'Junk DNA' News

Furore over “no junk” DNA?

Spread the love

From Nature:

The attempts to define genome function have been mired in controversy since ENCODE published its ‘80%’ finding in 2012 (Nature 489, 57-74; 2012). A subsequent paper from the same consortium a few months ago also met with derision, partly because it didn’t even speculate on the fraction of the genome that might have a purpose (M. Kellis et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6131-6138; 2014). That paper did, however, argue that evolutionary, genetic and biochemical data need to be taken into account to work out the answer.

In the latest report, the Oxford researchers responded to that call by focusing on evolutionary data. They looked for parts of the genome that showed low rates of mutation, a sign that those regions were conserved through natural selection. They classified the sequences – and only those sequences – as functional, a definition that is at odds with that used by ENCODE, which equated biochemical activity with functionality.

The shifting definitions confused some readers. “I don’t get this paper,” tweeted John Greally, an epigeneticist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City. “Functional=conserved, but discussion acknowledges that function can be in non-conserved sequences?” When reached for further comment, Greally says that he “gets” the paper now, but that he is “still frustrated by the way this debate is causing so much unproductive friction”. More.

Because the official doctrine headsman needs more heads?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

42 Replies to “Furore over “no junk” DNA?

  1. 1
    Joe says:

    I just read that short RNAs do get translated via ribosomes. Why wouldn’t that be considered functionality, especially if those products go on to do something?

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    OFF TOPIC: I pulled an evolutionist’s stunt by reviewing a book I did not read. Actually I wrote a blurb about the authors- 13 of them, all alleged skeptics who contribute to the loser blog “skeptic ink”. Now I am here stumping for supporting votesfor my “review”:


  3. 3
    jerry says:

    So we are up to a minimum of 8% and the term “conserved” is now being used between groups of humans as opposed to only between different species.

    The next step is to identify the function of the 8%.

  4. 4
    JoeCoder says:

    I just read that short RNAs do get translated via ribosomes.

    A very small number of them turned out to be protein coding genes, even though they previously were thought not to be because they were too short. Not enough to make any difference in the debate at large.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    I knew the 8.2% figure was bogus as soon as I read how they inferred functionality:

    DNA mostly ‘junk?’ Only 8.2 percent of human DNA is ‘functional’, study finds – July 24, 2014
    Excerpt: To reach their (8.2%) figure, the Oxford University group took advantage of the ability of evolution to discern which activities matter and which do not. They identified how much of our genome has avoided accumulating changes over 100 million years of mammalian evolution — a clear indication that this DNA matters, it has some important function that needs to be retained.

    i.e. So according to these Darwinian critics of the ENCODE study, which found widespread functionality for ‘junk’ DNA by studying actual biochemical activity, biochemical activity does not determine if a sequence is functional for a Darwinist, only ‘conservation of sequence’ determines what is functional???, So basically, only if Darwinian evolution is assumed as true at the outset will Darwinists accept that a given sequence of ‘junk’ DNA may be functional!,, That is called ‘assuming your conclusion into your premise’ and is a horrible way to practice science!

    This following paper, looking at actual biochemical activity to determine functionality, came out at the same time as the bogus 8.2% paper and, not surprisingly, came to a drastically different conclusion:

    Junk DNA not as worthless as once thought – 07/24/2014
    Excerpt: As early as 2007,, Hackermüller, together with a number of colleagues, was able to demonstrate,, practically the entire genome (is transcribed into RNA—a template which normally serves the production of proteins), even those areas which are completely neglected when looking at blueprints for proteins. Hackermüller: “This finding gave rise to a lively discussion as to whether this could be caused by chance events or mistakes in the regulation of cellular processes. However, I doubt that nature is so wasteful with resources that it would produce such masses of RNA for no specific reason.”
    In their latest study,, Hackermüller and his team,, were able to bridge yet another knowledge gap. The transcription of non-coding regions in the genome is precisely regulated by cellular signaling pathways—and on a grand scale: up to 80% of the RNA copies were non-coding. “We did not expect such a magnitude,” says Hackermüller. “This is not indicative of a chance product—it is highly likely that the non-coding RNAs perform a similarly important functions to that of protein-coding RNA.”

    as did this paper, which came out a few days later, come to a different conclusion ;

    Illuminating the dark side of the genome – July 29, 2014
    Excerpt: “Almost 50 percent of our genome is made up of highly repetitive DNA, which makes it very difficult to be analysed. In fact, repeats are discarded in most genome-wide studies and thus, insights into this part of the genome remained limited. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics (MPI-IE) in Freiburg now succeeded in examining this dark side of the genome. Their analyses revealed that repeat-associated heterochromatin is essential to repress retrotransposons and thereby protects the genomic integrity of stem cells. This work opens the way for future genome-wide analyses of repetitive regions in the genome and is in line with newly emerging functions for heterochromatin.”

    The insistence of Darwinists on labeling large chunks of DNA, that they do not understand, as Junk DNA, just because they believe unguided evolution to be true, is simply insane:

    3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip — while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell’s ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication.

    DNA – Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis – video

    Multidimensional Genome – Dr. Robert Carter – video

    The Extreme Complexity Of Genes – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – video

    Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
    Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark):
    “Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages.”
    Edward N. Trifonov – 2010

    Astonishing DNA complexity update
    Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Inferring functionality for virtually 100% of the genome, even though we do not know the precise function of all of the sequences of the genome, is relatively easy. One way to infer widespread functionality, despite not having knowledge of precise function, is to note that the entire genome, contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, is subject to multiple layers of DNA repair (i.e. why is the cell so jealously protecting so much dead weight junk?):

    Repair mechanisms in DNA include:

    A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
    A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
    Photoreactivation (light repair)
    Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 – methylguanine methyltransferase
    Base excision repair
    Nucleotide excision repair
    Double-strand DNA break repair
    Recombination repair
    Error-prone bypass

    Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion – March 2010
    Excerpt: “How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field,” he said. “It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It’s akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour.” Dr. Bennett Van Houten – of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot.

    The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
    Excerpt: The bottom line is that repair mechanisms are incompatible with Darwinism in principle. Since sophisticated repair mechanisms do exist in the cell after all, then the thing to discard in the dilemma to avoid the contradiction necessarily is the Darwinist dogma.

    Another way to infer widespread functionality across the entire genome, despite not having knowledge of precise function, is empirically:

    Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA – November 2011
    Excerpt: Mice without “junk” DNA. In 2004, Edward Rubin?] and a team of scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California reported that they had engineered mice missing over a million base pairs of non-protein-coding (“junk”) DNA—about 1% of the mouse genome—and that they could “see no effect in them.”
    But molecular biologist Barbara Knowles (who reported the same month that other regions of non-protein-coding mouse DNA were functional) cautioned that the Lawrence Berkeley study didn’t prove that non-protein-coding DNA has no function. “Those mice were alive, that’s what we know about them,” she said. “We don’t know if they have abnormalities that we don’t test for.”And University of California biomolecular engineer David Haussler? said that the deleted non-protein-coding DNA could have effects that the study missed. “Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years,” he argued.
    In 2010, Rubin was part of another team of scientists that engineered mice missing a 58,000-base stretch of so-called “junk” DNA. The team found that the DNA-deficient mice appeared normal until they (along with a control group of normal mice) were fed a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet for 20 weeks. By the end of the study, a substantially higher proportion of the DNA-deficient mice had died from heart disease. Clearly, removing so-called “junk” DNA can have effects that appear only later or under other circumstances.

    Shoddy Engineering or Intelligent Design? Case of the Mouse’s Eye – April 2009
    Excerpt: — The (entire) nuclear genome is thus transformed into an optical device that is designed to assist in the capturing of photons. This chromatin-based convex (focusing) lens is so well constructed that it still works when lattices of rod cells are made to be disordered. Normal cell nuclei actually scatter light. — So the next time someone tells you that it “strains credulity” to think that more than a few pieces of “junk DNA” could be functional in the cell – remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse.

    Another way to infer widespread functionality across the entire genome, despite lacking knowledge of precise function, is to note the trend in evidence. Every element that Darwinists have insisted to be junk in the past has been now shown to have function of one kind or the other. i.e. There has only been an increase in the amount of the genome known to functional, never a decrease!

    Reference Notes For Jonathan Wells’ Book – The Myth Of Junk DNA – Hundreds of Studies Outlining Function for various elements of ‘Junk’ DNA

  7. 7
    ppolish says:

    “only about 8.2% of the human genome is shaped by natural selection”

    That number seems a bit high to me, but I think Natural Selection is way overrated.

    How much is shaped by epigenetics? How much is shaped by design?

  8. 8
    JLAfan2001 says:

    Holy Crap!!!

    Why don’t you guys just let this go already? I mentioned on a post just a few months after the ENCODE findings that you IDists might be celebrating too early. It turns out I was right and now you guys can’t admit you were wrong. You have to try and refute the 98% similarities and the junk DNA so bad because it proves a conclusion that scares you. If I remember right, VJTorley came to accept Moran’s calculations of the neutral theory. If that’s so, then this shows that our genome is mostly junk and no amount of this DNA or that RNA burping a little here and there is going to change it.

    YOU LOST!!!!!

    Accept it and move on with your lives. Quit trying to fight a war you can’t possibly win.

  9. 9
    drc466 says:

    JLAFan 100 years ago:

    Holy Crap!!!

    Why don’t you guys just let this go already? I mentioned on a post just a few months after the [Piltdown Man] findings that you IDists might be celebrating too early. It turns out I was right and now you guys can’t admit you were wrong. You have to try and refute the [Lamarckism] and the [Piltdown Man] so bad because it proves a conclusion that scares you…
    YOU LOST!!!!!

    Accept it and move on with your lives. Quit trying to fight a war you can’t possibly win.

    Click Here

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    JLAfan2001, claiming that 91.8 percent of the genome is junk because the sequences are not conserved in other lineages is absurd. Only someone who is uncritically committed to Darwinism, no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, (such as the contrary evidences I cited in post 5 & 6), would find any comfort in such a shoddy way of reaching a pre-desired conclusion.,,, That you would defend such a fallacious study with such bluff and bluster is a sad testimony to the lack of scientific integrity that is rampant in Darwinian circles!

  11. 11
    ppolish says:

    JLA, don’t get mad at us because Natural Selection plays such a puny role shaping the genome.

  12. 12
    Joe says:

    bornagain77 is correct, again. The methodology has some serious flaws if it is looking at conserved sequences as evidence for functionality.

  13. 13
    JLAfan2001 says:


    I didn’t declare victory too soon. I waited two years and now this new study shows that ENCODE was wrong and that the neutral theory is right.


    Isn’t this what creationists and IDists do? Keep what relates to your theology and idealogoy and chuck the rest. Anyone that questions your evidence, throw dubious science, quote mines and cherry picked data at them.

  14. 14
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Isn’t this what creationists and IDists do? Keep what relates to your theology and idealogoy and chuck the rest. Anyone that questions your evidence, throw dubious science, quote mines and cherry picked data at them.

    Yup. Pretty much. But don’t forget about misrepresenting legitimate scientific papers, and referencing so called research papers even though those research papers themselves do not include any references (i.e., make bald statements with absolutely no supporting evidence aka Darwin’s Doubt).

    You also caved to them by allowing a distinction between creationism and IDism, when no such distinction exists.

  15. 15
    Dr JDD says:

    Ah yes of course. Who is criticising ENCODE? It must be the geneticists of the world, the ones that understand genetics (not sequence alignments, not homology or using algorithms to search known genes, but actual geneticists who study genes and DNA and RNA and similar)? Oh wait, no – it’s the evolutionists. Of course they know better! Wouldn’t want anything to stand in the way of precious Darwin.

    It even says in this Nature report that an epigeneticist didn’t understand how they were defining functional. Go figure.

    But hey, if you declare this a victory and proof of junk DNA than you really know much less science than I actually gave you credit for. I’ll bear that in mind next time.

  16. 16
    humbled says:

    “Quit trying to fight a war you can’t possibly win.”, JLA, have you finally gone mad? War? Are you serious? Darwinian fundamentalists, bwahaha, all the same. Irrational, illogical and cognitively impaired.

    Shame to see how far you have fallen since abandoning your faith.

  17. 17
    Silver Asiatic says:

    …referencing so called research papers even though those research papers themselves do not include any references (i.e., make bald statements with absolutely no supporting evidence aka Darwin’s Doubt).

    Darwin’s Doubt provides absolutely no supporting evidence? Or are you saying it did not provide any references?

    In either case, that’s not the way I read it.

  18. 18
    wd400 says:

    I’m sure Oxford’s functional genomics unit and the Welcome Trust’s Centre for Human Genetics will have these scientists fired immediately, since they are “evolutionists” and not real geneticists


    ENCODE has quietly backed down from the 80% figure from their press releases too:


  19. 19
    Dr JDD says:

    Wd400 I actually wasn’t talking about these authors as I do not consider based on what they have published to be the criticisers. They question the true functionality of claimed 80% so approach it from evolutionary functionality.

    The critics I am referring to are the ones who call the encode result idiocy and other derogatory names just because they don’t like the implications.

  20. 20
    JLAfan2001 says:

    Dr JDD, BA77, Joe and other IDists

    I would like to ask if you would change your mind about creation or design if we truly find out that ENCODE was wrong from the start and that most of the genome is junk? To paraprase a quote “If ENCODE is wrong, then Darwinian evolution is right”. Would you finally agree to this and put the argument to rest or will you find excuses to try and save/justify your beliefs?

  21. 21
    Jehu says:


    Behe has been proven correct but I don’t see
    you abandoning Darwinism. And unlike Behe’s edge, junk DNA doesn’t preclude design in nature.

  22. 22
    Dr JDD says:

    JLA – I have never said if junk DNA is 90%+ I will embrace Darwin Ian evolution because I did not embrace it back when they were apparently certain 98% was junk (now at 90% so funny how that goalpost changed – and it can only go one direction). My point is rejection of Darwinian evolution does not hinge on junk or no junk as there is huge amounts of evidence outside this issue that support rejection of Darwinian evolution. The simple mathematics alone is enough (the information problem). However it has been stated many times by many prominent evolutionists that without junk DNA evolution would not make sense so it seems that there is a bigger need for junk to be there.

    Which is precisely why people were so resistant to this idea of functionality for a large percentage of the genome. You have to admit if evolution could easily accommodate functionality for > 3bn bp than there would be no other reason for questioning the ENCODE findings.

    While I will admit this study does not seem to be too critical of ENCODE (just offers the “evolution” perspective) that may be just be publication etiquette however the main lab it appears this study came from is entirely concerned with evolution of genomes:


    So of course they are going to want to publish work that refutes a high functionality for the genome otherwise most of what they have been working on would be falsified!

    It’s like someone who publishes and spends their lives researching the efficacy of penicillin – if someone else published work that said penicillin is useless would they just say on I’ve been wrong time to move on or would they counter-publish to support their years of work and justify their grants?!

  23. 23
    Acartia_bogart says:


    Behe has been proven correct but I don’t see you abandoning Darwinism.

    If the creationists claim that Behe’s work is science, then he can’t be proven correct. Science is not about being able to prove anything.

    But, regardless, can you let me know what Behe has been proven correct on?

  24. 24
    JLAfan2001 says:

    Dr JDD

    If that is the case then why is ENCODE backing down from their initial findings rather than standing by them?

    It seems to me that ID is wanting it both ways – whether or not we find the genome mostly junk, it won’t change anyone’s position and yet IDists are fighting hard for it.

    This reminds me of Monty Python “It’s only a flesh wound.”

    My advice is to let this go before you guys get embarrassed by the final results. It won’t look good for your side.

  25. 25
    Dr JDD says:

    This just gets even more absurd by the minute. Unbelievable.

  26. 26
    Dr JDD says:

    JLA – given the state of peer review and the way science works when such loud voices criticise your work (as it challenges their scientific dogma) would you risk your career to still shout out loud about your findings? Especially if it didn’t really impact on your own worldview? Do you honestly think the “backing down” is the result of them changing their minds about their result or not wanting to offend others in the scientific community who will review their grants and papers etc?

  27. 27
    Jehu says:

    The Oxford study didn’t measure function it measured “conservation.” ENCODE measured actual biological activity. The gap between ENCODE and the Oxford study is the failure of a Darwinist prediction, not a failure of ENCODE.

  28. 28
    Jehu says:


    But, regardless, can you let me know what Behe has been proven correct on?

    The odds of a two-mutation requiring evolutionary step. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....88281.html

  29. 29
    anthropic says:

    AB, Behe’s analysis of the constraints on what can be expected from random mutation to produce drug-resistant malaria parasites was recently vindicated. Another researcher found that, as Behe correctly stated in The Edge of Evolution, anything beyond two simultaneous mutations for resistance was too much to expect, even when the population numbers a trillion and replicates rapidly.

    Behe cautions that two mutations is NOT a universal limit. There may be instances when five or six are possible as a theoretical maximum. But for animals with lower populations than trillions and slower replication rates, two simultaneous mutations might be a bridge too far.

    Behe was attacked for his conclusions, primarily because he holds an ID perspective and this finding throws a major spanner in the works for the powers of RM&NS. But he was right.


    By the way, “simultaneous” here doesn’t mean at the same replication cycle in the same cell. It just means the odds that a group of cells with one non-advantageous mutation will keep it until they get the second mutation that offers a benefit. The process is known as stochastic tunneling and is discussed in the second podcast.

  30. 30
    Jehu says:


    If that is the case then why is ENCODE backing down from their initial findings rather than standing by them?

    I haven’t actually seen where they back down. But I would imagine even they now realize the implication of the huge gap they found between the percentage of conserved DNA and the percentage of biologically active DNA, and what a blow it is to Darwinism.

  31. 31
    humbled says:

    I remember how hard I laughed after the ENCODE results were released and all the little darwinits were scurrying around experiencing a huge crisis of faith. They downplayed the importance of the science and hand waved the results away, especially since it buried Darwin for good.

    But these issues have never been about science, if they were, Darwinian evolution would only be found in history books or the comedy section…no, the issue is a philosophical one, the rejection of all things God.

    The Darwin faithful cannot and will not give up junkDNA. They’ll fight tooth and claw to protect their precious icons of evolution. Meanwhile they’ll continue to hold science ransom and poison the education systems with their ever increasing lunacy.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    JLAfan2001 contrary to what you seem to think, as has been pointed out for years on UD, Intelligent Design can easily be falsified. And I would gladly accept such a falsification of ID if it were forthcoming since I am more concerned with the pursuing the truth than defending a dogma.,,,

    The ‘easy’ falsification of ID is as such,

    Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.-
    Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: “To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.”
    Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)
    1) Mathematical Logic
    2) Algorithmic Optimization
    3) Cybernetic Programming
    4) Computational Halting
    5) Integrated Circuits
    6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)
    7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)
    8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system
    9) Language
    10) Formal function of any kind
    11) Utilitarian work

    Now the trouble for you in all this JLAfan2001, in your demand that IDists accept some falsification threshold, (a threshold which we have by the way), is that Darwinists have no falsification threshold for Darwinian evolution. i.e. A point at which we can experimentally say, ‘AHA, Darwinism is false!’.

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    – per Edge

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.

    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.

    Thus is it pure hypocrisy for you JLAfan2001 to demand that IDists submit to a falsification threshold, (a threshold which we already have), when Darwinists themselves refuse to submit to a rigid falsification threshold.

    ,,,Without a falsification threshold, there is practically no contrary finding that Darwinists can’t make up a ‘just so’ story for so as to ‘explain away’ the evidence,,,

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    Even JUNK DNA, though Graur infamously said that if it were functional it would falsify Darwinism,,,

    Junk DNA: Darwinists Say They Are “Largely Free from Assumptions or Hypotheses” – Jonathan Wells July 30, 2014
    Excerpt: As Graur — a vocal, even nasty, opponent of ENCODE — reasoned in his presentation:

    “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. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong.”

    ,,, even if every nucleotide were conclusively proven to be functional, contrary to what Graur thinks, even that would not falsify Darwinism. Darwinists would simply incorporate the finding as another epicycle into their theory.,,, Which is exactly Dawkins did at the drop of a hat when the 80% ENCODE finding initially came out in 2012,,,

    Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
    “Junk DNA is just what a Darwinist would expect,”

    Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA (after ENCODE)…
    “”junk DNA” isn’t junk at all but is instead “exactly what a Darwinist would hope for,”

    But regardless what Darwinists WANT to believe to be true for how all life originated on earth, I find the strongest rebuttal to Darwinian claims, (that all life on earth is the result of unguided, accidental, processes), to be by realizing the unfathomed integrated complexity being dealt with in biology.

    ENCODE: Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements – video

    Quote from preceding video:
    “It’s very hard to get over the density of information (in the genome),,, The data says its like a jungle of stuff out there. There are things we thought we understood and yet it is much, much, more complex. And then (there are) places of the genome we thought were completely silent and (yet) they’re (now found to be) teeming with life, teeming with things going on. We still really don’t understand that.”
    Ewan Birney – senior scientist – ENCODE

    Scientists go deeper into DNA (Video report) (Junk No More) – Sept. 2012

    Quote from preceding video:
    “It’s just been an incredible surprise for me. You say, ‘I bet it’s going to be complicated’, and then you are faced with it and you are like ‘My God, that is mind blowing.’”
    Ewan Birney – senior scientist – ENCODE 2012

  33. 33
    Moose Dr says:

    JLAfan2001, “I would like to ask if you would change your mind about creation or design if we truly find out that ENCODE was wrong from the start and that most of the genome is junk? To paraprase a quote “If ENCODE is wrong, then Darwinian evolution is right””

    JLA, if 2001 is the year you were born, then the nature of your aggressive, self-confident approach makes sense.

    10 years ago, the scientific community was pretty convinced that only 2% of DNA was functional. When the accepted number was 2%, the ID community responded by saying, even if you are right, the amount of change is incompatible with your theory(Haldane’s dilemma.) But now the low end of the guess about functional dna is 8.2% So Haldane’s dilemma has increased four fold in the last few years.

    I am definitely of the mind that it is time to throw in the towel as an IDer — not.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    In the Human Genome, Function Is There When You Look for It – August 7, 2014

  35. 35
    StephenA says:

    You continue to attempt to pursuade us that ID is false with a stream of insults. Why?
    In previous exchanges you indicated that you were not always a darwinist. Were insults how you were convinced to change your mind? Were you verbally assaulted until you caved?

    If not, why would you expect anyone else to be pursuaded by your sneers?

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    StephenA, but don’t you know that only ignorant people can’t see the Emperor’s new evolutionary clothes? 🙂


  37. 37
    Mapou says:

    The Darwinists are unusually rabid today. I predict that the genome will be found to be 0% junk and 100% functional. Wait for it.

  38. 38
    BM40 says:

    I predict that the genome will be found to be 0% junk and 100% functional.

    You are almost right – if you are talking about Utricularia gibba.

  39. 39
    humbled says:

    JLA is a great example of a modern day atheist. Smug, arrogant, ignorant, emotional and very confused.

    The confidence he attempts to portray in his messages betray him serving only to show us how insecure and confused, once having experienced the light and turning from it, he has become.

    You stand out like a sore thumb mate 😉

  40. 40
    humbled says:

    JLA is a great example of a modern day atheist. Smug, arrogant, ignorant, emotional and very confused.

    The confidence he attempts to portray in his messages betray him serving only to show us how insecure and confused, once having experienced the light and turning from it, he has become.

    You stand out like a sore thumb mate 😉

  41. 41
    DavidD says:

    BA77 – “In the Human Genome, Function Is There When You Look for It” – August 7, 2014

    Thanks for this, I don’t always look here, but great article. I have a friend who is anti-gmo and was pointing out a video from Neil de Grasse Tyson did a couple of weeks ago that was later posted on some journal called Mother Jones where humanist supporters of Neil de Grasse Tyson were championing his support of gmos and anyone not supporting Biotechs were being blasted as anti-science. The lack of respect for the sophistication with which genetic information operates and then inventing terms like “Junk DNA” to cloak their own ignorance under the guise of another religious worldview I believe is what has pushed and encouraged Biotechs to create things they should not have done without further research on such as releasing such creations without deeply considering their consequences. The fact is when taking a specific gene from another unrelated organism which works in conjunction with other specific pieces of an information in a program and spitting it haphazardly across species boundaries into an entirely different organism, with very little time has been spent on researching consequences of it’s effect on the outside environment is irresponsible. Unfortunately the profit for funding demands of investors tends to do that to researcher biases. Already we have seen many disastrous effects and there is no way to turn this genetic pollution around. Junk DNA plays right into the hands of many Biotechs who’d rather ignore many of the finer points mentioned in that article. Considering only Coding genes like the Cry gene that codes for BT Toxin as having important function and anything else associated next to it as mere junk is irresponsible. In fact, there are scientific papers out which have shown the potency of the BT Toxin within a new GMO organism is much higher than in it’s original bacterial host. Why ?, clearly much of the guiding, direction and instruction for toxin use information was left behind when they separated the gene from it’s surrounding fellow genes. I’m sure more examples will come to light, but it’s scary to think of the consequences that may come down the road and the inability of those geneticists to make necessary correction. So. again thanks for sharing. Anyway, here is Mr Tyson’s arrogant response to people who are merely concerned. Basically he attaches the label Anti-Science to anyone who doesn’t accept his take on science.


  42. 42
    Querius says:

    Acartia_bogart@23 wrote:

    But, regardless, can you let me know what Behe has been proven correct on?

    Easy. See bornagain77’s comment 125 here:

    This is a good summary, and even wd400 now seems to agree on Behe’s math to within 3 orders of magnitude out of 20.


Leave a Reply