'Junk DNA'

Junking more claims around junk DNA

Spread the love

Apparently, repeated sequences have a function:

As a case in point, consider an article released by New Scientist in July of last year. The writer, Michael Marshall, explains that the “new, more complete version of the human genome” that was released in May of 2021 “has uncovered enormous amounts of genetic variation between people that we couldn’t detect before…. Other studies have suggested that the new genome will finally reveal the functions of seemingly useless, repetitive sequences of ‘Junk DNA.’” Marshall explains that previous technology that was used to sequence the human genome made scientists “blind” to the fact that such sequences are, in fact, useful. After studying sections of the sequence that have DNA that repeat “over and over without interruption,” geneticist of the University of Connecticut Rachel O’Neill said, “Most surprising is the number of repeats and the types of complex repeats…. They’re not just random repeated sequences, they have structure, and that structure can impact the organization of our genome.” Marshall explains, “Many geneticists have long argued that much of this repetitive DNA has no function and is ‘junk.’ However, some parts do seem to play roles—for instance, in regulating the activity of genes.”

Jeff Miller, “More Evidence that the “Junk” DNA Argument is Junk” at Apologetics Press (February 7, 2022)

The New Scientist article is Michael Marshall (2021), “Full Human Genome Put to Work,” New Scientist, 251[3345]:12. A subscription is required.

You may also wish to read: At Scientific American: Salamander “junk DNA” challenges long-held view of evolution. Douglas Fox at SciAm: The salamanders would be on death’s door if they were human. “Everything about having a large genome is costly,” Wake told me in 2020. Yet salamanders have survived for 200 million years. “So there must be some benefit,” he said. The hunt for those benefits has led to some heretical surprises, potentially turning our understanding of evolution on its head.

5 Replies to “Junking more claims around junk DNA

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “new, more complete version of the human genome” that was released in May of 2021 “has uncovered enormous amounts of genetic variation between people that we couldn’t detect before”

    Moreover, directly contrary to the Darwinian claim that sexual reproduction ‘randomly’ increases the amount of genetic variation that is available for evolution to work on,

    Genetic Variation
    Excerpt: ,,, In sexual reproduction, two gametes unite to produce an offspring. But which two of the millions of possible gametes will it be? This is likely to be a matter of chance. It is obviously another source of genetic variation in offspring. This is known as random fertilization.
    https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Human_Biology/Book%3A_Human_Biology_(Wakim_and_Grewal)/07%3A_Cell_Reproduction/7.6%3A_Genetic_Variation

    ,,, directly contrary to the Darwinian claim that sexual reproduction ‘randomly’ increases the amount of genetic variation that is available for evolution to work on, it is now found that the ‘enormous amounts of genetic variation between people’ is not random as is presupposed within Darwinian theory.

    As the following study found, “The results also show that genetic mutations do not occur randomly in the two parental chromosome sets and that they are distributed in the same ratio in everyone”.,,, “(we are) individual in the truest sense of the word”,,, “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,”

    Duality in the human genome – November 28, 2014
    Excerpt: The results also show that genetic mutations do not occur randomly in the two parental chromosome sets and that they are distributed in the same ratio in everyone.,,,
    The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.
    The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time.,,,
    According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....enome.html

    This ‘non-random’ 60:40 ratio split in mutations is simply completely contrary to the ‘randomness/chance postulate’ for mutations that lies at the core of Darwin’s theory.

    “Johnson has meticulously examined the role of chance in Darwinian evolution and produced a superlative study. By dissecting the mass of Darwin’s writings back to his earliest notebooks, Johnson has concluded that “‘Darwinism’ had a single meaning . . . from beginning to end” (xii) and that chance formed the leitmotif of his thought from his Notebooks B and C commenced in July of 1837 to his death in April of 1882. “A designed world in all of its parts and operations,” he writes, “cannot be a chance world in any (of) them; and a world in which chance plays any role at all seems to be one that excludes a place for an omnipotent designer” (67). Darwin had to choose between a designed world or a world of chance; he chose the latter and adopted a variety strategies aimed a concealing this atheistic proposition.
    Focusing on chance allows Darwinian evolution to come into much sharper metaphysical focus. Johnson’s assertion that Darwin’s departure from Christianity was early and abrupt may be uncomfortable to some, but his detailed and exhaustive analysis makes it hard to argue against the fact that Darwin’s “chance-governed world seems tantamount to a godless world” (xviii). As such, Johnson’s bold and clearly argued thesis makes for an important addition to our understanding of the man and his theory.”
    – Michael Flannery review: “Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin” – 2017
    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/darwins-dice-michael-flannery-role-chance-darwinian-evolution/

    “It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition – or the hope – that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.”
    – Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology

    As to this quote from the article,

    “They’re not just random repeated sequences, they have structure, and that structure can impact the organization of our genome.”

    Richard Sternberg, who was driven out of his job at the Smithsonian Institution for daring to question the validity of Darwinian evolution, predicted functionality for repetitive DNA elements (REs) way back in 2003. In fact he stated that, “neo-Darwinian “narratives”, (“narratives” claiming that repetitive DNA elements are useless ‘junk’ DNA), have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.”

    On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System
    January 2003 – Richard Von Sternberg
    Abstract:
    Repetitive DNA sequences comprise a substantial portion of most eukaryotic and some prokaryotic chromosomes. Despite nearly forty years of research, the functions of various sequence families as a whole and their monomer units remain largely unknown. The inability to map specific functional roles onto many repetitive DNA elements (REs), coupled with the taxon-specificity of sequence families, have led many to speculate that these genomic components are “selfish” replicators generating genomic “junk.” The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the selfishness, evolutionary effects, and functionality of REs. First, a brief overview of the range of ideas pertaining to RE function is presented. Second, the argument is presented that the selfish DNA “hypothesis” is actually a narrative scheme, that it serves to protect neo-Darwinian assumptions from criticism, and that this story is untestable and therefore not a hypothesis. Third, attempts to synthesize the selfish DNA concept with complex systems models of the genome and RE functionality are critiqued. Fourth, the supposed connection between RE-induced mutations and macroevolutionary events are stated to be at variance with empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Hypotheses that base phylogenetic transitions in repetitive sequence changes thus remain speculative. Fifth and finally, the case is made for viewing REs as integrally functional components of chromosomes, genomes, and cells. It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10933051_On_the_Roles_of_Repetitive_DNA_Elements_in_the_Context_of_a_Unified_Genomic-Epigenetic_System

    Moreover, James Shapiro joined Richard Sternberg in 2005 to ‘predict’ widespread functionality for repetitive elements, (which was, and still is, a prediction that is in direct contradiction to what Darwinists predict for repetitive DNA elements, (i.e. again, Darwinists ‘predict’ that they are ‘junk’ DNA)

    Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function – James A Shapiro 1 , Richard von Sternberg – 2005
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15921050/

    Bob Dylan, ENCODE and Evolutionary Theory: The Times They Are A-Changin’ – James Shapiro – Sept. 12, 2012
    Excerpt: In 2005, I published two articles on the functional importance of repetitive DNA with Rick von Sternberg. The major article was entitled “Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function.”
    These articles with Rick are important to me (and to this blog) for two reasons. The first is that shortly after we submitted them, Rick became a momentary celebrity of the Intelligent Design movement. Critics have taken my co-authorship with Rick as an excuse for “guilt-by-association” claims that I have some ID or Creationist agenda, an allegation with no basis in anything I have written.
    The second reason the two articles with Rick are important is because they were, frankly, prescient, anticipating the recent ENCODE results. Our basic idea was that the genome is a highly sophisticated information storage organelle. Just like electronic data storage devices, the genome must be highly formatted by generic (i.e. repeated) signals that make it possible to access the stored information when and where it will be useful.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....73935.html

    So for the article to state that “They’re not just random repeated sequences, they have structure, and that structure can impact the organization of our genome”,,,, that finding of “non-junk” repeated sequences is yet another devastating empirical falsification of a core Darwinian prediction.

    Verse:

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

    A few more notes on functionality that is now found for repetitive elements in DNA

    Scientific Paper on Repetitive Elements Slams “Junk DNA”
    Casey Luskin – October 7, 2021
    Excerpt: After reviewing extensive evidence of function in these WEFs, they offer a striking finding:
    “The days of “junk DNA” are over.”,,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-scientific-american-salamander-junk-dna-challenges-long-held-view-of-evolution/#comment-746115

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Life uses pulse-count coding heavily in neural communication. Many analog quantities are transposed to pulse train or pulse width codes. So it’s not surprising to see Morse in the genes as well.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253597/

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    Technically speaking, pulse count coding is Breguet, not Morse.

    http://polistrasmill.blogspot......rse-2.html

  4. 4
    tjguy says:

    Another one bites the dust! Another previously held evolutionary belief is shown to be wrong. Seems like the writing is on the wall! Their evolutionary worldview led them to believe/assume that these sequences had no purpose/function. However, the Design worldview, while allowing for the degradation of the genome over time, mainly asserts that the genome is not leftover evolutionary junk, but serves a real purpose and is there as a result of design, not random pointless mutations.

  5. 5
    zweston says:

    isn’t evolution amazing! Turns out it was more efficient than we could have imagined (sarcasm!)

Leave a Reply