Explained in nine papers in Nature
Less than 2% of the human genome encodes proteins1. A grand challenge for genomic sciences has been mapping the functional elements — the regions that determine the extent to which genes are expressed — in the remaining 98% of our DNA. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project, among other large collaborative efforts2–4, was established in 2003 to create a catalogue of these functional elements and to outline their roles in regulating gene expression. In nine papers in Nature5–13, the ENCODE consortium delivers the third phase of its valuable project…
This yet-to-be-completed encyclopedia has already become a quintessential tool for understanding gene regulation and genetic predisposition to disease. In the upcoming fourth phase of the ENCODE project, we would be excited to see a systematic assessment of whether the catalogued CREs actually performed the functions inferred on the basis of histone modifications and bound proteins; this could be achieved using high-throughput functional-genomic technologies. The continued expansion of ENCODE to wider biological contexts (such as disease samples and rare cell types) at single-cell resolution would help researchers to use genomic information to diagnose and prevent diseases.
Chung-Chau Hon & Piero Carninci, “Expanded ENCODE delivers invaluable genomic encyclopedia” at Nature
Readers may also remember ENCODE from a flap a few years ago when Darwinian Dan Graur announced that the ENCODE team had to be wrong in saying that there wasn’t nearly as much junk DNA as had been thought. After a while, Graur just wasn’t doing politeness any more.
Now that ENCODE has so much information to offer, maybe Graur should do politeness again and try listening.
See also:
Junk DNA: Dan Graur (Junk!), ENCODE Team (Not Junk!), And the Science Media
Is Nature needlessly annoying Dan Graur, the champion of junk DNA?
—
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
Of related note, it has now been found that when modern day population geneticists apply the ‘miracle’ of mathematics, (Einstein, Wigner), to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, then the mathematics of population genetics itself falsifies natural selection as the supposed ‘designer substitute’.
As Richard Sternberg stated,
Many leading Darwinists, such as Dan Graur and Larry Moran, who are familiar with the failings of natural selection within the mathematics of population genetics now champion what is termed the neutral theory of molecular evolution which holds that at the molecular level most evolutionary changes and most of the variation within and between species is not caused by natural selection but by genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral.’.
In the following article Larry Moran 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 to the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and also by empirical evidence itself), as the explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from mathematics as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing that the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in 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 an understatement.
As William Murray commented on this development within Darwin’s theory,
Moreover, the ‘prediction’ of Junk DNA was born out of the mathematics of population genetics itself.
As Robert Carter states, “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.”
Because the prediction of Junk DNA is based in the mathematics population genetics, that is the primary reason why Dan Graur stated, after the results of ENCODE came out, (results that showed pervasive functionality across the entire genome), that “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.”
In fact, because of the mathematics of population genetics, Dan Graur and Larry Moran insist that upwards to 90% of DNA must be junk:
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 his own calculation, should actually be much higher than his 90% estimate,,, 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 showed in his book Genetic Entropy and the following paper, the unselectable ‘near neutral’ mutations, which Dr Moran classified as perfectly neutral in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as slightly deleterious mutations that will build up over time instead of being classified as perfectly neutral.,,,
Thus, even though Larry 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. The fact of the matter is that if realistic estimates are used in the calculations, and if Darwinian evolution is assumed to be true in the calculations, then ALL, i.e. 100%, of the genome should be functionless junk, instead of just 90%.
Moreover, these leading Darwinists insisted that most of the genome must be junk in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary from ENCODE, and from other sources
Thus in conclusion, although the prediction of junk DNA followed directly from the mathematics of population genetics, and although ENCODE. and many other sources, empirically falsified that mathematical prediction of Darwinian evolution, Evolutionists in general, and Dan Graur and Larry Moran in particular, refused to accept those empirical finding from ENCODE.
Yet, if your theory does not have a criteria for potential falsification via empirical testing, then it is not science
In short, Darwinian evolution, at least how Darwinists treat it, is NOT a science.
Verse:
At best all junk DNA implies is common descent. It doesn’t make the case for neo-Darwinian evolution (NS + RV) any stronger. It certainly doesn’t weaken the case for ID.
Several prominent ID’ists (Denton and Behe, for example) accept common descent. But even if you accept CD that doesn’t prove or even imply that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is the cause of evolutionary change.
Of course, some of the so-called junk has turned out to have some function and nobody really knows how much of the junk is really junk.
John_a_designer: Several prominent ID’ists (Denton and Behe, for example) accept common descent. But even if you accept CD that doesn’t prove or even imply that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is the cause of evolutionary change.
Okay, but can you still call it common descent if a designer intervened. That’s not how I understand common descent. That’s more like partial common descent surely.
How does junk DNA imply common descent?