Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Breaking: Junk DNA IS now “rubbish” DNA


Yeah, the dumpster, not the Thrift.

Oh, and ID is wrong.

From key proponent of junk DNA, University of Houston’s (human genome is mostly junk) Dan Graur,


Abstract: Because genomes are products of natural processes rather than “intelligent design,” all genomes contain functional and nonfunctional parts. The fraction of the genome that has no biological function is called “rubbish DNA.” Rubbish DNA consists of “junk DNA,” i.e., the fraction of the genome on which selection does not operate, and “garbage DNA,” i.e., sequences that lower the fitness of the organism, but exist in the genome because purifying selection is neither omnipotent nor instantaneous. In this chapter, I (1) review the concepts of genomic function and functionlessness from an evolutionary perspective, (2) present a precise nomenclature of genomic function, (3) discuss the evidence for the existence of vast quantities of junk DNA within the human genome, (4) discuss the mutational mechanisms responsible for generating junk DNA, (5) spell out the necessary evolutionary conditions for maintaining junk DNA, (6) outline various methodologies for estimating the functional fraction within the genome, and (7) present a recent estimate for the functional fraction of our genome.


While evolutionary biologists and population geneticists have been comfortable with the concept of genomic functionlessness for more than half a century, classical geneticists and their descendants have continued to exist in an imaginary engineered world, in which each and every nucleotide in the genome is assumed to have a function and evolution counts for naught. Under this pre-Darwinian mindset, for instance, … More.

So, Prof, if some of the “rubbish DNA” turns out to have a function, does that make design in nature more plausible? Oh? Oh, I see … like the arrow of time, it only goes one way. Thanks for clarification.

See also: Blocking “junk DNA” can prevent stroke damage. (So it must be doing something, right?)

Junk DNA hires a PR firm


The Myth of Junk DNA

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Then there's "trash DNA" as in "one genome's trash is another genomes treasure!" You heard it here first! ;-) -Q Querius
Pav at #6, great quote. "As long as you're in charge of the “dictionary,” you’re never wrong about anything." jimmontg
Designed systems/processes always generate waste. It's a physical law isn't it? If rubbish were found on a distant planet, many people would be excited. ppolish
This is from the arXiv paper:
Like many words in the English language, “function” has numerous meanings. In biology, there are two main concepts of function: the “selected effect” and “causal role.” The selected-effect function, also referred to as the proper-biological function, is a historical concept. In other words, it explains the origin, the cause (etiology), and the subsequent evolution of the trait (Millikan 1989; Neander 1991).
I'm not going to read the paper, but, if someone has read it, I suspect that this quote is the main substance of his paper. Graur's strategic "move" here is this introduction of the "selected effect"= "historical concept". Here's how to translate Darwin-think: invent some mechanism by which errors and faults in Darwinian theory go into hiding. That is, create "verbal dark matter." Graur is saying this: "Well, we know evolution and NS work. And we know that the really important stuff happened this way. Unfortunately, though, since this happened a long time ago--i.e., it's "historical" and therefore beyond scrutiny ["verbal dark matter"]---when we test for "function" in the lab, we're not going to "find" this function. But it's what really matters. The "causal role" function, OTOH, can be tested for and found in the lab; but all this does is to throw you off the trail of what's truly important since, after all, what Dobzhansky said is truly in play: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Bottom-line: don't pay any attention to the "nonsense" function that ENCODE finds." By this game of words, Darwinists sweep their problems "under the rug." Everything goes into "hiding." It's not a "search for truth," but a "burying of the evidence." As long as your in charge of the "dictionary," you're never wrong about anything. This would all be laughable, if not so serious. PaV
By what reason does he say that "junk DNA is the fraction of the genome on which selection does not operate"? Is he saying that there are parts of DNA on which no change could be allowed? if DNA was designed, then that would be a prediction of ID, in the same manner an operating system of a computer have files on which no user could be allowed to change. UPbrazil
Larry Moran knows better what junk DNA is and where it should belong. He has done so, so many lab experiments on junk DNA and counting to 0 (zero)... at the moment only but he has some momentum going, so we all should sit back and listen to Larry teach us all about his delusions. It doesn't get better than that. J-Mac
Now here is something ironic: so many evolutionists appeal to authority on these matters. They claim their interlocutors' arguments are weak due to their lack of training and expertise in evolutionary biology. Yet here we have Dan mocking quite unsubtly so geneticists. Those who by definition, should understand the most about DNA and genes. To the geneticist, the origin of a given DNA sequence matters less than what it's function may or may not be. Whilst many evolutionary biologists have a genetic background and some are trained geneticists, their emphasis is focused on origins and organism relations of the said DNA sequences they are studying. Function is secondary and in fact irrelevant unless needed for their narrative. Furthermore, function is a problem when it doesn't fit the narrative. so really Dan should stick to his closed box mentality and let the experts in genetics continue to pursue real science with open minds rather than bias their observations with a cloud of false assumptions. Apparently though, he thinks he knows better than these experts! Dr JDD
Because genomes are products of natural processes rather than “intelligent design,” all genomes contain functional and nonfunctional parts. Now that's the sort of logic I can follow! Mung
Because it's not designed... Well how does Dan Graur know that? Andre

Leave a Reply