“Humans are almost unimaginably complex, but have scarcely more genes than a fruitfly or a worm. The human genome comprises about 99% ‘junk DNA’ — genetic code that is not used to make the protein building blocks of life. Junk DNA accumulates in organisms’ genomes simply because it is good at accumulating.Genes that do code for proteins may recruit some or all of this junk DNA to regulate when, where and how much they are expressed. Something has to instruct genes to team up to produce complex structures such as hearts and kidneys.
Regulation is how we can have over 98.5% similarity to chimpanzees in the sequences of our coding genes, yet differ so utterly from them.
The huge quantity of junk DNA in the genomes of most complex organisms may act as a vast digital regulatory mechanism.
The emergence of digital regulation derived from unused stretches of junk DNA may have precipitated the transition from single cells to complex multicellular organisms.”
Rise of the digital machine Mark Pagel
Nature 452, 699 (10 April 2008) | doi:10.1038/452699a; Published online 9 April 2008
14 Replies to “They still insist on calling it JUNK”
You can’t make this up! How do Darwinists avoid cognitive dissonanse? What do they smoke? I would like to try it too!
I just saw an add for Expelled on television. It had Ben Stein and a kid (both in school boy outfits) sitting outside the principles office.
The kid asks Ben what he did. He says he made a movie questioning Darwinism.
“Junk DNA accumulates in organisms’ genomes simply because it is good at accumulating.”
“Genes that do code for proteins may recruit some or all of this junk DNA to regulate when, where and how much they are expressed.”
Genes are recruiting? I understand that sometimes these things are just a form of speaking, but in this context, I can’t possibly imagine what physical process he could be referring to. Has anyone else noticed that when evolutionists get stuck they automatically start anthropomorphizing their research subjects? Someone please explain the physical process a gene uses to recruit regulatory elements, and please do so without reference to existing regulatory processes and DNA, since the emergence of this is precisely the phenomena you are supposing to explain.
Does anyone besides me get the idea that the radical atheists aren’t really atheists at all, but in fact pantheists trying to pass themselves as atheists to avoid religious questions? This seems to be the only good explanation for anthropomorphizing genes.
OFF TOPIC: Is this a random spelling error or is there evidence of design in this blog entry title from evolutionnews.org?
“Dawinks Outraged at Exposure of Link Between Darwinism and Nazi Ideology”
Consider the following article: Evolution Leaves “Fingerprint” Across Human Genome
It strongly suggests that 1/3 of our DNA is “under selective pressure” — ie, affects the pheontype. 33% is a heck of a lot more than 1%!
This is strong support for a primary ID prediction.
Oh yea, another article that I blogged about a while back trying to get a new science-based thread going without having threadmaking rights.
what primary ID prediction is that?
That everything in living organisms is functional?
33%, while a whole lot more than 1%, is a whole lot less than 100%
I think this would make a nice review paper for an ID scientist to write. summarize the recent findings in functionality of non-coding dna and then suggest that in the future researchers might not want to refer to it as “junk.” send it to a nice mid-level genetics journal for review and see what happens. I suspect that, unless it’s already been done or you do a shoddy job, it would be accepted and published. other scientists will read it, decide whether they are convinced by your evidence or not, and then change their vocabulary accordingly. they would probably even cite you in their papers. This would be a very more effective means of getting the word out.
bFast, your referenced paper states “They estimate that such fingerprints affect at least a third of the genome, suggesting that while most DNA does not code for proteins, much of it is nonetheless biologically important – important enough, that is, to persist during evolution.”
Maybe the bit that is persisting is the bit that makes the parts that are the same for the organisms concerned.
Maybe the rest of the “junk” is what makes the organisms different from one another.
Does anyone know how different the “junk’ is in humans and chimps?
What’s that then? I had a look at http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org but I don’t find anything.
Johnnyb — good comeback!
I can only find one instance of “regulation” and it’s a reference at the end
in that linked article. As that was the part that was bolded that’s what I thought it was referencing. Nothing about digital either really except for a passing reference. Could you claify perhaps?
Imagine this, I have a computer. It doesn’t have much more information than a toaster…and 99% of it is “junk”. Now, does that sound promising enough to let it do your taxes?
What if I call it the Emergent Toaster?