Also: “The work revealed that the last surviving kākāpō population, isolated on an island off New Zealand for the last 10,000 years, has somehow purged deleterious mutations, despite the species’ low genetic diversity.” Hmm.
‘Junk DNA’
Rob Sheldon on Larry Moran and the junk DNA
Sheldon: If I recall correctly, the original definition of “functional” was whether that piece of DNA was turned into a protein, which depended on finding a “start” and a “stop” codon. The Human Genome Project reported that some 90% of the human genome didn’t have these “start/stop” features, and hence was “non-functional”. [“Non-functional” underwent considerable revision later.]
Larry Moran to write new book: Claims genome is 90% junk
If he wants to pick a fight with ENCODE, grab a seat.
Discovery of useful “junk DNA” “has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five…
At Nature: “Likewise, the number of publications about such elements also grew in the period covered by our data set. For example, there are thousands of papers on non-coding RNAs, which regulate gene expression.” We also learn the possible origin of the term “junk DNA.”
Did beliefs about junk DNA hinder the Human Genome Project?
But wasn’t a vast pile of junk DNA supposed to be one of the Great Proofs of Darwinism in the DNA? Funny, no one suggests that the constant diminution of the pile is evidence against the theory that its presence was supposed to be evidence for. Now why do you think that might be?
The human genome at 20. We have some answers but way more questions now.
At The Conversation on junk DNA: Bewilderingly, scientists found that the non-coding genome was actually responsible for the majority of information that impacted disease development in humans. Such findings have made it clear that the non-coding genome is actually far more important than previously thought.
Researchers: “Junk DNA” regulates circadian rhythms
Researchers: Formerly thought to be “junk DNA,” miRNAs are now known to affect gene expression by preventing messenger RNA from making proteins.
Letter from Michael Behe that a chemistry journal wouldn’t publish in 2004
Behe: The authors imply that since no reason is known why, say, DNA should be synthesized discontinuously on the lagging strand, then no good reason in fact exists. Yet not long ago the same sort of fallacious argument from ignorance was made concerning “junk DNA.”
Not what Darwinists expected: Critical genes evolve in “genome’s junkyard”
They said it. We didn’t. “Blowing the dogma out of the water”
We are encouraged to celebrate ENCODE III and the demise of junk DNA
Helder: The ENCODE III teams did not retreat in the face of pressure from doctrinaire evolutionists. They continued to make their observations and to let the evidence speak for itself.
ENCODE hints at MORE functional DNA
ENCODE Encyclopaedia: It has become apparent that, by virtually any metric, elements that govern transcription, chromatin organization, splicing, and other key aspects of genome control and function are densely encoded in many parts of the human genome sequence.
“Junk DNA” can really matter
If there were a prize for the Darwinian idea that has proven least helpful to Darwinism, would junk DNA be the winner?
ENCODE produces a genomic encyclopedia
Readers may also remember ENCODE from a flap a few years ago when Darwinian Dan Graur announced that the ENCODE team had to be wrong in saying that there wasn’t nearly as much junk DNA as had been thought. After a while, Graur just wasn’t doing politeness any more.
Larry Moran’s uphill battle convincing scientists that most of the genome is junk DNA
Moran: This is a good example of what we are up against when we try to convince scientists that most of our genome is junk.
“Useless junk” transposons now drive speciation?
Why was it so easy to assume they were useless junk? And now suddenly they’re Mr. Fixit?