'Junk DNA' Intelligent Design

Ah, A real-world term for former “junk DNA”

Spread the love

And the winner is “genomic dark matter”:

“Most DNA in the human genome still has unknown functions and is referred to as “genomic dark matter.” Recent work has centered on uncovering key roles for this DNA, which is mainly derived from transposable elements (TEs) that were once mobile and invaded our genome. TEs are now being unveiled to serve not only as gene regulatory elements, but also as self-derived nucleic acids that can be sensed by the human innate immune system to induce anti-viral type I interferons. Assigning function to the dark matter of our genome is a cutting-edge area of research, yet a major caveat in this field is that this enigmatic DNA often lies within unresolved parts of the genome. Genome gaps encompass satellite repeat arrays, ribosomal gene clusters, and regions of segmental duplications that represent an unexplored dimension of human population variation, impacting health and disease. With their highly repetitive nature, unresolved regions are a black box in terms of their sequence and activity. Now, with ultra-long Oxford Nanopore sequencing, the T2T [telomere-to-temlomere] Consortium has been able to resolve gaps even across centromeres that are hotbeds of tandem satellite arrays. In the new T2T complete reference from CHM13hTERT cells with a normal karyotype, repetitive elements are found to comprise more of the genome than previously thought, with satellite and simple repeats particularly underestimated. But do we have evidence that dark matter can contribute to disease variation? Yes, indeed, several recent studies have shed light on how structural variation in TEs impacts on gene expression differences in disease settings. Our own unpublished recent work pinpoints satellite repeat arrays as platforms for the regulation of normal developmental fate transitions. The initial T2T data and follow-up complete assemblies of more genomes will allow us and others to investigate how previously unresolved dark matter DNA can vary in the human population. Studies assessing how repetitive RNA shapes 3D genome organization will also benefit from the resolved T2T reference sequences. Future breakthroughs building on the T2T initiative will ultimately lead to innovative therapies for diverse diseases but will also allow us to understand more broadly how genomes evolve, and how tissue-specific gene expression programs are controlled.”

Implications of the first complete human genome assembly Genome Res. Published in Advance March 31, 2022, doi:10.1101/gr.276723.122

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read:

New use for “junk DNA”: Controlling fear Okay, why, until recently, did researchers think that “the majority of our genes were made up of junk DNA, which essentially didn’t do anything”? Because that vast sunken library of dead information (sheer randomness and waste) was a slam dunk for Darwinism, as politically powerful theistic evolutionist Francis Collins was quick to point out in The Language of God. (2007). If that’s not true, an argument for Darwinism is disconfirmed.

and

A new, useful, description for (former) junk DNA… ? “the large proportion of our genome that does not instruct our cells to form proteins” The phrase is a bit longish, of course, but concision is usually a product of usage. It’s better than “non-coding DNA” because it’s more specific and limited as a privative. That is, there is a specific thing that that vast mass of DNA does not do. The longish phrase does not come with the implication that it doesn’t do anything.

10 Replies to “Ah, A real-world term for former “junk DNA”

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    The analogy is backwards. The ‘junky’ parts of the genome exist. They have always been observed, measured, and photographed. Their FUNCTION was officially unknown and unknowable. “Dark matter” is a fictional ENTITY that some mathematicians throw into their equations to explain FUNCTIONS that don’t fit their pet theories.

    One is a real thing that we decided not to understand until recently. The other is a fraudulent non-thing that we fraudulently invent to fill in the gaps in our theology, which must remain constant regardless of all physical observations.

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    Who would have ever anticipated this discovery? Certainly not Darwinists!
    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-03-mutations-noncoding-dna-brain-als.html

    -Q

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    The point is that the ID paradigm presumes that biological structures and features that are not understood are functional rather than with the Darwinistic paradigm that they are random junk.

    This is a great example of the superiority of the pragmatism of ID with respect to the advancement of science.

    -Q

  4. 4
    Querius says:

    Isn’t it amazing that the apologists for Darwinism haven’t jumped all over this discovery to explain why “junk” DNA must be really just be junk because it’s the expected remnants of random evolutionary changes rather than something that has a design purpose.

    Plus, for evolution to work on DNA, a large chunk of repetitive and useless DNA sequences is yet another example of the brilliant predictive success of Darwinism in that it probably must be acting as an evolutionary scratch pad.

    Junk DNA is similar to the other past evolutionary change as, for example, vestigial organs such as the appendix, the thyroid gland, and over 100 other vestigial organs used as evidence in the famous Scopes trial that settled the science.

    In addition to junk DNA, we also find amazing vestiges of past evolutionary change in “living fossils,” which demonstrate how evolutionary stasis can be maintained when environmental pressures somehow musta stayed the same over millions of years!

    ID is once again vindicated and Darwinism is once again embarrassed.

    Any takers?

    -Q

  5. 5
    Querius says:

    Apparently, the apologists for Darwinism have gone into hiding for now since they only “follow the science” when science seems to support their mythologies.

    When science unfortunately fails them, do they simply “follow their heart” instead–their aspirations for deterministic materialism even when the evidence screams otherwise?

    -Q

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Still nothing from Darwin’s defenders? This is certainly illuminating.

    I guess “junk DNA” will remain junk until 100% of it is proven to have various functions. Then the tern “junk DNA” will be quietly retired as if nothing happened, but any new discoveries will be labeled “junk” or presumed to be a vestigial component of the “fact” of a 19th century speculation.

    -Q

  7. 7
    Querius says:

    Thus, when the paradigm presuming evolutionary junk is (once again) falsified in contrast to the presumption of design, Darwinists suddenly become too busy to take note of this discovery . . . or simply assert that the discovery has no effect on the Theory of Evolution: “Tis but a scratch,” claims the black knight: https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs?t=83

    -Q

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate

    Here are five things you should know if you want to engage in a legitimate scientific discussion about the amount of junk DNA in a genome.

    Genetic Load

    Every newborn human baby has about 100 mutations not found in either parent. If most of our genome contained functional sequence information, then this would be an intolerable genetic load. Only a small percentage of our genome can contain important sequence information suggesting strongly that most of our genome is junk.

    C-Value Paradox

    A comparison of genomes from closely related species shows that genome size can vary by a factor of ten or more. The only reasonable explanation is that most of the DNA in the larger genomes is junk.

    Modern Evolutionary Theory

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of population genetics. The modern understanding of evolution is perfectly consistent with the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in a genome.

    Pseudogenes and broken genes are junk

    More than half of our genomes consists of pseudogenes, including broken transposons and bits and pieces of transposons. A few may have secondarily acquired a function but, to a first approximation, broken genes are junk.

    Most of the genome is not conserved

    Most of the DNA sequences in large genomes is not conserved. These sequences diverge at a rate consistent with fixation of neutral alleles by random genetic drift. This strongly suggests that it does not have a function although one can’t rule out some unknown function that doesn’t depend on sequence.

    If you want to argue against junk DNA then you need to refute or rationalize all five of these observations.

    Posted by Laurence A. Moran at Thursday, July 04, 2013

  9. 9
    EDTA says:

    >Every newborn human baby has about 100 mutations not found in either parent. If most of our genome contained functional sequence information, then this would be an intolerable genetic load.

    It would be important to know if these mutations are in protein-coding areas or not. It would also be important to know whether they tend to occur in the same general area(s) in most people. If they occur, for instance in regions that hold ERV information about past viruses experienced by the species, then mutations there might even be helpful to the organism.

    >C-Value Paradox. A comparison of genomes from closely related species shows that genome size can vary by a factor of ten or more. The only reasonable explanation is that most of the DNA in the larger genomes is junk.

    Or that the larger genomes have more information that isn’t expressed unless the organism is under some kind of environmental stress, and has encoded means of adapting to that. It’s too early to say that all that DNA is junk. It just may be the case that ones with smaller genomes have lost more DNA along the way.

    >The modern understanding of evolution is perfectly consistent with the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in a genome.

    But that doesn’t mean evolution is the explanation. It can be consistent without being the case.

    >Most of the genome is not conserved

    Yes, and organisms can lose “unconserved” DNA and still reproduce. But studies cited here at UD have shown that knockout research for instance misses cases where part of the genome is not expressed unless/until the organism is under some sort of environmental stress. Then it comes to light that the “junk” actually does benefit the organism.

    Are you sure Moran’s points here are up-to-date?

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    EDTA and Seversky,

    Every newborn human baby has about 100 mutations not found in either parent. If most of our genome contained functional sequence information, then this would be an intolerable genetic load. Only a small percentage of our genome can contain important sequence information suggesting strongly that most of our genome is junk.

    Haha! This is an absurd argument. It’s hard to believe that Moran somehow got a PhD with that kind of reasoning.

    Notice that if our genome was twice the size, we would have about 200 mutations every new generation, but with half, we would only have 50 mutations per generation. “Junk DNA” is not some sort of magical magnet for mutations. They occur throughout our genome*.

    For example, it’s estimated that only about 1% of our DNA consists of protein-coding genes. That would indicate that 99 mutations occur in “junk DNA” and perhaps 1 mutation in protein-coding DNA.

    If the “junk DNA” were doubled in our genome, our genome wouldn’t be any safer from mutation. We would see 200 mutations per generation but still only 1 mutation to the now 1/2% protein-coding DNA.

    -Q

    * Recent research indicates that there are some genes that seem to mutate more easily than others, so mutations aren’t completely uniform throughout our genome.

Leave a Reply