'Junk DNA' Intelligent Design News

All four segs of Richard Sternberg on supposed “junk DNA”

Spread the love

audio, plus favourite Uncommon Descent moments (text, below)

Richard Sternberg

Part 4

Part 1

Part 2 5:30 minute mark: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”

Part 3

Also: Some “junk DNA” moments from Uncommon Descent:

Junk DNA: Only 20%? All but 8.2%?

ENCODE adds 1600 data sets

One earlier finding, that there was not much junk DNA in the human genome (80% functional), provoked angry responses from some of Darwin’s followers, who accused it of being an “evolution-free gospel”, though the ENCODE researchers were not motivated by a desire to defend or oppose evolution. (Mega-rant here.) The researchers responded, pointing out that “However, the article by Graur et al. contains assumptions and statements that are questionable.

But the project ploughs ahead. According to The Scientist :

“Junk DNA”’s defender doesn’t “do politeness”?

Wells: Darwinism, science, and “junk DNA”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Phillip Cunningham

3 Replies to “All four segs of Richard Sternberg on supposed “junk DNA”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Protracted Unrest Between ENCODE Researchers and Junk-DNA Advocates Goes On – November 26, 2014
    Excerpt: It’s not exactly Fergusson, Mo., but the battle between ENCODE researchers and junk-DNA holdouts goes on.,,,
    ,,,”Evolutionary conservation of primary sequence is typically considered synonymous with conserved function, but this finding suggests that this concept should be reinterpreted, because insertions of retrotransposon elements in new genomic regions are not conserved between species.”
    In short, the Mouse ENCODE group takes direct aim at the arguments of Dan Graur and the other junk-DNA faithful, who say that everything evolution did not conserve is junk.,,,
    ,,,much of what Darwinian evolutionists had dismissed as junk appears functional. Non-coding regions of the mouse genome are transcribed, and appear to function in previously unimagined ways, such as regulation of gene expression, chromosomal stability, and maintenance of species identity. Carninci offers further thoughts:
    ,,,”we should rethink the relationship between genomic function and evolutionary conservation. Regulatory regions and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are not subject to the evolutionary constraints of protein-coding genes, which may help to explain the sequence drifts reported in these papers. However, it is striking that transcription-factor networks are conserved despite low conservation of their binding positions in the genome.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91501.html

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    bornagain77

    Good comments, as usual. Thank you.
    They ain’t seen nothing yet. They’re barking up the wrong tree.

    🙂

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    part 5 – podcast – Richard Sternberg – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 5
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-5/

Leave a Reply