They quit calling it junk:
Scientists have now drafted a complete version of the human genome sequence — but the job of deciphering our DNA has only just begun.
Why it matters: The bulk of the human genome is noncoding regions, some of which play an important role in how genes are expressed. New tools are allowing scientists to test exactly how these elements — once called “junk DNA” — work, which could lead to new drug targets.
Driving the news: A team of 99 scientists completed the human genome sequence last week, filling in gaps in the draft sequence published 20 years ago using some new technologies.
They reported the human genome is 3.05 billion base pairs long and consists of 19,969 protein-coding genes, including more than 100 newly deciphered genes that can likely produce proteins.
Alison Snyder, Eileen Drage O’Reilly, “Diving into the genome’s uncharted territories” at Axios
And it all just sort of fell together, right?
So, can we decode the chimp/ape (whichever is closest) genome and actually find out how close we are percentage wise to similarity once and for all?
As to “but the job of deciphering our DNA has only just begun.”
And this is another shining example of why the presuppositions of Darwinian evolution would actually hinder, instead of fostering, scientific discovery.
Within Darwin’s theory it was held, (and still is held), that the vast majority of non-protein coding DNA was, and is, useless junk.,, (And why should anyone ever try to ‘decipher’ useless junk?)
In fact, Larry Moran is suppose to release a book, sometime in 2022, that unbelievably “still’ claims that 90% of the genome is junk.
The reason why Darwinists, such as Larry Moran, (of note, Moran, since he adheres to ‘neutral theory’ doesn’t like being classified as a “Darwinist”), still cling to the idea that the vast majority of genome must be junk is because, via the mathematics of population genetics, Junk DNA is simply required for Darwin’s theory to have any realistic chance of being feasible, (and even granting Junk DNA to Darwinists, for the sake of argument, I would still argue that it still does not make their theory feasible).
As Robert Carter explains, “Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done.”
As the article in the OP highlights, the ‘requirement’ of Junk DNA within Darwin’s theory is directly contradicted by empirical evidence, (and thus Darwin’s theory has served as a hinderance, rather than as a catalyst, for scientific research).
In fact, the trend in research, directly contrary to Darwinian ‘predictions’, has been to find far more functionality in ‘non-coding’ regions than in protein coding regions.
As the following recent article highlighted, “With the HGP draft in hand, the discovery of non-protein-coding elements exploded. So far, that growth has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five, and shows no signs of slowing.”
And when ENCODE first came out, Ewan Birney, the senior scientist on the project, stated that, “This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
,,, “metaphor of junk isn’t that useful” is an understatement. The entire concept of Junk DNA is a hinderance as far as scientific research is concerned.
And even though ENCODE was breathtaking in its scope, Darwinists were having none of it.
When ENCODE came out, Darwinists defended their theory as if they were defending a religion and were attacking the ENCODE researchers as if the ENCODE researchers were heretics to their religion.
As Casey Luskin noted, it was a situation, “where devotion to the paradigm trumps the evidence.”
Obviously, that was a very strange reaction to ENCODE findings from Darwinists!
So again, and in conclusion, Darwin’s theory, and in so far as Darwin’s theory has been taken seriously by researchers, has only hindered scientific discovery rather than ever fostering scientific discovery.
“Could lead to new drug targets” makes commercial sense, but there’s a more interesting set of implications. Tritely but truly, Grandma’s “superstitions” were science. You can affect the genes of your offspring through your emotions and thoughts. Epigenes also control functions in the current organism, so changing your emotions and thinking can have a lasting and intergenerational impact.
I’m sure the psychopaths who run governments and social media already know this in considerable detail. NSA has always been WAY ahead of academic science, and I assume NSA’s Google division is the same.
Is DNA and the non-coding genome just part of a protein building design mechanism and only a small part of what makes a cell functional?
Also evidence indicates that a body design mechanism is somewhere else.
The narrator is right in that the DNA to protein process is only part of the life process. He is wrong in that the proteins make the cells function. Something else is guiding the proteins to the right place in the cell that will help enable the cells to be functional. What does this guiding is unknown.
That guidance mechanism is one of the real real puzzles of life.
They should change the terminology of “non-coding DNA”. Just because it doesn’t code for protein doesn’t mean it isn’t coding for something else. Other “codes” in DNA (aside from genes) might include control codes of various sorts, sequencing codes, processing instructions, tags or labels (codes) for finding and accessing DNA segments, DNA patches flagged (coded?) for non-use in this particular cell or organ, communication codes for signalling inside and outside the cell, and so on. If all (or most) of our DNA is being used, then I submit that it is mostly coding something or other, and not only proteins.
Wait until the darwinists shift and say “of course all the DNA is useful, isn’t Evolution amazing!!”
There is no junk DNA (John Sanford):
https://youtu.be/nV_q14L14H0