Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

‘Junk DNA’

Christian Darwinists talk around the slam-dunk “junk” DNA – Casy Luskin dissects

Whatever your theology, notice the significance of the fact that self-identified Christians were shown to be wrong because they made a prediction against God’s design in nature. It’s one thing to be wrong. It’s another to be wrong for discreditable reasons.

Here at Evolution News & Views (June 1, 2011), Casey Luskin reviews Giberson and Collins’ The Language of Science and Faith, a book outlining Christian Darwinism, BioLogos-style. He focuses here on the Christian Darwinist contention that non-coding (“junk”) DNA shows that God didn’t design humans: Read More ›

At least Forbes.com’s John Farrell, while trashing Jonathan Wells’ “junk DNA” book, doesn’t threaten to actually read it.

The Myth of Junk DNAHe sniffs that he might, in the end, review it, as time permits. One hopes he’ll read it first. Some readers of reviews like that sort of thing, and there is simply no accounting for tastes.

PZ Myers, however, has threatened to read the book.

Farrell (“Jonathan Wells’s “The Myth … of the Myth of Junk DNA,” May. 20 2011) claims that the idea that Darwinists ever thought that stuff was junk is itself a “myth”:

T. Ryan Gregory at Genomicron has tirelessly pointed out the problems with the myth argument over the past few years. He cites a number of articles from the journals of the time to show that scientists never dismissed junk DNA in the literature.

Oh? Indeed. But does Gregory cite the ones where they actually did dismiss it explicitly because it was the very junk that Darwinism predicted?

Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin provides the missing citations in the Forbes combox, suggesting that it sounds as though Farrell has not read the book. Read More ›

All junk, no junk, who’ll give a buck for junk – thoughts on junk DNA

It looks like Francis Collins’ famed “junk DNA” – that proves Darwinism – is not junk after all. And that an ID theorist predicted we would find that. Of course, because Darwinism must be correct, a fact can only confirm it, never disconfirm it.  So it makes no difference that the Darwinists were wrong and an ID guy was right. Watch the spin, but not so close you get dizzy. Meanwhile, a question arises: If design is real, must all DNA be functional? I don’t see why that should necessarily be so. A designed system may accumulate junk. A well-designed system accumulates much less junk. So if design is real, we should see a system with only a small amount Read More ›

Darwinist response to Wells’ junk DNA book: PZ Myers threatens to read it

The Myth of Junk DNAAs David Klinghoffer puts it at ENV:

Over the weekend, Jonathan Wells’s The Myth of Junk DNA broke into the top five on Amazon’s list of books dealing with genetics — a list normally dominated at its pinnacle by various editions of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Not bad, Jonathan.The juxtaposition with Dawkins’ Selfish Gene is appropriate, notwithstanding the demurrals of biochemist Larry Moran et al. Dawkins and other Darwinists, such as Jerry Coyne, have indeed posited that neo-Darwinian theory predicts that swaths of the genome will turn out to be functionless junk. The Junk DNA argument has been a pillar of the Darwin Lobby’s efforts to seduce public opinion and influence public policy. Professor Moran wants to imagine that Dawkins never held that neo-Darwinism predicts junk DNA. But that’s not how other Darwinists see it. (Compare, for example, Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, page 316.)

So far, with none of them having actually read the book (though P.Z. Myers threatens to do so), the Darwin apologists’ response to The Myth of Junk DNA has followed along four lines of defense. Read More ›

The ballad of junk DNA

An unknown poet’s riff on “junk DNA”, arrived by post at the top secret UD bunker in an undisclosed, unimaginable location:

(Would go well to tune of “Way Up on Old Smoky” – here. Try it! )

On top of our genome
All covered with cash,
I see BioLogos
And they’re talkin’ trash. Read More ›

If you want to argue for Darwin’s god, the worst place to begin is …

So junk DNA turns out to be “junque” DNA? You know the scenario – it was junk to the guy cleaning out his attic, but the dealer he sold it to for $3.00 got $10K from a collector. And all legal too. A perfect snapshot of the theistic evolutionist.

Over at ENV, Casey Luskin reflects on how Francis Collin’s slam dunk arguement for Darwinism (junk DNA) is “pushed Into Increasingly Small Gaps in Scientific Knowledge” (May 2, 2011), observing: Read More ›

The ID guys vs. the Darwinists on junk DNA

 

Yesterday, original Darwinist assumptions about “junk DNA” were offered; today, again courtesy Donald Johnson’s Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability LITE: A Call to Scientific Integrity. Now, let’s see what the ID guys had to say about it (p. 57):

“Junk DNA” has been classified as a misnomer by ID proponents as early as 1986 [Den86], since “Junk DNA and directed evolution are in the end incompatible concepts” [Den98] The journal Science refused to print a 1994 letter that pro-ID scientist Forrest Mims wrote warning about assuming that “junk DNA” was useless [Mim94*]*9. Rejected Publications

They’ve been saying it ever since, popular or otherwise. Read More ›

While we wait for Jonathan Wells’ “junk DNA” book … the Darwin show’s all-star cast has tackled the subject fearlessly

Donald Johnson, a scientist who checked out of Darwinism, had a look at the junk DNA file in Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability LITE: A Call to Scientific Integrity (2009), p. 56:

Dawkins popularized the idea that any DNA not actively trying to get to the next generation would slowly decay away through mutation and that genes are the basis of evolutionary selection. [Daw76] Sagan writes concerning junk DNA “some, maybe even most, of the genetic instructions must be redundancies, stutters, and untranscribable nonsense. Again we glimpse deep imperfections at the heart of life.” Non-coding sections of DNA were seen as the result of mutations that haven’t yet resulted in formation of useful genes so that they would provide a selective advantage. This theme was echoed in authoritative textbooks also: “Introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk”. “Much repetitive DNA serves no useful purpose whatever for its host. Rather, it is selfish or junk DNA, , a molecular parasite that, over many generations, has disseminated itself throughout the genome… ” Read More ›

Free download of Johns Hopkins medic’s book on “jumping genes”

Mobile DNA, Finding Treasure in Junk, by Haig H. Kazazian is available free for download at Barnes and Noble:

In Mobile DNA, leading geneticist Haig Kazazian thoroughly reviews our current understanding of the substantial role mobile genetic elements play in genome and organism evolution and function. He offers an accessible intellectual history of mobile DNA, rich and insightful perspectives on how investigators ask and answer research questions, and his predictions about future developments and research directions for this active field. Read More ›

Jonathan Wells on his book, The Myth of Junk DNA – yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such

 


Jonathan Wells

Jonathan Wells will publish The Myth of Junk DNA early in May, and offers answers to some questions posed by Denyse O’Leary:

So, for those who dropped science after Grade Ten, what is junk/non-coding DNA?

“Non-coding” in this context means “non-protein-coding.” An important function of our DNA is to specific the sequences of      subunits (amino acids) in the proteins that (along with other types of molecules) make up our bodies. When molecular  biologists discovered in the 1970s that about 98% of our DNA does not code for proteins, some biologists called non-protein-  coding DNA “junk.”

Why was it called “junk” in the first place? And why does all this remind me of one of those auction program episodes where  someone is storing leftover carpet nails in what turns out to be a Ming dynasty vase? My mom loves those.

According to Charles Darwin’s theory, all living things are descendants of common ancestors that have been modified solely  by unguided natural processes that include variation and selection. In the modern version of his theory—neo-Darwinism— genes control embryo development, variations are due to differences in genes, and new variations originate in genetic mutations. In the 1950s, neo-Darwinists equated genes with DNA sequences (Francis Crick called DNA “the secret of life”) and assumed that their biological significance lay in the proteins they encoded. The 98% of our DNA that does not code for proteins was attributed to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution.

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.” (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)

Since the 1980s, however, and especially after completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, biologists have discovered many functions for non-protein-coding DNA. If the Ming vase is a living cell and the leftover carpet nails are “junk DNA,” it turns out that the nails are not only made of gold, but they also make an essential contribution to the beauty of the vase.

Interestingly, in the “nail dump is Ming vase” story, no one insists that nobody ever thought it was just another piece of junk. They almost always say, “Yes, we thought so but had no idea …”  So what’s behind the failure to admit an error in this case?  Read More ›

Hello, World: Toronto’s evolution stalwart and textbook writer Larry Moran is NOT a Darwinist

Here, University of Toronto’s Larry Moran, blogger at Sandwalk (named after Darwin’s garden path) and famed (okay, okay, reputable) textbook author, commented at UncommonDescent on this story about Jonathan Wells’ new book on the junk DNA myth, complaining, 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. Moran calls himself a pluralist. For the record, he said, 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. Yes, as Read More ›

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

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: Read More ›

Francis Collins, junk DNA, God, and whatever

JonathanM recently noted that Francis Collins appears to have changed his mind on junk DNA in his new book, The Language of Life , from what he said in The Language of God. I looked up what Francis Collins had to say re junk DNA in The Language of God, in his own right, and here it is: Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process.” That is exactly what is observed.” (pp. Read More ›