They said it. We didn’t. “Blowing the dogma out of the water”
‘Junk DNA’
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?
Yes, genes from nowhere ARE an “evolutionary problem.”
Glad we are talking about this… No need to believe us (though we did warn you). What’s this about “rampant” order in the genome? “Rampant” is a word we associate with disease; it’s not a word we commonly associate with “order.” On the other hand, an order that frustrates the outworkings of Darwinian evolution in favor of an orderly system that produces needed innovations must seem a lot like a disease to some. 😉
“Phantom genes” turn out to be useful
It’s amazing how little junk there turns out to be in our systems, given that Darwinians boast that masses of junk supports their theory. But, of course, lack of masses of junk will likewise supports the Darwinians’ theory: Lack of junk proves how easy it is for complex, specified order to arise from disorder and something to arise from nothing.
Nature Reviews Genetics article admits that junk DNA has been “prematurely dismissed”
The authors of the paper, of course, avoid pointing out that the presumption of uselessness was anchored in the comfortable fit between useless junk in the genome and the idea of unintelligent evolution. Never mind, Jonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA seems to be holding up well.
Predictions, predictions: ID predicts overlapping codes, Darwinism predicts “junk DNA”
The nested hierarchies we find in codes point to an intelligence behind nature.
At The Scientist: “Junk RNA” is top science news in 2019
A “completely unknown biology,” says a researcher. “There really is no framework in biology as we know it today that would explain how RNA and glycans could ever be in the same place at the same time”
Paper at Nature Reviews Genetics demands some respect for junk DNA
Remember how important pseudogenes (evolution’s huge library of useless junk) once were? By now, Darwin could paper his study with goodbye notes.
“Junk DNA” as a cause of cancer
Useless is not the same as harmful, unfortunately. But, if things turn out as the researchers say, they now know what to target.
Supposed junk DNA serves as microlens for condensing light
A new study, we are told,”turns our picture of the nucleus upside down”.