It looks like Francis Collins’ famed “junk DNA” – that proves Darwinism – is not junk after all. And that an ID theorist predicted we would find that. Of course, because Darwinism must be correct, a fact can only confirm it, never disconfirm it. So it makes no difference that the Darwinists were wrong and an ID guy was right. Watch the spin, but not so close you get dizzy.
Meanwhile, a question arises: If design is real, must all DNA be functional? I don’t see why that should necessarily be so. A designed system may accumulate junk. A well-designed system accumulates much less junk. So if design is real, we should see a system with only a small amount of junk, and the reason for it is inevitability.
Think about your own closet, a designed system (if you are not an utter slob), and you will see what I mean:
Possible classifications of junk that is not trash:
1. I will need it later, but it seems like junk now (snow shovel).
2. I may need it later, and it seems like junk now (snorkel).
3. I will likely never need it but the by-laws require me to have one (50 litre bottle of water).
4. I can’t imagine needing this but you never know (hibachi and charcoal bricks).
5. I don’t need it but it is too much trouble/expense to get rid of (awkward shelves built into the wall).
6. I used to need it but can’t make up my mind to get rid of it yet (clothes from younger days).
7. I don’t need it but it has intrinsic value. (The bread machine my sister left here when she moved.)
8. Stuff I was planning to give to the Sally Ann, in a bag, but they haven’t called by yet.
9. Trash. (Candy wrappers on the floor, the pink second copies of the dry cleaner’s invoices (never detached), dead house fly.)
So far, the volume of trash in a reasonably well-organized person’s closet is comparatively small, by mass.
(Note: For these purposes, if your attachment to any object is sentimental, we will assume you do need it, so it doesn’t count as junk even if no one else can figure out its function. 😉 But we aren’t likely to find that in the genome, so we will drop it from consideration.)
My drift is that if design is correct, what we should ultimately see in the genome is – apart from items that do have a function now – mostly items that apparently do not presently have a function but turn out to have one, under a category such as those above, and others that readers may suggest.