More Functions For “Junk” DNA

Dr. Hunter, why would gene regulation be more important in eukaryotes than in prokaryotes? thank youMung

August 4, 2013

August

08

Aug

4

04

2013

04:53 PM

4

04

53

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Early research suggested that about 98 percent of the DNA in humans and other organisms had no function. Hence, many who were influenced by the theory of evolution assumed that this DNA was “evolutionary junk”—a view that quickly became orthodox. Once again, however, an assumption rooted in Darwinism proved to be false. Recently, scientists have discovered that “junk” DNA plays a vital role in the body by yielding special forms of RNA (ribonucleic acid) that are vital for life. John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Australia, feels that the hasty acceptance of the “junk” DNA theory is “a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century.” This failure, he adds, “may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” Recent research indicates that long noncoding RNAs are quite complex and that they are actually required for normal development. Researchers have found that malfunctions in long noncoding RNAs are associated with many diseases, such as various cancers, psoriasis, and even Alzheimer’s disease. What was previously labeled as “junk” may hold the key to diagnosing and treating various diseases!Barb

August 3, 2013

August

08

Aug

3

03

2013

08:08 AM

8

08

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Here is a recent paper that defends the Sept. 2012 ENCODE findings, of pervasive functionality across the genome, from Darwinian attempts to discredit the findings:

The extent of functionality in the human genome John S Mattick1 and Marcel E Dinger - July 2013 Excerpt of abstract: Finally, we suggest that resistance to these (ENCODE) findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2F1877-6566-7-2/fulltext.html Of note: Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells are referenced in the paper:

Actually, not only was the original +90% Junk DNA figure of Darwinists derived/driven primarily from Darwinian theological metaphysics as to what God would and would not do in this universe (instead of actual investigation for functionality for DNA),

Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html "The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection." – Ken Miller "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution … we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed … the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply … our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" – Jerry Coyne "We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo¬genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution." – Michael Shermer

but the +90% Junk DNA figure was also required.derived because of the mathematics of population genetics. At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video, the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument can be traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno's work in the late 1950’s, 60’s through the early 70’s:

What Is The Genome? It's Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583

Here is a more detailed history of the mathematical roots of the Junk DNA argument and how it 'evolved':

Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm

Moreover, the genome, contrary to what Darwinists presuppose, from what little has been understood of it thus far, is certainly going to be found to be far more functional than anyone, especially Darwinists, had dared imagine:

What Is The Genome? It's Certainly Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006 The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ Multidimensional Genome - Impossible for Darwinism to account for) – Dr. Robert Carter – 10 minute video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8905048/

Related note: Much like the current Junk DNA fiasco of Darwinists, for many years Darwinists predicted that much of human anatomy was vestigial (useless and leftover evolutionary baggage). Yet once again, they were proven completely wrong in this prediction that was derived/driven by their a priori metaphysics as to what God would and would not do in this universe.

“The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - July 20, 2012 Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the "vestigial organs" argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim's original list, and each of those is questionable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/vestigial_organ062281.html

bornagain77

August 3, 2013

August

08

Aug

3

03

2013

03:17 AM

3

03

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link