Well, that seems to be what’s happening. Further to: New York Times science writer defends junk DNA (Old concepts die hard, especially when they are value-laden as “junk DNA” has been—it has been a key argument for Darwinism), one of the conundrums on which the junk DNA folk rely heavily is the “onion test” (why does the onion have such a large genome?). Without waiting to answer the question, the junk DNA folk assume that that’s because most of it is junk.
From Evolution News & Views:
What’s so striking about Zimmer’s current piece is his explicit worry that — should “junk” DNA turn out to be functional — the “creationists” (as he calls the baddies) would be vindicated. At least twice in this long article, Zimmer raises the alarm that genomes had BETTER be junky, OR…the bad guys will win. It’s the same anxiety driving Dan Graur and Lawrence Moran into their fits of rage about ENCODE.
Hence in a not-so-subtle way, project ENCODE researchers are put on notice that, should they continue looking for function in non-coding DNA, they will be traitors to evolution and science.
Doubtless, the ENCODE guys have already begun to stammer and splutter. That’s what tends to happen when Darwin’s boys arrive (except here). For ENCODE, when they could afford to be open, see, for example:
Latest ENCODE Research Validates ID Predictions On Non-Coding Repertoire
Junk DNA’s defender doesn’t “do” politeness (No, we bet not.)
For free highlights of the junk DNA uproar, see:
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
Hey, by the time you can’t tell the difference between Darwin’s elite followers and his trolls, you know something is happening.
Plus, pass the chocs, will you?
Anyone else for the myth of junk DNA? Richard Dawkins, for one (Reliable Source Central 😉 )
Follow UD News at Twitter!