Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ENCODE hints at MORE functional DNA


A friend sends us a quote from the ENCODE Encyclopaedia

It has become apparent that, by virtually any metric, elements that govern transcription, chromatin organization, splicing, and other key aspects of genome control and function are densely encoded in many parts of the human genome sequence. However, most of these elements are actualized sparingly in a cell type or state selective manner, complicating assessment of the completeness of the ENCODE Encyclopedia, or what remains to be discovered.

The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2020. Expanded encyclopaedias of DNA elements in the human and mouse genomes. Nature 583 July 30 pp. 699-710 see p. 709.

Another friend writes to ask, “I take it to mean that the null hypothesis is no longer ‘junk’ but ‘design’?”

Well, the shelves at Darwin’s junk shop are looking rather bare these days.

See also: “Junk DNA” can really matter says Rick Sternberg. If there were a prize for the Darwinian idea that has proven least helpful to Darwinism, would junk DNA be the winner?

And from the history:

Humans may have only 19,000 coding genes

“Junk DNA” regulates regeneration of tissues and organs

Note: One junk DNA defender just isn’t doing politeness anymore. Hmmm. In a less Darwinian science workplace, that could become more a problem for him than for his colleagues.

Junk DNA can actually change genitalia. Junk DNA played the same role in defending Darwinian evolution as claims that Neanderthal man was a subhuman. did: The vast library of junk genes and the missing link made Darwin’s story understandable to the average person and the missing link even became part of popular culture. With Darwinism so entrenched, the fact that these beliefs are not based on fact will be difficult to root out of the culture. Darwin-only school systems are part of the problem.

Been a while since we’ve heard much about humans as the 98% or 99% chimpanzee. If the human genome is this fuzzy how would we know? And doubtless, things have gotten more complex.

At Quanta: Cells need almost all of their genes, even the “junk DNA”

“Junk” RNA helps regulate metabolism

Junk DNA defender just isn’t doing politeness any more.

Anyone remember ENCODE? Not much junk DNA? Still not much. (Paper is open access.)

Yes, Darwin’s followers did use junk DNA as an argument for their position.

Another response to Darwin’s followers’ attack on the “not-much-junk-DNA” ENCODE findings

A problem I see with this ongoing ENCODE project is that they have opened a Darwinian can of worms, and as my wife says to our little grandchildren when they do something wrong to their siblings or cousins, “that’s not nice”. :) The ENCODE project reminds of the ENERGIZER bunny ad. When I had practically forgotten about ENCODE, there they pop up again in the scientific news, making so much noise, very impolitely. ;) Their narrative is starting to look like a never-ending story. The more they know about the overwhelmingly complex biological systems, more is there for them to learn about. The YouTube Cocomelon video “are we there yet?” comes to mind. :) jawa
Martin_r, Interesting question. There are few things that they figured out how to do very efficiently: “propaganda”, “indoctrination”, “censorship”. jawa
is there anything what Darwinian clowns got right ? martin_r
Isn't amazing what "junk" can do? :-) This reminds us of the "vestigial organs" we were once supposed to have as leftovers from evolution:
During the Scopes trial in 1925, evolutionary biologist Horatio Hackett Newman contended that there are over 180 vestigial organs and structures in the human body, “sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.”
And now our DNA is ever so slowly being recognized as no longer being a "walking museum" of evolutionary artifacts. Imagine that! -Q Querius

Leave a Reply