Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New book: Junk DNA junked … in favour of what?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jonathan Wells’ book, The Myth of Junk DNA (Discovery, 2011), is now being advertised at Amazon:

According to the modern version of Darwin’s theory, DNA contains a program for embryo development that is passed down from generation to generation; the program is implemented by proteins encoded by the DNA, and accidental DNA mutations introduce changes in those proteins that natural selection then shapes into new species, organs and body plans. When scientists discovered forty years ago that about 98% of our DNA does not encode proteins, the non-protein-coding portion was labeled “junk” and attributed to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution.

Recent books by Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins and others have used this “junk DNA” as evidence for Darwinian evolution and evidence against intelligent design (since an intelligent designer would presumably not have filled our genome with so much garbage). But recent genome evidence shows that much of our non-protein-coding DNA performs essential biological functions.

The Myth of Junk DNA is written for a general audience by biologist Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution. Citing some of the abundant evidence from recent genome projects, the book shows that “junk DNA” is not science, but myth.

Junk DNA was one of those ideas that just had to be true. Genome mapper and NIH head Francis Collins saw it as a slam dunk for his beloved Darwinism in his first book, The Language of God, (“Darwin’s theory predicts … That is exactly what is observed”) but seems to have changed his tune in his second, The Language of Life.

I’ll be interviewing Wells on the book next week, but in the meantime, two questions occur to me: To what extent did Darwinism cause the myth to be retained longer than it otherwise would be? Given that Darwinists must now be in search of another guiding myth, any idea out there which one it will be?

Now, one prediction:

Darwinists who used to point to all the alleged junk in DNA, as Collins did, will resort – seeing anything they don’t like – to saying God wouldn’t have done it that way” implying that, unlike the rest of us, they are on familiar terms with God, and cold take over the desk themselves on his lunch break, with no interruption in service.

I thought Disney covered that one off in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

Comments
Ahhh Larry, do you need a hug? Poor baby. You stand at the edge of a crater created by modern biology and whine about the confusion back at headquarters. Yes we all know you've had an bone with the adaptationist issue for a while - but to piss and moan about labels? It's like you've gone to the Darwinist shopping mall and are walking around in one of those t-shirts with the big arrow on it that says "I'm with stupid". Perhaps Denyse would be more sympathetic if you had made an effort to label ID correctly from time to time. For instance, its not helpful when you post threads on your blog entitled:
Denyse O'Leary Thinks Intelligent Design Creationism Is Winning!
I mean really Larry-Boy, do you really have grounds to complain?
I'm one of those people who use the term "Intelligent Design Creationism...Those who believe in Intelligent Design are characterized as IDiots—this is just a short-hand way of referring to them since "Intelligent Design Creationists" is too hard to type.
Upright BiPed
March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Denyse, you've promised in the past to stop using the term "Darwinism" to refer to all of evolution. What happened to that promise? In evolutionary biology, "Darwinism" refers to those who focus on adaptation as the almost exclusive mechanism of change. They are also called adapationists. Those Darwinists are the ones who OPPOSE the concept of junk DNA. Dawkins is a good example. So you've got it exactly backwards and you are misleading your readers. Darwinists oppose junk DNA. Pluralists and others who have a broader view of evolutionary biology are the ones who support the concept of junk DNA. I'm a pluralist who promotes the importance of random genetic drift and accidental evolution. That's perfectly consistent with junk DNA. I am not a Darwinist. Adaptationism (Darwinism) is NOT consistent with junk DNA. That's why Darwinists usually reject junk DNA. Larry Moran
March 20, 2011
March
03
Mar
20
20
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply