Intelligent Design

Science mag explains why we need “junk DNA”

Spread the love
File:DNA simple.svg

We’ve all heard from the Darwinians about how 98% of our genome is junk:

Other research advances in the last decade also suggest “junk DNA” might just be misunderstood genetic material. Scientists have now linked various non-coding sequences to various biological processes and even human diseases. For instance, researchers believe these sequences are behind the development of the uterus and also of our opposable thumbs. A study published in Annals of Oncology last year showed that a non-coding DNA segment acts like a volume knob for gene expression, ultimately influencing the development of breast and prostate cancer. And a study in Nature Genetics this year found mutations outside of gene-coding regions can cause autism.

Exploring the role of non-coding sequences is now an area of intense research. Increasing evidence suggests these noncoding sequences might help cancer defeat treatment, and experts now see them as promising tools for cancer diagnosis.

Daniel Bastardo Blanco, “Our Cells Are Filled With ‘Junk DNA’ — Here’s Why We Need It” at Discover

Sure. Except for Darwinism, researchers would have tumbled to a lot of this stuff a long time ago.

See also: Humans may have only 19,000 coding genes

“Junk DNA” regulates regeneration of tissues and organs

Note: One junk DNA defender just isn’t doing politeness anymore. Hmmm. In a less Darwinian science workplace, that could become more a problem for him than for his colleagues.

Junk DNA can actually change genitalia. Junk DNA played the same role in defending Darwinian evolution as claims that Neanderthal man was a subhuman. did: The vast library of junk genes and the missing link made Darwin’s story understandable to the average person and the missing link even became part of popular culture. With Darwinism so entrenched, the fact that these beliefs are not based on fact will be difficult to root out of the culture. Darwin-only school systems are part of the problem.

Been a while since we’ve heard much about humans as the 98% or 99% chimpanzee. If the human genome is this fuzzy how would we know? And doubtless, things have gotten more complex.

At Quanta: Cells need almost all of their genes, even the “junk DNA”

“Junk” RNA helps regulate metabolism

Junk DNA defender just isn’t doing politeness any more.

Anyone remember ENCODE? Not much junk DNA? Still not much. (Paper is open access.)

Yes, Darwin’s followers did use junk DNA as an argument for their position.

Another response to Darwin’s followers’ attack on the “not-much-junk-DNA” ENCODE findings

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Science mag explains why we need “junk DNA”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to “Why We Need “Junk DNA”

    We certainly need “Junk DNA, but neo-Darwinian theory needs “Junk DNA” to be “Junk DNA”:

    “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.”
    – Dan Graur

    Dan Graur, Darwin’s Reactionary – June 21, 2017
    Excerpt: In 2013, biologist Dan Graur criticized the “evolution-free gospel of ENCODE” and accused its researchers of “playing fast and loose with the term ‘function,’ by divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context.”81 In a lecture at the University of Houston, Graur argued that “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.” In other words: “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.” But for Graur, evolution can’t be wrong. His solution to the problem? “Kill ENCODE.”82,,,
    Lots of evolutionists think that way but only the rare Darwinian atheist materialist is willing to state the matter as nakedly as this. No wonder Dr. Graur is among a list of individuals thanked by Dr. Wells in his Acknowledgments for “making embarrassingly candid or unwittingly humorous statements.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/dan-graur-darwins-reactionary/

    Many leading Darwinists, such as Dan Graur and Larry Moran, because of the math of population genetics, insist that upwards to 90% of DNA must be junk:

    Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur – Larry Moran – July 14, 2017
    Excerpt: I’ve discussed genetic load several times on this blog (e.g. Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA) but a recent paper by Dan Graur provides a good opportunity to explain it once more. The basic idea of Genetic Load is that a population can only tolerate a finite number of deleterious mutations before going extinct. The theory is sound but many of the variables are not known with precision.,,,
    Let’s look at the first line in this table. The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That’s the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome.
    But that limit is quite unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle).
    Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it’s clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that’s mostly junk DNA.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....-with.html

    I hold Moran’s 10% estimate for deleterious mutations, that he used in his calculation in the preceding paper, to be far too conservative, and thus the percentage of junk DNA, according to his own calculation, should actually be much higher (worse) than his 90% estimate,,, As Michael Behe stated in the following paper,, we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Moreover, as John Sanford showed in his book Genetic Entropy and the following paper, the unselectable ‘near neutral’ mutations, which Dr Moran classified as being perfectly neutral in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as slightly deleterious mutations that will build up over time instead of being classified as perfectly neutral.,,,

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 –
    Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford
    In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,,
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0010

    Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy by Dr John Sanford – 7 March 2013
    Excerpt: For deleterious mutations, Kimura and most other population geneticists agree the distribution is essentially exponential. Figure 3c in my book (based upon Kimura) shows an exponential-type distribution of deleterious mutations, with most deleterious mutations being ‘nearly-neutral’ and hence un-selectable (effectively neutral). But, as I point out, Kimura’s picture is not complete, because degeneration is all about the ratio of good to bad mutations. Kimura does not show the beneficial distribution, which is essential to the question of net gain versus net loss! When I show the beneficial distribution (while Kimura did not do this, I suspect he would have drawn it much as I did), anyone can see the problem: the vast majority of beneficial mutations will be un-selectable (Figure 3d). Scott does not appear to contest my representation of the mutational effect distribution, which is the main issue here. Scott should easily be able to see that most mutations fall within the ‘no-selection zone’ and that almost all of them are deleterious. So even with strong selection, this entire zone can only undergo degeneration. Outside this zone, the substantially bad mutations will be selected away, and an occasional rare high-impact beneficial will be amplified (which can explain isolated events such as antibiotic resistance).
    http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

    Kimura’s Distribution
    http://dl0.creation.com/articl.....-white.jpg
    Correct Distribution
    http://dl0.creation.com/articl.....-white.jpg

    Design, Information and The Word of God – Dr. Andy McIntosh (59:27 minute mark) – video
    https://youtu.be/YMs1iY6yM9M?t=3567

    In the following article, Dr Sanford states, “It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations.,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are.”

    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 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    And again, if Darwinism were a real science that was subject to falsification, instead of basically being a pseudo-scientific religion for atheists that its adherents resolutely refuse to ever let be falsified, this should count as yet another powerful falsification of Darwinian theory.

    But alas, Darwinian evolution is not now,, and never was, about practicing good science.

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish [Duane T. Gish] is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
    – Michael Ruse – Atheist – Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    So the histone octamer spools just happened to evolve to spool up all the junk and organize the chromosomes? Really?

    Junk DNA is the ultimate argument from ignorance.

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    What we have learned from Darwinists is evidence does not impact their belief. Facts are to be discarded or twisted to fit what they feel to be true. They argue that evolution is a fact and nothing can change their feelings that they are right. There is nothing logical about Darwin’s Theory and once has a case been made based on actual evidence. There is no evidence to support a single claim.

  4. 4
    Fasteddious says:

    Here’s a construction analogy that explains possible uses for “junk DNA”:
    https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-junk-dna-functionality-analogy.html

Leave a Reply