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.
As to:
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,
,,, 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,”
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.
As to this quote from the article,
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.”
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)
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:
A few more notes on functionality that is now found for repetitive elements in DNA
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/
Technically speaking, pulse count coding is Breguet, not Morse.
http://polistrasmill.blogspot......rse-2.html
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.
isn’t evolution amazing! Turns out it was more efficient than we could have imagined (sarcasm!)