Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Review: The Myth of Junk DNA

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Myth of Junk DNAJonathan Wells’ The Myth of Junk DNA, is a well-written book that manages to accomplish two separate tasks: to silence the Darwinists who had claimed that recent genomic discoveries supported their dystopic version of The Signature in the Cell; and to bring all of us up-to-date on the breath-taking mysteries being decoded from this most ancient script.

He begins by picking up where Stephen Meyer left off, telling us that within each cell is this memory chip, this software program that directs everything we are and ever meant to be. When Watson and Crick decoded the DNA, there was great expectation that soon we would find the gene to every talent and attribute we had ever wished we had been born with. Sci-fi was filled with stories about a DNA pill that would turn you into a concert pianist, a ballerina, or a nuclear physicist, because the genes for all these talents could manually remedy what evolution had denied you. Soon a billion-dollar government program was begun to decode the human genome, after which, it was widely touted, we would find the cure to cancer and the common cold. The three billion base pairs of the human genome, it was thought, would hold genes stacked up cheek-to-jowl, together encoding some 100,000 different proteins. We knew how to count genes because we had already decoded the way the cell made protein, first by making RNA copies of the DNA, and then sending the RNA to the ribosome factory, which could identify the unique “start” and “stop” codes among the 64 different 3-letter “words” of the RNA software that marked the beginning and end of each gene.

After a decade of work and to everyone’s great surprise, the human genome project found only 10,000 such start-stop pairs, suggesting that you and I are made out of fewer proteins than an amoeba! Furthermore, over 90% of the missing genes were DNA that apparently did nothing. Much of this “dark matter” was in long “stutter repeats” that couldn’t even make a useful protein if you inserted the start and stop codons yourself. All that work, and nothing to show for it! Neither cancer nor the common cold was cured, and instead an even greater mystery was uncovered.

Read more…

Comments
As to solidify the proposition that 'transcendent' information is found within life which is not reducible to the matter-energy space-time basis of neo-Darwinism; First, there is a enigmatic higher dimensional component to life,,, 4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ ,,, a enigmatic component which is not expected from a neo-Darwinian framework which holds information to be merely 'emergent' from a 3-Dimensional material basis: “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y ,,,Moreover we have direct empirical evidence for this 'transcendent component' to life; Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum Action confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research; DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - June 2011 Excerpt: -- DNA -- can discern between quantum states known as spin. - The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm And we have direct empirical evidence that this 'transcendent information component' to life is not reducible to the 3-D material framework: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htmbornagain77
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Hello bornagain77, You know I'm a fan of yours and, contrary to the claims of one or two people here, find your postings containing links elsewhere very informative and interesting. However, I'd like to stick up for Lizzie here because it strikes me that attacks on her position are overspilling into attacks on her person and that is absolutely wrong. We are all trying to be logical and scientific here but sometimes non-scientific a priori commitments affect each and every one of us. Lizzie is one of the best opponents I have ever come across on any forum and I do not doubt her impressive scientific credentials for a second. Lizzie deserves our utmost respect, not unpleasant personal remarks. We can disagree strongly and still make this an equally pleasant experience for people from all sides.Chris Doyle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, for prime example of how 'non-scientific' you can be, Let's take a little look at the c-value enigma, which you have defended for neo-Darwinism, and see if you will accept the direction the evidence is actually pointing in or if you will, once again, make up lame 'pseudo-scientific' excuses for why it does not match neo-Darwinian expectations: ,,,There is no logical 'evolutionary progression' to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the size of genomes found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species despite their differences in complexity and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma And yet, even though this C-value enigma is paradoxical to the materialistic, neo-Darwinian, point of view, which falsely holds information to merely be an 'emergent' property from a material bases, from a design point of view we would expect genome sizes to vary within the parameters of design constraints. Design Constraints which are realized in achieving 'optimal design'; And the evidence says,,,: "There is strong positive correlation, however, between the amount of DNA and the volume of a cell and its nucleus - which effects the rate of cell growth and division. Furthermore, in mammals there is a negative correlation between genome size and rate of metabolism. Bats have very high metabolic rates and relatively small genomes. In birds, there is a negative correlation between C-value and resting metabolic rate. In salamanders, there is also a negative correlation between genome size and the rate of limb regeneration." Jonathan Wells - The Myth Of Junk DNA - page 85 Thus Elizabeth, the evidence points in a 'design' direction, and a true 'scientist' will not be satisfied with lame 'excuses' until he has sufficient empirical merit to disregard it.,,, What will you do??? What will you do???bornagain77
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
So why do you think Dawkins and Co keep expressing "bad ideas about biology", Lizzie? The point about the myth of Junk DNA is that the majority of evolutionists still believe that most of our DNA is junk based on the fact that only 2% of our DNA codes for genes and only a similar percentage perform other functions. As Larry Moran says: "It's true that there have been lots of examples of of novel functions for small pieces of the genome that were previously lumped into the junk DNA category. These dozens of functional parts of the genome may amount to as much as 1-2% of the genome (probably less)." You even say yourself that "I suspect that there are substantial parts of the genome that are, in fact, Junk (pseudo genes, for instance)!" To dismiss *any* part of our DNA as "junk" is an argument from ignorance (or even an "evolution in the gaps" argument!) and it is made for purely non-scientific reasons. As "The Myth of Junk DNA" demonstrates, we have found function in ALL of the various categories of Junk DNA: including the so-called "pseudogenes". And remember, research in the area of non-coding DNA has been restricted by the prevailing attitude that “it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively” for functions in it. So scientists should merely be saying: We don't yet know what most of our DNA does. Will we keep investigating.Chris Doyle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
No, ba77. That is not a good paraphrase of what I wrote. Try reading it again! Or, here's a tl:dr version: All junk DNA must be non-coding DNA. Non-coding DNA is essential for gene expression. Therefore not all non-coding DNA can be junk. I assume you agree?Elizabeth Liddle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, so your OK with Junk DNA as long as it doesn't make Darwinism look bad, and your not OK with Junk DNA when it does??? Glad you cleared up your 'unbiased' starting point for evaluating the evidence!!! Hmmm, with such a 'unbiased' starting position I wonder what conclusion will you possibly reach no matter what the evidence says??? :)bornagain77
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
No, I'm not claiming that, Chris! I suspect that there are substantial parts of the genome that are, in fact, Junk (pseudo genes, for instance), that neither code for proteins nor regulate the expression of genes that code for proteins. But while all junk is non-coding, all non-coding DNA is not junk, and could never be. The OP implied that "it was thought" that DNA was all about coding for tens of thousands of proteins. Well, obviously it wasn't, because if that was what DNA was supposed to be all about, where were we supposed to find the regulatory genes that determine when and where the protein-coding genes are expressed? So non-coding DNA had to be there, and indeed it was. And some of it is probably left over junk. But the idea that every time a function is found for a stretch of non-coding DNA that Darwinism takes a mortal blow, is just silly. There have to be highly functional stretches of non-coding DNA in the genome or biology wouldn't work. Multicellular organisms would develop, and wouldn't even function. Every second of your life, non-coding DNA is busy ensuring that the right proteins are made, in the right places, in response to the right signals. Without it, you wouldn't be able to think, heal, or even maintain homeostasis. Non-coding DNA is at the heart of biology. And we keep identifying more of it. The interesting thing, from a Darwinian point of view, is indeed how few proteins are made by living things and how widely they are shared. This suggests that the way that evolution works is largely by finding ("finding") new uses for existing proteins rather than new proteins. This makes sense - a longer leg is much more likely to evolve because of an allele that causes leg-making proteins to be expressed for longer during development than because of an allele that codes for a new "long-leg-making protein". Indeed, new body plans are much more likely to evolve from a change to a regulatory gene that alters when, say, a limb-bud forming protein is expressed than from a new protein, and so on down the cascade. Again and again I see bad ideas about biology expressed on this blog and (rightly!) exposed as nonsense. The trouble is that almost none of them bear much resemblance to actual biology!Elizabeth Liddle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
Here is Jonathan Well's index of references from his book: Reference Notes For Jonathan Wells' Book - The Myth Of Junk DNA - Hundreds of Studies Outlining Function for 'Junk' DNA http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zGp3gRRDmA0J:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fcommand%3Ddownload%26id%3D7651+Sequence-dependent+and+sequence-independent+functions+of+%E2%80%9Cjunk%E2%80%9D+DNA:+do+we+need+an+expanded+concept+of+biological+information%3F+Jonathan+Wells&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCq0TQUSKYlr0KNNIDgaGKMM7b3z0iEGiKe_faSd0646SzaYSoCCcNavm523X5TgaGbdQPtDFmN6Yw8IexI44RokfsMKs6q-EEeM_vyYw-zaMB-h_7wKu8JjGREn_JF-CPlkSq&sig=AHIEtbRfG8rv_5eur2oifBsWxHdM_e731g ================= Jonathan Wells: On Francis Collins and Junk DNA - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hksGZcqJ5h4bornagain77
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
Morning Lizzie, It was Dawkins who said in The Greatest Show on Earth, that "the greater part...of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes," and that this fact is "useful for...embarrassing creationists." And Dawkins is not alone in claiming that Junk DNA is abundant in our genome and exactly what evolution predicts. In recent years, many evolutionists have pointed to Junk DNA as major evidence for their beliefs. If you're trying to claim, Lizzie, that evolutionists didn't really believe in junk DNA after all then that is demonstrably false. Maybe we are the ones who know what "Darwinism" really is and you are the one who is mistaken about it!Chris Doyle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
Time someone wrote a book called "The Myth of the Myth of Junk DNA" :) Your OP sets up a quite extraordinary straw man. Regulatory genes (non-coding genes) have been posited and known about pretty well since the dawn of genetics. If they didn't exist, multicellular organisms would be impossible, and organisms wouldn't function. The idea that any geneticist thought that all there was to genes was the code for proteins is absurd. There has been a text book called "Gene Expression" on our bookshelf for the 37 years of our marriage. How would it even be have been the subject of a textbook if the only functional genes had been assumed to be coding genes? I do see why you guys think that "Darwinism" is junk. If it were what you thought it was, it would be!Elizabeth Liddle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply