Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another paper on the uses of junk DNA — which means something else for Dan Graur to be grumpy about


A friend points us to a new open-access paper pointing to further examples of the expression of “pseudogenes” (junk DNA), contrary to theory.

Readers may recall evolutionary biologist Dan Graur who at one time was past any effort to “do politeness” any more about the ENCODE findings that implied that junk DNA is not nearly as prevalent as supposed. This should give him something to complain about. Whoops, it did:

Our friend notes, Graur will probably now want to say something like: just because the pseudo-pseudogene’s protein product is functional, doesn’t mean its function is important…

Note: Yes, many have favored the theory of junk DNA: Because that vast sunken library of dead information was a slam dunk for Darwinism, as politically powerful theistic evolutionist Francis Collins was quick to point out in The Language of God. (2007). To say nothing of atheist cultural icon Richard Dawkins here, Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne (here), and unidirectional skeptic Michael Shermer (here). Notice how that history is quietly being erased.

Otherwise, it would be necessary to acknowledge that what many regarded as a correct prediction from Darwinism is not true.

“… a reason for everything..”’ Yes. Very old wisdom. Meaning that a reason for it is the first place to look. Has endorsement in the bible., “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. Belfast
@@ AaronS1978 "It honestly makes way more sense that there’s a reason for everything" Yes, and it sounds much more rational and scientific as well! tjguy
It honestly makes way more sense that there’s a reason for everything AaronS1978
Uh oh. Looks like the expectation of Design wins against the expectation of Random Junk once again! -Q Querius

Leave a Reply