'Junk DNA' Human evolution Intelligent Design Mind

“Junk DNA” is expressed differently in chimps and humans — and makes a difference in brain types

Spread the love

The researchers were trying to figure out what “makes us human”:

In a new study, stem cell scientists at the Lund University, Sweden, explore the role of non-coding regions of the genome—previously deemed to be functionless “junk” DNA—and find humans and chimpanzees use a part of their non-coding DNA in different ways. This they claim affects how and when the human brain develops.

Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives. Despite significant similarities in our DNA and few differences in our protein-coding genes, the human forebrain is larger and more complex than that of the chimpanzee…

Jakobsson says, “The basis for the human brain’s evolution is genetic mechanisms that are probably a lot more complex than previously thought, as it was supposed that the answer was in those two percent of the [protein-coding] genetic DNA. Our results indicate that what has been significant for the brain’s development is instead perhaps hidden in the overlooked 98 percent, which appears to be important. This is a surprising finding.” The underlying impetus for the study lies in the need to understand what makes us human. Jakobsson says, “I believe that the brain is the key to understanding what it is that makes humans human. How did it come about that humans can use their brains in such a way that they can build societies, educate their children, and develop advanced technology? It is fascinating!”

News, “Human and Chimp Brains Differ in Non-Coding Regulatory DNA” at Genetic Engineering & BioTechnology News (October 12, 2021)

Here’s the pdf.

You may also wish to read: Term “junk DNA” critiqued at journal. But now remember the history! “The days of ‘junk DNA’ are over…”? So the house is clearly supporting this move away from the Darwinian position. Oh yes, let’s not forget that “junk DNA” was very much a Darwinian position. Most or all of the Darwinian Bigs signed onto junk DNA as part of their thesis about the unguided nature of life. The big question will doubtless be put off for now: Why does it only count if Darwinian predictions are right but never if they are wrong?

11 Replies to ““Junk DNA” is expressed differently in chimps and humans — and makes a difference in brain types

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    My understanding is that non-coding DNA is not the same as junk DNA.

    Darwin knew nothing about DNA so it’s hardly surprising he made no predictions about it.

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    Heh, your understanding is wrong. Do you even know who coined the term, “junk DNA” and why?


  3. 3
    ram says:

    Seversky: Darwin knew nothing about DNA so it’s hardly surprising he made no predictions about it.

    “Darwinian” is common shorthand for the “random variants + natural selection = new lifeforms” ideology, not just Darwin himself and his specific conjectures. Maybe you’re new to all of this.

    Hope that helps.


  4. 4
    ET says:

    Junk DNA is an argument from ignorance.

  5. 5
    zweston says:

    “are probably a lot more complex than previously thought”
    “This is a surprising finding”

    Evolutionists always finding more complexity and being surprised…

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    ET @4,

    Junk DNA is an argument from ignorance.

    Indeed. And so is Darwinism with its 150+ year hope of finding missing links such as a partially human and partially ape-like foot.

    Zweston @5,

    Evolutionists always finding more complexity and being surprised…

    Well said. It’s because their paradigm is wrong and thus must always be adjusted to rationalize the latest falsifying find.


  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    Zweston @5

    We see it all the time – evolutionists are always wrong … always … i doubt that there is other field of science, where are scientists so often wrong … Darwinian ‘science’ is becoming a grotesque …

    This is Darwinism:

    “…current concepts are reviewed…”
    “…uprooting current thinking….”
    “…latest findings contradict the current dogma….”
    “… it challenges a long-held theory…”
    “… it upends a common view…”
    “… it needs a rethink … ”
    “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ”
    “… it shakes up the dogma … ”
    “… earlier than thought…”
    “… younger than thought….”
    “… smarter than thought ….”
    “… more complex than thought ….”

    these guys are always wrong … always…

    PS: seriously, why are this finding so surprising ? What did these Darwinists ( natural science graduates) think ???

    How in 21st century, a rational educated person could possible think, that something like self-replicating humanoid ‘robot’ might be simple ???? Are these people insane ????

  8. 8
    martin_r says:

    Seversky @1

    your understanding is wrong … (but is it surprising that you are wrong ? you are a Darwinist )

    some quotes from mainstream papers:

    from PNAS:

    Genes that code for proteins make up only about 2% of the human genome. Many researchers once dismissed the other 98% of the genome as “junk DNA,” but geneticists now know these noncoding regions help to regulate the activity of the 20,000 or so protein-coding genes identified.


    or this one:

    Only about 1 percent of DNA is made up of protein-coding genes; the other 99 percent is noncoding. Noncoding DNA does not provide instructions for making proteins. Scientists once thought noncoding DNA was “junk,” with no known purpose


    or this one:

    But if we look at the amount of DNA that actually encodes for proteins, it’s somewhere on the order of 1-1.5% of the DNA in our cells. So more than 98% of DNA doesn’t have a clear function, and that’s what some people refer to as “junk DNA.”


  9. 9
    Querius says:

    Apparently Seversky has gone into hiding, but thanks for the references, Martin_r.

    This is the whole point of ID! Rather than presuming something is useless “junk,” ID presumes that this is interesting and there’s something here to be discovered and researched.

    The ID paradigm is thus far more productive for scientific progress.


  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    Querius, this is a very common picture:

    when a lay-Darwinist (e.g. Seversky) is confronted with the reality, these guys either start to attack you, or just drop the conversation (hiding) … i debated lots of Darwinists, it is always the same. 99% of lay-Darwinists i have debated, are uneducated, and have no idea what the evolution theory is about … in most cases, they just parroting Dawkins’s arguments and that is it… Actually, debating a lay-Darwinists is boring and waste of time … these guys don’t know what they are talking about … Once i debated a clever well educated Darwinist over at ‘Peaceful science’-forum, but my account got banned very quick, because of my – sort of aggressive style …

    PS: i also tried to debate pro-scientists (biologists), but they won’t debate you, they think you are an ‘Untermensch’, when you don’t have a formal education in biology … however, they are some exceptions, i can recall 2 or 3 cases, i talked directly to authors of some mainstream papers, they were willing to discuss these things, but i had to choose my words very carefully …

  11. 11
    Sandy says:

    Who can tell me about that mantra of 98% human-chimp is calculated for 2% of coding proteins( “functional ” genome)or from all genome? What about y chromosome that alone make more than 2% difference?

Leave a Reply