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… ”
About ten years ago (and restated in 2004) Dawkins wrote “there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. (p. 56)
Legacy mainstream media: File under: Rube addicted to tent-shakin’ revivals holds forth on the Woyd o’ Gud.
Others: File under: Darwinist prediction proved false (again).