In “Paper Rebuffs Assumption that Pseudogenes Are Genetic ‘Junk,’ Claims Function Is ‘Widespread’” (Evolution News & Views, August 14, 2012), Casey Luskin notes a recent paper trhat discusses “an impressive list of discovered functions for pseudogenes,: observing
After widespread function is discovered for a type of “junk” DNA, we’ve often seen evolutionists respond by trying to rewrite history to suggest no one never had ever maintained that that type of DNA was junk. Lest anyone forget the history of pseudogenes, this paper not only argues for “widespread” function in pseudogenes, but it also makes it clear they have been assumed to be “junk” or “garbage” DNA
(Yan-Zi Wen, Ling-Ling Zheng, Liang-Hu Qu, Francisco J. Ayala and Zhao-Rong Lun, “Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more,” RNA Biology, Vol. 9(1):27-32 (January, 2012).)
You wouldn’t think this would ever be an issue, and normally it wouldn’t be. But that reckons without the cult of Darwinism.
Darwin’s followers considered junk DNA powerful evidence for their theory, which is really a philosophy (often a cult), and that they often expressed that view, often triumphantly. Others insist it is true anyway.
The problem they hope to suppress is that if lots of junk in our DNA is such powerful evidence for their theory, then little junkthrows it into doubt. That is, if it is such a good theory, why was it wrong on a point that was announced so triumphantly?
So it is a good thing that the science-minded public is reminded of the historical fact that Darwinism was supported by junk DNA. And it will be fun when the squirming editorials come out in science mags, warning people not to read too much into this, Darwin is still right.
If it is possible to squirm sonorously and self-righteously, they will.