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:
Why can’t pan-selectionists (a nicer word than ignoramuses) understand that in additional to “transcriptional noise” there is “translational noise,” and that “low protein expression” does not mean “function.”https://t.co/KMgrzknpuM
— Dan Graur (@DanGraur) June 30, 2022
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.