… and shows no signs of slowing.”
Yes, more from that commentary at Nature on the 20th anniversary of the Human Genome Project:
[I]t is now appreciated that the majority of functional sequences in the human genome do not encode proteins. Rather, elements such as long non-coding RNAs, promoters, enhancers and countless gene-regulatory motifs work together to bring the genome to life. Variation in these regions does not alter proteins, but it can perturb the networks governing protein expression
With the HGP draft in hand, the discovery of non-protein-coding elements exploded. So far, that growth has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five, and shows no signs of slowing. Likewise, the number of publications about such elements also grew in the period covered by our data set. For example, there are thousands of papers on non-coding RNAs, which regulate gene expression.
Alexander J. Gates, Deisy Morselli Gysi, Manolis Kellis & Albert-László Barabási, “A wealth of discovery built on the Human Genome Project — by the numbers” at Nature
To see how significant a change this is, consider a blast from the past:
[…The late] Dr. Susumu Ohno [1928 – 2000], writing in the Brookhaven Symposium on Biology in 1972 in the article “So Much ‘Junk DNA’ in our Genome” is credited with originating the term. As anyone can read below, he tried to (mistakenly) construct a scientific argument that the human genome can not sustain more than a very limited number of “genes” and argued for “the importance of doing nothing” for the rest. Though his misnomer was doubted from the outset (see the first question after his presentation calling his arguments “suspect”), the misnomer lived for a generation, in spite of ample evidence that it was false. The reason is, that “facts don’t kill theories, only theories that exceed obsolete dogma can kill old theories. “The Principle of Recursive Genome Function”, heretofore the only concise interpretation how directly amino-acid-coding regions (formerly called “genes”) work together with intronic and intergenic sequences, carrying much auxiliary information that is perused in fractal recursive iteration, only appeared in 2008. There may be other mathematical algorithmic theories for genome function explaining why and how “Junk DNA” is anything but “Junk” – this author will be pleased to list them – Pellionisz_at_JunkDNA.com
It’s a good thing for the Darwinians that they have always been able to afford top spin doctors via the tax dollars of people who are sceptical. It’ll be interesting to see what they come up with to front this one.
See also: Did beliefs about junk DNA hinder the Human Genome Project? But wasn’t a vast pile of junk DNA supposed to be one of the Great Proofs of Darwinism in the DNA? Funny, no one suggests that the constant diminution of the pile is evidence against the theory that its presence was supposed to be evidence for. Now why do you think that might be?
SemiOT: Some biologists are fully on board with a more epigenetic view of “species” as tribes that don’t get along, not as spontaneously generated entities. Good clear thinking in this piece.
https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2021/03/25/endangered-songbird-challenging-assumptions-about-evolution
As to the headline: “Discovery Of Useful “Junk DNA” “Has Outstripped The Discovery Of Protein-Coding Genes By A Factor Of Five”
And that headline is exactly the reason why this is a very good thread in which to reiterate what I stated last night on another thread, in regards to the Darwinian claim that the vast majority of non-protein-coding DNA must be junk.
When the results of ENCODE first came out in 2012, showing that the genome was not full of junk, the backlash from many evolutionists was hostile and fierce.
The primary reason why Dan Graur and Larry Moran, in particular, believed that the vast majority of DNA must be junk was because of the genetic load argument from population genetics.
So let’s look at the genetic load argument.
In laying this genetic load argument out, it is first important to note that the mathematics of population genetics has now falsified Natural Selection as being a major player in evolution.
And with Natural Selection being cast to the wayside by the mathematics of populations genetics as being a major player in evolution, Darwinists were forced, (via the consequences of Natural selection being tossed to the wayside), to believe that the vast majority of the genome was junk.
As Dr. Robert Carter explains, “Based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane5 and others, who showed that natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura6 developed the idea of “neutral evolution” (i.e. Kimura’s genetic load argument for the neutral theory), If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 were correct, then the majority of DNA must be non-functional.”,,,
“Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done.”
And here is Kimura’s genetic load argument for neutral theory,
In other words, Neutral theory, and the entire concept of junk DNA, was not developed because of any compelling empirical observation, but was actually developed because it was forced upon Darwinists by the mathematics of population genetics.
In plain English, neutral theory, and the entire concept of junk DNA, is actually the result of the theoretical failure of Darwinian evolution, specifically the theoretical failure of natural selection, within the mathematics of population genetics!
Well, without natural selection, exactly where does this leave Darwinists?
In the following article Larry Moran, (who denies even being a “Darwinist” anymore since he no longer believes Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution), quotes Austin Hughes who states, ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’
Thus, with Natural selection being tossed by the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and by empirical evidence I might add), as the supposed explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from population genetics as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing that the ‘wonderful design’ that we see pervasively throughout life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.
To call such a move on the part of Darwinists disingenuous would be a severe understatement.
Even Richard Dawkins himself finds the claim that chance alone, all by its lonesome, can explain the wonderful design we see in biology to be absolutely inconceivable.
In the following video Dawkins states that it “cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance.’
For crying out loud, the entire purpose of ‘Natural Selection’ in the first place was to supposedly “explain away” the overwhelming ‘appearance of design’ we see in life without any reference to a real Designer, i.e. without any reference to God.
And as Ernst Mayr himself explained, “The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer,,, Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.”
And as Francisco J. Ayala put it, natural selection supposedly accounted for “Design without designer”,
i.e. “The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained,, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.,,,”
And as Richard Dawkins himself staled in “The Blind Watchmaker”, “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
Thus contrary to what Darwinists may believe, with the tossing of Natural Selection to the wayside as the explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life, the explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ we see in life does not all of the sudden become, ‘Well, golly gee whiz, chance, all by its lonesome, must have done it all by itself”, as Darwinists are apparently intent on believing, but instead the explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life reverts back to what it originally was before Darwin came along with his theory of Natural Selection.
As Richard Sternberg explains, “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
Moreover, (since Darwinists have now appealed to ‘chance’, all by its lonesome, to supposedly explain the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life, minus any reference to natural selection), it is also worth pointing out that ‘chance’ is not the cause of anything but is only a place holder for ignorance.
Charles Darwin himself admitted as much.
The word ‘chance’, as it is used by Darwinists, is not an appeal to any known mathematical probability, or to any known cause in physics, but is, in reality, simply a placeholder for ignorance.
Yet Darwinists when they appeal to chance, act as if ‘chance’ is a cause unto itself.
As Robert C. Sproul explained: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’
Thus, for Darwinists, via neutral theory, to appeal to chance alone, (minus natural selection), as the supposed explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ that we see in life, it is, in reality, for them to appeal to their own ignorance of the known cause for that ‘wonderful design’.
If fact, when Darwinists use the word ‘chance’ it is more of less synonymous with the word ‘miracle.’
As Wolfgang Pauli himself explained, “they (Darwinists) use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’
The following article by Stephen Talbott is very good for illustrating just how synonymous the words ‘chance’ and ‘miracle’ actually are in the Darwinists appeal to ‘chance’ as a cause.
Talbott, playing off the old cartoon which had the punchline of, “Then a miracle occurs”. states, “I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
Moreover, the situation is actually much worse for Darwinists than it is for Christians. In the Christian’s appeal to a ‘miracle’ we are actually appealing to known cause to explain the information in life. i.e. We know for a fact that Intelligent minds can create information. Whereas on the other hand, in the Darwinist’s appeal to ‘chance’ to explain the information in life, the Darwinist is appealing to an unknown cause. That is to say, no one has EVER seen completely unguided material processes, (i.e. completely ‘chance’ processes), EVER create any meaningful information.
Again, when Darwinists use the word ‘chance’, they are not appealing to any known physical cause of anything, but are in fact appealing to their own ignorance of the known cause for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life.
Moreover, because of the mathematics of population genetics,( i.e. the genetic load argument), Dan Graur and Larry Moran insist that not only is some negligible amount of the genome to be considered junk, but they instead argue that the vast majority, upwards to 90%, of DNA must be junk:
Dr. Moran’s belief that 90% of the human genome must be junk just strikes me as being a completely absurd claim right off the bat,,,, but anyways to continue on, I hold Moran’s calculation to be flawed in regards to empirical evidence we now have in hand.
Specifically, I hold Moran’s 10% estimate for deleterious mutations, that he used in his calculation in the preceding paper, to be far too conservative, and thus the percentage of junk DNA, according to Moran’s own calculation, should actually be much higher than the 90% estimate for Junk DNA that he derived.
As Michael Behe stated in the following paper, “we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent”
Moreover, as John Sanford explained in his book “Genetic Entropy” and as he elucidated in the following paper, the unselectable ‘near neutral’ mutations, which Dr Moran classified as being perfectly neutral in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as ‘slightly deleterious mutations’.
Slightly deleterious mutations that will build up over time, instead of being classified as perfectly neutral mutations as Dr. Moran erroneously classified them as being in his calculation.
Thus, to wind all this up, even though Dr. Moran used unrealistic estimates for deleterious mutations in his calculation, Moran was still only able to calculate that 10% of the genome may be functional.
Yet, the fact of the matter is that if realistic estimates are used for ‘slightly deleterious mutations’ in the calculations then ALL, i.e. 100%, of the genome should be considered functionless junk, instead of just 90%.
My question for Darwinists is this, “Does even the 0% functionality predicted for the genome from population genetics falsify Darwinian evolution in your minds?”
If not, what in the world would ever possibly falsify Darwinian evolution in your minds?
if your theory does not have a specific criteria for potential falsification, via mathematics and empirical testing, then it is not a real science in any meaningful sense and, as Popper himself pointed out, “it does not speak about reality.”
Moreover I remind people that these leading Darwinists (Moran and Graur) insisted that most of the genome must be junk in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary from ENCODE, and from many other sources
And as the article in the OP makes abundantly clear, the trend in scientific research over the last several years has certainly not been supportive of the Darwinist’s claim, (in the face of the 2012 ENCODE results to the contrary), that the vast majority of non-protein-coding DNA must be Junk DNA.
Thus in conclusion, although Larry Moran and Dan Graur may personally find the genetic load argument to be a powerful argument for considering the vast majority of the human genome to be junk, the fact of the matter is that the genetic load argument is, when scrutinized, found to be much more effectively, and rationally, used as a argument against the validity of Darwinian evolution itself.
As Dr. John Sanford stated, “Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom’s (neo-Darwinism’s) very validity.”
Verse
“ Will He invert better DNA repair enzymes? What’s taking Him so long? And why weren’t we better designed to begin with?”
You’re talking to yourself again, Sev.
Seversky: What’s taking Him so long?
He’s got lots of prayers to listen to you know.
seversky’s is an argument from ignorance. Entertainment at it’s finest, though.
Seversky asked:
Here are some answers.
1. That’s because Sanford doesn’t know. So unlike Darwinists, he doesn’t write science fiction speculations about what we don’t know.
2. That Yeshua/Jesus was God incarnate who designed the genetic code (and Information doesn’t spontaneously generate itself), it seems plausible that He would also know how to repair it.
3. According to the scriptures, Yeshua, will return to save the world from complete destruction (Revelation 11:16-18). He will have rescued as many people as were willing have been saved from the judgment to come.
4. We were designed “good” and the entire universe together “very good” according to Genesis 1. Engineers know that design always involves priorities and tradeoffs. Then, in Colossians 1:17, we read “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Things are falling apart because mankind chose to reject God go their own way–just as you have. As Yeshua healed many people during His ministry, He will heal the earth from all the damage we’ve caused, directly and indirectly.
On this Good Friday, disciples of Yeshua/Jesus remember that He willingly allowed Himself to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (and yours if you trust Him rather than in your own self-righteousness).
-Q
The Bible also clearly says that we will get new and better bodies – if we believe! Humanity 2.0?
For an analogical look at why cells need non-coding DNA, see:
https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-junk-dna-functionality-analogy.html