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.
‘Junk DNA’
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”.
Remember junk RNA? Cell division requires a balanced level of it
Researcher: These non-coding RNAs are once considered as “junk”. In recent years, however, researches have revealed vital roles of non-coding RNA, such as in gene regulation and maintaining chromosome structure
Protein turns jumping genes, once considered “junk DNA,” from “foes into friends”
What? It turns out it is not junk. It needs managing but it isn’t junk. “Our results reveal how a family of proteins that was long considered an oddity of nature, turns foes into friends,” says Didier Trono. And almost nothing the Darwinians told us is true.
RNA is no longer “worthless junk”; today’s revelations “unthinkable 20 years ago”
Rob Sheldon responds, “I think this is more than enough justification for the last 20 years of ID. Now can we get past the meme that ID isn’t science? That’s so 2005.” He is referring to the fact that the ID folk never thought it was junk. One reason the ID folk were supposed to be wrong was that junk DNA proved Darwinism.
More “junk DNA” that actually does something
The technical term is functional pseudogene and what it does in this case (creating sensitivity to pain) could be a mixed blessing, depending on your circumstances.
Are there “dark” neurons in the brain left over from a “Jurassic Park” past?
Notice that the neurons aren’t being called “junk neurons,” as in the exploded concept of vast libraries of “junk DNA.” Quite the contrary, they are given the somewhat glamorous cachet of “dark” neurons, as in “dark matter.” Perhaps something has been learned from the collapse of the concept of “junk DNA.”
Researchers: Male Y chromosome not a genetic wasteland after all
The Y chromosome has been notoriously difficult to sequence due to repetitive elements. Junk, right? Now, researchers from the University of Rochester have found a way to sequence a large portion of the Y chromosome in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster—the most that the Y chromosome has been assembled in fruit flies. The research, published Read More…
Noncoding (that is, “junk”) DNA helps cells avoid starvation
Some researchers wondered whether all that junk DNA supposedly left over from Darwinian evolution actually did something after all so they tested the idea: Patches of seemingly meaningless DNA dotted throughout the genome might actually have a function: helping cells to survive starvation. Two studies published in Nature on 16 January suggest that these stretches Read More…
Wouldn’t you know, jumping “junk DNA” can be lethal too
Researchers Nigel Goldenfeld and Thomas Kuhlman noticed that “half of the human genome is made up of retrotransposons [jumping genes, “junk DNA”], but bacteria hardly have them at all” and wondered what would happen if they just inserted some: “We thought a really simple thing to try was to just take one (retrotransposon) out of Read More…
Humans may have only 19,000 coding genes
And we are not sure which ones they are. From ScienceDaily: Research Centre (CNIO) reveals that up to 20% of genes classified as coding (those that produce the proteins that are the building blocks of all living things) may not be coding after all because they have characteristics that are typical of non-coding or pseudogenes Read More…