intimate a reminder as there could be that “junk” DNA isn’t the garbage that Darwinists once uniformly insisted it is.

The supposed junk is the 98 percent of human DNA that does not code for proteins, formerly dismissed as functionless debris left over from random, unguided evolutionary processes. Developing ovaries if you’re a female or testes if you’re a male turns out to be a valuable service of some non-coding DNA — in mice, but likely in men, and women, too.....

.....The “junk” view, once a prized piece of evidence for neo-Darwinian theory, is thus reduced to the province of the benighted, the reactionaries who “still refer to [it] as ‘junk’ DNA,” after science has already passed them by. Having volumes of garbage lying around was a logical prediction of Darwinism that is in the process of being falsified. Now, it seems likely that non-coding regions have not trivial but “drastic effects.”

This reversal helps explain why evolutionists like Richard Dawkins have radically revised a key claim. Dawkins himself, in the space of three years, went from assuring us that junk validates Darwinism to claiming that function is what it expects. What a theory! It can never, ever be wrong."

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/a...-was-once-thought-to-be-unnecessary-junk-dna/

I literally don't believe one thing you've written here.

 

[HitchSlap]

I predict that 100% of DNA will be found to perform it's intended function.
Though that function is not yet recognised.

Except the gulo gene, it doesn't function at 100% as "it's intended function".

 

[SkyWriting]

Except the gulo gene, it doesn't function at 100% as "it's intended function".

I'm assuming that God has every electron and it's path planned and under His control.
I'm also assuming that man cannot fully know what God's future plans are.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm assuming that God has every electron and it's path planned and under His control.
I'm also assuming that man cannot fully know what God's future plans are.

Of course he does.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You evolutionists are so full of it. I spent years arguing against junk DNA against the very evolutionists you claim never said that. You people cant even keep your stories straight from one year to the next. Just a pathetic attempt at double-talk... I can see this post is going nowhere since none of you can even be the least bit honest about it.

 

[pitabread]

Except the gulo gene, it doesn't function at 100% as "it's intended function".

Maybe the intended function is to have no intended function.

The creator works in mysterious ways...

 

[HitchSlap]

Maybe the intended function is to have no intended function.

The creator works in mysterious ways...

 

[Occams Barber]

The sky will darken, the seas will rise in tempestuous fury, the heavens will open, pouring cascades of water upon the Earth, wild animals will flee to shelter, birds will cower in hedgerows, powerful winds will sweep across the land and the air will be rent by the crash of thunder and blinding flashes of lightning. As a result today's cricket at Lord's has been cancelled.

As an Australian I can only be grateful to God.
OB