Abstract: It is often thought that non-junk or coding DNA is more significant than other cellular elements, including so-called junk DNA. This is for two main reasons: (1) because coding DNA is often targeted by historical or current selection, it is considered functionally special and (2) because its mode of action is uniquely specific amongst the other actual difference makers in the cell, it is considered causally special. Here, we challenge both these presumptions. With respect to function, we argue that there is previously unappreciated reason to think that junk DNA is significant, since it can alter the cellular environment, and those alterations can influence how organism-level selection operates. With respect to causality, we argue that there is again reason to think that junk DNA is significant, since it too (like coding DNA) is remarkably causally specific (in Waters’, in J Philos 104:551–579, 2007 sense). As a result, something is missing from the received view of significance in molecular biology—a view which emphasizes specificity and neglects something we term ‘reach’. With the special case of junk DNA in mind, we explore how to model and understand the causal specificity, reach, and corresponding efficacy of difference makers in biology. The account contains implications for how evolution shapes the genome, as well as advances our understanding of multi-level selection.
Havstad, J.C., Palazzo, A.F. Not functional yet a difference maker: junk DNA as a case study. Biol Philos 37, 29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-022-09854-1 The paper requires a fee or subscription.
At least this group, unlike evolutionary biologist Dan Graur, is willing to “do politeness” on the topic.
You may also wish to read: Jumping genes … a new clue to octopus intelligence? Despite being very different, the human brain and the octopus brain share the same sort of jumping genes. Formerly thought of as “junk DNA,” their mobility may help explain unique problem-solving abilities. “I literally jumped on the chair…” one researcher said.
You may also want to look at an extensive series of posts on “The Function Wars” on Laurence Moran’s blog Sandwalk
Couldn’t think of anything to say yourself? Sev?
Two points,
1. The authors have down-played “junk” to “so-called junk”
2. They argue that it is “causally specific” – and accordingly hint a case for giving it a proper name or classification.
This tactic is described as “Glenties” whereby after realisation of a blunder a series of small steps brings the perpetrators of the blunder in a circle around to the opposite position.
Sev states: “You may also want to look at an extensive series of posts on “The Function Wars” on Laurence Moran’s blog Sandwalk”
And what possible ‘function wars’ could Moran possibly be talking about?
Is it the ‘war’ that Darwinian processes have in explaining the origin of even a single ‘functional’ protein fold?,,,
,, Or is it the ‘war’ that Darwinists have with any teleological language that implies purpose, and/or function, in the first place?,,,
Darwinists, although they deny that life is teleological, (goal oriented purpose and/or function), simply can’t stop using words that directly imply teleology, i.e. purpose, and/or function. As the following article points out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
In other words, the very words that Darwinists are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
As Stephen Talbott points out, it is impossible to describe the complexities of biological life without illegitimately using language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness (i.e. teleology). Talbott even challenges readers to “take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1.”
Denis Noble also states that “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Again, and to emphasize the point, the very words that Darwinists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their biological research, and writing their papers, falsifies Darwinian evolution and validates Intelligent Design:
Verse: