So non-protein coding DNA is now “widely recognized” to be not junk?

Different parts of the functional subset of our DNA have different functions. For instance, a ribosomal RNA forms part of the ribosome, and thus facilitates the expression of protein-coding genes. Typically, we consider "functional sequences" to be those that contribute to some part of the organism's normal activities. A 50 million year old broken transposon almost certainly doesn't do that, a ribosomal RNA does. Before you embark on some philosophical exploration of the word "function", I'd remind you any argument as the the amount of junk DNA requires a definition of biological funciotn. wd400

Oh don't all of a sudden be coy now wd400. You're the one who is making the argument. wd400 @ 30:

Is most of the genome functional, or is biological function restricted to tiny islands of sequence space?

By "most of the genome" do you mean DNA? Will it help you if I ask you "what is the function of the genome"? What if the question you pose is a false dichotomy? wd400 @ 30:

Given how mutations we each have it can’t be both.

Sure it can. wd400 @ 47:

That’s not why junk DNA exist, because mutation rates are pre-site and not per-replication you can’t have a “scratch pad”. But the fact we have ~50 mutations but are not dead is strong evidence that much of our genomes are junk.

Well there you have it. You're talking about DNA. When you say DNA you mean genome and when you say genome you mean DNA. So why is it so hard to understand what I asked? wd400 @ 47:

The other possibility is that biological function are easy to come by in sequence space.

Or you could be equivocating and presenting a false dichotomy. wd400 @ 61:

If every base is functional, then it absolutely is the absolute number that matters.

Every base in DNA? What is the "function" of a base in DNA? wd400 @ 61:

We know some mutations are damaging, but most of us aren’t dead. If we each had 50 mutations in a genome completely full of function it’s hard to see how we could survive.

A genome "completely full of function"? What does that even mean? wd400 @ 63:

Yeah, so the only way out for non-junkers is to claim that biological functions are not restricted to small islands of sequence space. But that’s not exactly the standard ID/Creationist position…

Again I ask you, what is the biological function of DNA? What's so difficult about that? It seems to comprise a large part of your argument, so you must know what you're talking about. wd400 @ 66:

If those bases are functional, then function must be very easy to come by because it looks like any old sequence will do it.

What is the function of a base in DNA? wd400 @ 69:

Evolutionary conservred non-coding DNA adds up to less than 10% of the genome. Repeats get co-opted into functional sequences of course, but they weren’t functional before they copied themselves into the new structure.

See, you're talking about DNA. And equating it with the genome. DNA which is composed ob sequences of bases. the function of which, or lack thereof, is crucial to your argument. So again I ask, what is the function that you're referring to? If you can't say, then you really don't have an argument. So you don't understand the question and I don't understand how you can not understand the question. All through this thread you've been making an argument about DNA/GENOME/BASES and their FUNCTION. So I ask what is their function. Does that help? wd400 @ 74:

...are you quibbling about a precise meaning or do have a substantive point to make?

Am I quibbling about a precise meaning of function? Hardly. Let me try again. You claim the genome/DNA/a base [as far as I can tell you you use these terms interchangeably in this thread] have or do not have a function. For those that have a function, what is their function? For those that do not, what function do they lack? Your argument is that this as yet unidentified and unspecified function is easily found.

If those bases are functional, then function must be very easy to come by because it looks like any old sequence will do it.

What does it even mean to say that a base is functional or to deny that a base is functional? When you say that function must be easy to come by what do you mean? It's your argument. When you say FUNCTION what do you mean? Mung

I don't understand the question Mung -- are you quibbling about a precise meaning or do have a substantive point to make? wd400

wd400, just what do you think the function of DNA consists of? What does it do? Mung

Unless their function was exactly to help generating the new functional structures. And we are back to the fact you can't maintain something for future use without having it be subject to the deleterious effects of mutation. Unless you think mutations are directed, in which case you have a fresh set of evidence against you. wd400

drc466:

Personally – if someone told me that even just 2% of my DNA was “non-functional” or “neutral” mutations, and offered to excise that portion for me? I’d pass.

Ha! Ain't that the truth! I'll just hang onto my "junk" DNA if it's all the same to you. Phinehas

wd400: "Repeats get co-opted into functional sequences of course, but they weren’t functional before they copied themselves into the new structure." Unless their function was exactly to help generating the new functional structures. gpuccio

Evolutionary conservred non-coding DNA adds up to less than 10% of the genome. Repeats get co-opted into functional sequences of course, but they weren't functional before they copied themselves into the new structure. wd400

wd400: From the above paper, about repeats:

The repeats have amended the genome by reorganizing it, creating entirely new genes and revising and rearranging the existing genes. Contrary to the earlier common assumption that insertion of repetitive elements into genes would impair the protein’s ability to function, a surprisingly large number of these elements are found in translated proteins also. The repetitive elements seem to insert into non coding regions of a gene and be incorporated into protein through alternative splicing. Since the elements contain splicing sites, new proteins may be created as a result of the shuf?ing, elongation or truncation of coding regions of the old gene. Thus, the location and distribution of the human repetitive elements may provide insight into their role in gene evolution and species differentiation.

gpuccio

wd400: Evolutionarily Conserved Noncoding DNA http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0006126.html Abstract:

Abstract Noncoding deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which includes all sequences within the genome except exon sequences that encode the protein?reading frames, harbours a wide variety of regulatory genomic features and elements. The availability of increasingly complete and accurate genomic sequence data from evolutionarily separated species – as well as diverse strain and ethnic variants within species – is providing an unprecedented opportunity to identify potentially functional regions within the genomic noncoding DNA. A variety of computational approaches enable genome?wide detection, characterisation and visualisation of highly conserved sequences and the occurrence of potentially functional elements within both the conserved and evolved elements. As a result of the continued discovery of these functional elements, the nongenic genetic neighbourhoods are now considered as keys to identifying regulatory elements that are essential for gene and chromosomal function. In this article is given an overview of the various known components of the noncoding DNA landscape and present some of the bioinformatic?based approaches and resources to identify and analyse the potential regulatory regions in genomic sequences. Key Concepts: An indeterminate fraction of the noncoding proportion of the human genome has a decisive role in regulating gene expression. Comparisons among genome sequences are keys to identifying the functional regions of noncoding DNA. Identifying and analysing ‘phylogenetic footprints’ is a standard approach to examine for potential regulatory regions. Two common features of long?range regulatory elements are that they are frequently conserved in other mammals and are unique within the human genome. It is not only the conservation of the noncoding DNA but also the loss of the same that holds some of the clues to understand our phenotypic complexity and diversity. Post?ENCODE, the genome is viewed as a network of collaborating RNA transcripts with many of the regulatory regions of proteins transcribed into RNA and serve as regulators (e.g., microRNAs and siRNAs).

Just an example of a recent approach. gpuccio

If we did not understand the way that genes code for proteins, we would not understand why synonymous mutations are well tolerated in that kind of sequence.

But we'd see very clearly that some positions could chagne, and others were conserved, within populations and between spcies. There is no such conservation, within or between, for the vast majority of human genome. If those bases are functional, then function must be very easy to come by because it looks like any old sequence will do it. wd400

wd400: "Yeah, so the only way out for non-junkers is to claim that biological functions are not restricted to small islands of sequence space. But that’s not exactly the standard ID/Creationist position…" It seems that you are the only one to see that point. Functional islands are small and rare. That does not mean that they cannot present engineered variation, or that they cannot be rather robust to limited random error. Synonymous mutations are neutral in protein coding genes. What is the reason for that neutrality? The redundancy of the genetic code, a specific property of the coding sequences. If we did not understand the way that genes code for proteins, we would not understand why synonymous mutations are well tolerated in that kind of sequence. In the same way, if we do not understand the functional role of non coding genes, we cannot understand what kind of variation they can tolerate, or not tolerate. And we cannot understand what kind of variation is functionally engineered to provide functional diversity. Diversity can in itself be a functional goal. We have many examples of that in human engineering and in human creations, including art. gpuccio

I would be surprised if any of DNA was functional. Mung

Why? Only rarely functional mutations are incompatible with life, even in protein coding genes. Then why is there so little diversity in protein-coding sequences compared with introns? And you always avoid the problem that there is functional diversity. All humans are not the same, We are not the same as chimps. And so on. Yeah, so the only way out for non-junkers is to claim that biological functions are not restricted to small islands of sequence space. But that's not exactly the standard ID/Creationist position... wd400

wd400: "I would be surprised if more than about 20% of genome was functional at the sequence level." You will be surprised. "We know some mutations are damaging, but most of us aren’t dead. If we each had 50 mutations in a genome completely full of function it’s hard to see how we could survive." Why? Only rarely functional mutations are incompatible with life, even in protein coding genes. And you always avoid the problem that there is functional diversity. All humans are not the same, We are not the same as chimps. And so on. Life and death are not the only things in the game. gpuccio

drc466, If every base is functional, then it absolutely is the absolute number that matters.

And we know that this (tiny) percentage of mutations IS damaging – hence the well-known deleterious impacts of in-breeding, for example. Or the many known damaging defects of chromosomal mutations. To your point – if so much of our DNA is junk, why does it take so little mutation (relatively) to cause bad things? The fairly obvious logical conclusion is that our DNA isn’t mostly junk.

We know some mutations are damaging, but most of us aren't dead. If we each had 50 mutations in a genome completely full of function it's hard to see how we could survive. (FWIW, using 50 mutations as a rough number we end up with 50 mutations * 3% protein-coding * 3/4 non-synonymous ~ 1 protein-coding mutation per live birth). All of your proposed work-arounds require some sort of redundancy to shield mutated sequences from the effects of their mutation. But that doesn't work. Being sheilded from the effects of mutation means those sequences are shielded from purifying selection, the mutations they accrue will gradually spread through the population and the "back up" will no longer work. I would be surprised if more than about 20% of genome was functional at the sequence level. wd400

wd400, You ask some decent questions regarding mutations in our DNA, but the questions are based on an invalid premise - that our DNA is not designed, and especially not superlatively designed. First of all, consider the relative amount of mutation before stuff breaks, not the absolute. While there may be a large number of mutations in every person's DNA, as a percentage of the DNA the number is pretty small - smaller than, say, the % difference between a human and a chimp (wink). And we know that this (tiny) percentage of mutations IS damaging - hence the well-known deleterious impacts of in-breeding, for example. Or the many known damaging defects of chromosomal mutations. To your point - if so much of our DNA is junk, why does it take so little mutation (relatively) to cause bad things? The fairly obvious logical conclusion is that our DNA isn't mostly junk. So, if we thus assume that the clear majority of our genome is functional in some manner, how can we have so many mutations (numerically) without obvious deleterious effects? If we take the approach of assuming the DNA is designed, there are some pretty simple possibilities: 1) Some sections are not always "On"/Used. We know that some areas of DNA are only active under certain environmental stimuli. If mutations occur in a section of code that is not "mission-critical" to daily operation, it may not present itself as damaging. By analogy, think of a congenital heart defect that only causes problems in professional athletes. 2) Over-design. Using the same congenital heart-defect analogy - if the DNA was designed to be robust in its production, genetic defects can be "hidden" by the excess or "safeties" built in to the final product. Many people are unaware that one of their two bilateral organs is "defective" for most/all of their lives. 3) Redundant Systems. Staying with the bilateral organ example - if we assume designed DNA, it is very likely that redundancy is built in to the DNA. Experiments with eyeless fruit-flies suggest that they can re-gain sight over multiple generations of interbreeding - in turn suggesting that there is some kind of "eye backup" built in to fruit-fly DNA that can fix a busted eye gene. Consider that your DNA may be like a RAID array - multiple mutations across redundant data only causes issues when it shows up in both copies (another reason not to in-breed!) Personally - if someone told me that even just 2% of my DNA was "non-functional" or "neutral" mutations, and offered to excise that portion for me? I'd pass. drc466

Querius: Obviously, evolutionary science is now done by consensus ... No, but Dionisio brought up hardworking scientists, so we thought he considered them a valid authority. Dionisio: Where did I write that they debunked any theory? So your scientific friends didn't express an opinion on evolution, it's not their area of expertise, but did say there are unanswered questions. Sounds reasonable. Not sure why you brought it up. Dionisio: What historical events are you talking about? Turns out that there has been life on Earth for billions of years, and life today is not like life of yesteryears. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/2/5/1233857620698/Archaeopteryx-fossil-001.jpg Dionisio: I simply requested a description of any hypothetical processes that could have brought us here. That's an historical question, obviously. The basic process is branching descent with modification. Adaptation is guided by natural selection. Zachriel

@57 bw Agree, it is very interesting. Thank you for sharing it here. Dionisio

Read this a few weeks ago and thought I would share as it is on topic: No junk: Long RNA mimics DNA, restrains hormone responses Excerpt: "Unlike many genes scientists are familiar with, GAS5 does not encode a protein. It gets transcribed into RNA, like other genes, but with GAS5 the RNA is what's important, not the protein. The RNA accumulates in cells subjected to stress and soaks up steroid hormone receptors, preventing them from binding DNA and turning genes on and off." Also: "There are thousands of long non-coding RNAs that play critical roles in gene regulation, and little data to tell us how they are functioning or where they came from," says lead author graduate student Will Hudson. "We took a deep dive into looking at the interaction of the Gas5 RNA with steroid hormone receptors, and we think this work may serve as a model to understand how lincRNAs interact with other proteins." Interesting stuff. bw

Zachriel @40

there are plenty of unanswered questions when determining historical events.

What historical events are you talking about? My questions were about biology, not history. I simply requested a description of any hypothetical processes that could have brought us here. Signaling pathways, regulatory networks and the whole nine yard. That's all, buddy. Leave history alone. Think pure science. Just biochemistry, biology, physics. They couldn't provide any or point to any document that could explain it. They just claimed that's not their area of interest. They work on stem cell research, etc. No time for entertainment or speculative discussions. Got it now? Dionisio

Zachriel Apparently your comrades and fellow travelers have come to give you a hand (@42, 50, 52). Now I understand why you wrote 'we' in lieu of 'I'. Ciao! :) Dionisio

@40 Zachriel

there are plenty of unanswered questions when determining historical events.

What historical events are you talking about? My questions were about biology, not history. I simply requested a description of any hypothetical processes that could have brought us here. Signaling pathways, regulatory networks and the whole nine yard. That's all, buddy. Leave history alone. Think pure science. Just biochemistry, biology, physics. They couldn't provide any or point to any document that could explain it. They just claimed that's not their area of interest. They work on stem cell research, etc. No time for entertainment or speculative discussions. Got it now? Dionisio

@33 Zachriel

We pointed out that nearly all of those hardworking biologists support evolutionary theory.

why did you write “We” instead of “I” in the above quoted sentence? Are you one person or a group of people? Dionisio

"My questions were about biology, not history. I simply requested a description of any hypothetical processes that could have brought us here." Oh, Dio. You've never heard of "natural history" have you? AVS

@40 Zachriel

there are plenty of unanswered questions when determining historical events.

What historical events are you talking about? My questions were about biology, not history. I simply requested a description of any hypothetical processes that could have brought us here. Signaling pathways, regulatory networks and the whole nine yard. That's all, buddy. Leave history alone. Think pure science. Just biochemistry, biology, physics. They couldn't provide any or point to any document that could explain it. They just claimed that's not their area of interest. They work on stem cell research, etc. No time for entertainment or speculative discussions. Got it now? Dionisio

Dionisio, to Zachriel:

why did you write “We” instead of “I” in the above quoted sentence? Are you one person or a group of people?

I explained that to tjguy on another thread:

tjguy to Zachriel,

Who in the world are you talking about when you say “As WE said,….” We?????

His name is Legion, for he is many.

keith s

Dionisio to Zacky:

why did you write “We” instead of “I” in the above quoted sentence? Are you one person or a group of people?

He's been doing this for a while. It's an "us vs. them" thing for Zacky. Mapou

@40 Zachriel

We’d be happy to look at their published research debunking evolutionary theory.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Where did I write that they debunked any theory? Dionisio

Secondly, if all DNA were functional, then any mutations would most likely be deleterious. You need non-coding DNA to serve both as a scratch pad and a buffer against excessive changes.

That's not why junk DNA exist, because mutation rates are pre-site and not per-replication you can't have a "scratch pad". But the fact we have ~50 mutations but are not dead is strong evidence that much of our genomes are junk. The other possibility is that biological function are easy to come by in sequence space. wd400

@33 Zachriel

We pointed out that nearly all of those hardworking biologists support evolutionary theory.

why did you write “We” instead of “I” in the above quoted sentence? Are you one person or a group of people? Dionisio

Obviously, evolutionary science is now done by consensus, however it's not a simplistic democratic vote, but rather a carefully managed process by the de facto elite in the field, who carefully fit any new discoveries into the continually evolving theory of evolution---a very demanding process that requires the best minds in science! However, there's an evolving grass roots movement that asserts that what was formerly considered junk DNA, is actually junk after all! Here's why this is necessary. Firstly, according to Dr. Ohno, the presence of "junk" DNA is actually evidence for evolution. That non-coding DNA is actually a "fossil record" of evolution, thus vital for the theory. Secondly, if all DNA were functional, then any mutations would most likely be deleterious. You need non-coding DNA to serve both as a scratch pad and a buffer against excessive changes. This proves that a significant portion of DNA must undeniably be junk, regardless of apparent evidence to the contrary. ;-) -Q Querius

wd400- Is science done via consensus or evidence? You can have all of the scientists and it wouldn't give you any supporting evidence for evolutionism. Joe

We’d be happy to look at their published research debunking evolutionary theory.

We have to see this alleged evolutionary theory first. Darwin's contribution, natural selection, has proven to be impotent and nothing else has been offered as a materialistic alternative. So what is there to debunk?

Lenski’s E. coli long-term evolution experiment.

Ah yes. The experiment that demonstrates the severe limits of evolutionary change. That is some great evidence that unguided evolution cannot get past prokaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. Not sure why you brought that up. As for Shubin if the tetrapod tracks that were found in Poland were found before Shubin started planning his trip, according to him he wouldn't have gone to where he found Tiktaalik. Either that or Tiktaalik would have been dated to 400+ million years ago... Joe

Dionisio, The first paragraph describes it pretty well -- it's a response to a particularly silly creationist gambit. If you want something less tongue in cheek, then ~97% of scientists agree that humans evolved, 87% that we did so "due to natural processes" wd400

@37 Zachriel

We could start with scientists named Steve. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

What is that web site supposed to tell me? Dionisio

Dionisio: When I asked them directly to explain how we humans and the rest of the living creatures we see around got here, they humbly admitted they don’t have any coherent comprehensive explanation. That's not what you indicated above. What are their specialties, by the way? We'd be happy to look at their published research debunking evolutionary theory. If they just mean there are unanswered questions, then sure, there are plenty of unanswered questions when determining historical events. Zachriel

@37 Zachriel

I don’t recall them making any reference to any evolutionary theory at all.

When I asked them directly to explain how we humans and the rest of the living creatures we see around got here, they humbly admitted they don't have any coherent comprehensive explanation. Most probably you and your comrades would have answered very differently, but that's expected. BTW, humility is a rare virtue, very much appreciated in many circles, including scientific ones. It may go along with honesty and courage too. :) Dionisio

@35 Zachriel

They’re professional interest isn’t in finding unanswered scientific questions.

They’re? Did you mean Their? Dionisio

Dionisio: How do you know what nearly all of them really support? We could start with scientists named Steve. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve Dionisio: how do you know that my friends haven’t expressed an opinion on the subject? Dionisio: I don’t recall them making any reference to any evolutionary theory at all. Zachriel

@33 Zachriel

You noted the many hardworking biologists. We pointed out that nearly all of those hardworking biologists support evolutionary theory. For some reason, you then brought up your biologist friends, who haven’t expressed an opinion on the subject.

Well, first, I don't recall seeing your answer to my question in post #23: How do you know what nearly all of them really support? Second, why did you write "We" instead of "I" in the above quoted sentence that starts "We pointed out that..."? Third, how do you know that my friends haven’t expressed an opinion on the subject? Dionisio

Dionisio: What do you mean by “Scientists extend it“? Engineers apply known science. Scientists work on the edges of knowledge in order to increase the sphere of what is known. Dionisio: Can you provide an example as illustration? Darwin's studies when he circumnavigated the globe. Shubin's adventures in the Canadian Arctic. Taking close-up pictures of a comet. Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment. Dionisio: How does that relate to what I wrote? Dionisio: BTW, in my professional field, software development, I don’t recall ever meeting anyone who would say they don’t know where to find the answers to any serious questions related to the given profession. Software development is a field within engineering. Nothing wrong with that, but the purpose of engineering isn't to extend human knowledge, but to apply what is already known. They're professional interest isn't in finding unanswered scientific questions. Zachriel

@31 Zachriel

That’s the difference between engineering and science. Engineers apply existing knowledge. Scientists extend it.

What do you mean by "Scientists extend it"? Can you provide an example as illustration? How does that relate to what I wrote? Dionisio

Dionisio: authoritative source of what? You noted the many hardworking biologists. We pointed out that nearly all of those hardworking biologists support evolutionary theory. For some reason, you then brought up your biologist friends, who haven't expressed an opinion on the subject. Zachriel

@31 Zachriel

Your biologists friends, who may work in tangentially related fields, who didn’t even express an opinion, is your authoritative source?

authoritative source of what? Dionisio

Dionisio: My biologist friends confessed that the answers to some fundamental questions in their profession aren’t known to anyone yet. That’s why they have to work so hard. Your biologists friends, who may work in tangentially related fields, who didn't even express an opinion, is your authoritative source? Dionisio: BTW, in my professional field, software development, I don’t recall ever meeting anyone who would say they don’t know where to find the answers to any serious questions related to the given profession. That's the difference between engineering and science. Engineers apply existing knowledge. Scientists extend it. Zachriel

Is most of the genome functional, or is biological function restricted to tiny islands of sequence space? Given how mutations we each have it can't be both. wd400

@25 Mapou

It’s in the same category as “random mutations”, the flat earth hypothesis and the tooth fairy.

Well, my children claim that they had tangible evidences that the tooth fairy was real. :) Dionisio

@24 Mung

No one ever claimed that there was any such thing as junk DNA.

Well, the concept seems related to the biblical claim of the spiritual fall of mankind at the beginning of human history and the mess that followed, hence maybe the name was coined by some religious people to prove their case? :) Dionisio

Mung 24

No one ever claimed that there was any such thing as junk DNA.

Evolutionists predict that whatever they say about DNA will be fully correct until or unless they say something different about it in the future. Silver Asiatic

Putative cis-regulatory drivers... doi:10.1038/nature13602 The cis-regulatory effects responsible for cancer development have not been as extensively studied as the perturbations of the protein coding genome in tumorigenesis. Collectively the integration of genome and the transcriptome reveals a substantial number of putative somatic and germline cis-regulatory cancer changes that may have a role in tumorigenesis. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13602.html

have not been as extensively studied? Why? Dionisio

AVS @3:

Don’t worry, there is still a significant amount of non-coding DNA that is still classified as “junk” and will likely remain so.

Wishful thinking by mental midgets.

Yes, the initial “junk” label was probably premature (shame on us!), but there is still a large portion of the genome simply made up of single sequence repeats.

Premature? It's just plain stupid. How much do you want to bet that junk DNA is a superstitious Darwinist myth through and through. There never was such a thing. It's in the same category as "random mutations", the flat earth hypothesis and the tooth fairy. Mapou

No one ever claimed that there was any such thing as junk DNA. Mung

@21 Zachriel

And nearly all of those hard workers in biology support evolutionary theory.

How do you know what nearly all of them really support? FYI - The serious ones don't have time to squander on the type of discussions we see here and in other blogs out there. They have challenging issues to resolve. The Polish, Scandinavian and Spanish scientists I know personally are serious biologists who don't seem to care much about any evolutionary theory, because they are working (sometimes outside their original countries) on leading-edge biomedical research in order to understand and find cures for diseases that affect many people. They analyze the current system in front of them, using the available technology and information, in order to answer many questions they have. At least that's the impression I got when I spoke to them and they told me about the work they do. I don't recall them making any reference to any evolutionary theory at all. Obviously when they explained their work to me, they knew they had to make their explanation understandable to an ignorant like me. :) However, in some occasions they humbly admitted to not knowing where to find the answers to some of my questions. BTW, in my professional field, software development, I don't recall ever meeting anyone who would say they don't know where to find the answers to any serious questions related to the given profession. All the answers are written somewhere out there. Perhaps some of the proprietary information is confidential, hence unavailable to some of us, but it is there. My biologist friends confessed that the answers to some fundamental questions in their profession aren't known to anyone yet. That's why they have to work so hard. BTW, those friends and I may not be necessarily on the same page regarding worldview positions. Actually, probably we are pretty far apart in some philosophical/theological areas. But those differences did not hinder our friendly conversations. :) Dionisio

And nearly all of those hard workers in biology support evolutionary theory.

I bet they cannot reference this alleged theory. Joe

Dionisio: Researchers work hard trying to figure out how things work and what they do. And nearly all of those hard workers in biology support evolutionary theory. In any case, one way to determine whether a sequence is neutral or not is to look at its history. If it is not under selection, then it will drift at a known rate. Zachriel

Perhaps it would make sense that some parts of the DNA have no beneficial functions, because through history our biological components have been exposed to hostile conditions and processes that could have messed up many parts of the system. But jumping into conclusions prematurely is not prudent. Researchers work hard trying to figure out how things work and what they do. Dionisio

@10 Box

The futile search for the master regulator :) SLT: “When regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates?”

Interesting observation indeed. Thank you. Dionisio

@5 awstar

Next we’ll probably hear that evolutionary biologists are pushing the name of Jonathan Wells as a nobel laureate candidate.

Well, perhaps within a hypothetical 'multiverse' context that event took place already? :) Dionisio

On a related note, here's an interesting comment posted by gpuccio in another thread (post # 805): https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-535236 Dionisio

@4 gpuccio

I would suggest to avoid making the same “premature” thing twice! That will be shown to be the most important part, sooner or later… :)

That's a very wise advice. However, unfortunately some interlocutors won't heed it. :( Dionisio

Genome Res. 2014 May;24(5):786-96. doi: 10.1101/gr.161521.113. Epub 2014 Feb 10. Evolution [?] of splicing regulatory networks... The proteome expanding effects of alternative pre-mRNA splicing have had a profound impact on eukaryotic evolution. The events that create this diversity can be placed into four major classes: exon skipping, intron retention, alternative 5' splice sites, and alternative 3' splice sites. Although the regulatory mechanisms and evolutionary pressures among alternative splicing classes clearly differ, how these differences affect the evolution of splicing regulation remains poorly characterized. Regulation of exon skipping and tandem alternative 3' splice sites (NAGNAGs) were more divergent than other splicing classes. Splicing regulation was most divergent in frame-preserving events and events in noncoding regions. We further determined the contributions of cis- and trans-acting changes in splicing regulatory networks by comparing allele-specific splicing in F1 interspecific hybrids, because differences in allele-specific splicing reflect changes in cis-regulatory element activity. We find that species-specific differences in intron retention and alternative splice site usage are primarily attributable to changes in cis-regulatory elements (median ?80% cis), whereas species-specific exon skipping differences are driven by both cis- and trans-regulatory divergence (median ?50% cis). These results help define the mechanisms and constraints that influence splicing regulatory evolution and show that networks regulating the four major classes of alternative splicing diverge through different genetic mechanisms. We propose a model in which differences in regulatory network architecture among classes of alternative splicing affect the evolution of splicing regulation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24515119

As some of the outstanding questions get answered, new questions pop up. Kind of like a never-ending story... like the Energizer bunny, which keeps going and going... :) Dionisio

Dr. Wells gives some historical background as to why some neo-Darwinists are doing everything they can to discredit the recent (Sept. 2012) ENCODE findings: Why All the Fuss Over Some Junk? - Jonathan Wells - September 25, 2012 Excerpt: Some historical context might help. After James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the molecular structure of DNA in 1953, Crick announced that they had found "the secret of life," a popular formulation of which became "DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us." But biologists discovered that about 98% of our DNA does not code for protein, and in 1972 Susumu Ohno and David Comings independently used the term "junk" to refer to non-protein-coding DNA (though neither man excluded the possibility that some of it might turn out to be functional). Why didn't biologists simply call non-protein-coding sequences "DNA of unknown function" rather than "junk DNA?" For some, it was because "junk DNA" seemed more suited to the defense of Darwinism and survival of the fittest. In 1976, Richard Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene that "the true 'purpose' of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus [i.e., non-protein-coding] DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA." In 1980, W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza wrote in Nature (284:601) that many organisms contain "DNAs whose only 'function' is survival within genomes," and that "the search for other explanations may prove, if not intellectually sterile, ultimately futile." In the same issue of Nature (284:604), Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick wrote that "much DNA in higher organisms is little better than junk," and its accumulation in the course of evolution "can be compared to the spread of a not-too-harmful parasite within its host." Since it is unlikely that such DNA has a function, Orgel and Crick concluded, "it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively for one." Two biologists then wrote to Nature (285:617,618) expressing their disagreement. Thomas Cavalier-Smith considered it "premature" to dismiss non-protein-coding DNA as junk, and Gabriel Dover wrote that "we should not abandon all hope of arriving at an understanding of the manner in which some sequences might affect the biology of organisms in completely novel and somewhat unconventional ways." Cavalier-Smith and Dover were not criticizing evolutionary theory; they were merely questioning the claim that non-protein-coding DNA is non-functional. After the rise of intelligent design (ID) in the 1990s, "junk DNA" became a favorite weapon against ID in the hands of some Darwinists, including Richard Dawkins and the four bloggers mentioned above. According to ID, it is possible to infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world, including some features of living things, are explained better by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. The Darwinists' argument was that an intelligent designer would not have filled our genomes with so much junk, but that it could have accumulated as an accidental by-product of unguided evolution. In 2004, Dawkins wrote in A Devil's Chaplain that much of our genome "consists of multiple copies of junk, 'tandem repeats,' and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn't seem to be used in the body itself." Dawkins suggested that creationists (among whom he included ID advocates) "might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA." Dawkins continued to rely on junk DNA in his 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. "It is a remarkable fact," he wrote, "that the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes." In particular, pseudogenes "are genes that once did something useful but have now been sidelined and are never transcribed or translated." Dawkins concluded: "What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene... unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us." But if most of our DNA is functional, as the ENCODE results suggest, then the "junk DNA" argument against ID collapses. So the four bloggers listed above are doing everything they can to discredit the ENCODE project's estimate of functional DNA. Yet whatever the estimate may currently be, it is certain to increase with further research. In 2007, the ENCODE pilot project reported on the basis of about 200 datasets that our DNA is "pervasively transcribed," suggesting functionality. The 2012 results, based on 1,640 datasets, documented that "the vast majority (80.4%) of the human genome" is biochemically functional in at least one cell type. But ENCODE has so far sampled only a fraction of the cell types in the human body. Clearly, we have a lot more to learn about our genome -- but not if we start by assuming that most of it is junk. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/why_all_the_fus_1064721.html In 1994, the authoritative textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, co-authored by National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts, suggested (incorrectly!) that introns are "largely genetic 'junk'": Unlike the sequence of an exon, the exact nucleotide sequence of an intron seems to be unimportant. Thus introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk” Soon thereafter, the 1995 edition of Voet & Voet's Biochemistry textbook explained that "a possibility that must be seriously entertained is that much repetitive DNA serves no useful purpose whatever for its host. Rather, it is selfish or junk DNA, a molecular parasite that, over many generations, has disseminated itself throughout the genome..." Will Darwinists try to Rewrite the History of Junk-DNA? In 1996, leading origin of life theorist Christian de Duve wrote: "The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA." (Richard Dawkins makes similar pronouncements that DNA is junk in an article after 1998) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/will_darwinists_try_to_pull_a.html Another leading biologist, Sydney Brenner argued in a biology journal in 1998 that: "The excess DNA in our genomes is junk, and it is there because it is harmless, as well as being useless, and because the molecular processes generating extra DNA outpace those getting rid of it." The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk: “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John S. Mattick Scientific American (November, 2003) http://www.evolutionnews.org/ Casey Luskin response to Farrel - several quotes from Jonathan Wells book - 'The Myth of Junk DNA' - May 2011 http://blogs.forbes.com/johnfarrell/2011/05/20/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-junk-dna/#comment-153 Jonathan Wells on his book, The Myth of Junk DNA – yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such - March 2011 Excerpt: Some people revise history by claiming that no mainstream biologists ever regarded non-protein-coding DNA as “junk.” This claim is easily disproved: Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel published an article in Nature in 1980 (284: 604-607) arguing that such DNA “is little better than junk,” and “it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively” for functions in it. Since then, Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, University of Chicago biologist Jerry A. Coyne, and University of California–Irvine biologist John C. Avise have all argued that most of our DNA is junk, and that this provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design. National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins argued similarly in his widely read 2006 book The Language of God. It is true that some biologists (such as Thomas Cavalier-Smith and Gabriel Dover) have long been skeptical of “junk DNA” claims, but probably a majority of biologists since 1980 have gone along with the myth. The revisionists are misinformed (or misinforming). https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/junk-dna/jonathan-wells-on-his-book-the-myth-of-junk-dna-yes-it-is-a-darwinist-myth-and-he-nails-it-as-such/#more-18154 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," http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/in_debate_brita_1064521.html Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA” - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_bjKH43pRB0#t=94s bornagain77

A Short History Of The Junk DNA Argument Of Darwinists Haldane's Dilemma Excerpt: Haldane was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift - creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors - it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane's dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation - but has obtained identical results. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 159-160 Walter ReMine on Haldane's Dilemma - interview http://kgov.com/Walter-ReMine-on-Haldanes-Dilemma Kimura's Quandary Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in response to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity. John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162 A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' being ‘properly used’ is shown in the following video: Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video https://vimeo.com/91162565 entire video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/6 The following video provides a detailed refutation of Fisher’s work, from the 1930’s, in population genetics: Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video, the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument, that is still used by many Darwinists, can be traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno's work in the late 1950’s, 60’s through the early 70’s: What Is The Genome? It's Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583 Carter: Why Evolutionists Need Junk DNA - Robert W. Carter - 2009 Excerpt: Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane's work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works mathematically. Think about it; in the evolutionary model there have only been 3-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged. With average human generation times of 20-30 years, this gives them only 100,000 to 300,000 generations to fix the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps. This includes at least 35 million single letter differences, over 90 million base pairs of non-shared DNA, nearly 700 extra genes in humans (about 6% not shared with chimpanzees), and tens of thousands of chromosomal rearrangements. Also, the chimp genome is about 13% larger than that of humans, but mostly due to the heterochromatin that caps the chromosome telomeres. All this has to happen in a very short amount of evolutionary time. They don't have enough time, even after discounting the functionality of over 95% of the genome--but their position becomes grave if junk DNA turns out to be functional. Every new function found for junk DNA makes the evolutionists' case that much more difficult. Robert W. Carter - biologist http://creation.com/junk-dna-slow-death Kimura (1968) developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma” is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional. Susumu Ohno, a leader in the field of genetics and evolutionary biology, explained in 1972 in an early study of non-coding DNA that, "they are the remains of nature's experiments which failed. The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?" “The chance of acquiring a new function by unrestricted accumulation of mutations, however, should be as small as that of an isolated population emerging triumphant as a new species. Degeneracy is the more likely fate. The creation of every new gene must have been accompanied by many other redundant copies joining the ranks of silent DNA base sequences, and these silent DNA base sequence may now be serving the useful but negative function of spacing those which have succeeded. Triumphs as well as failures of nature’s past experiments appear to be contained in our genome.” [From, “So much ‘junk’ DNA in our Genome”, Susumu Ohno, 1972] Sternberg traces how the junk DNA argument developed through the mid 1970’s to the early 80’s and beyond in the following article: How The Junk DNA Hypothesis Has Changed Since 1980 - Richard Sternberg - October 8, 2009 Excerpt: Two papers appeared back to back in the journal Nature in 1980: "Selfish Genes, the Phenotype Paradigm and Genome Evolution" by W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza and "Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite" by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick. These laid the framework for thinking about nonprotein-coding regions of chromosomes, judging from how they are cited. What these authors effectively did was advance Dawkins's 1976 selfish gene idea in such a way that all the genomic DNA evidence available up to that time could be accounted for by a plausible scenario. The thesis presented in both articles is that the only specific function of the vast bulk of "nonspecific" sequences, especially repetitive elements such as transposons, is to replicate themselves -- this is the consequence of natural selection operating within genomes, beneath the radar of the cell. These junk sequences, it was postulated, can duplicate and disperse throughout chromosomes because they have little or no effect on the phenotype, save for the occasional mutation that results from their mobility. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/how_the_junk_dna_hypothesis_ha026421.html Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true “purpose” of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA. …. “creationists…might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” Richard Dawkins - Selfish Gene (mid 1970’s) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/books-of-interest/new-book-junk-dna-junked-in-favour-of-what/#comment-374475 Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Orgel LE, Crick FH. - 1980 The DNA of higher organisms usually falls into two classes, one specific and the other comparatively nonspecific. It seems plausible that most of the latter originates by the spreading of sequences which had little or no effect on the phenotype. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7366731 bornagain77

AVS:

Yes, the initial “junk” label was probably premature (shame on us!), but there is still a large portion of the genome simply made up of single sequence repeats.

And that is junk cuz AVS sez so! All science so far! Unguided evolution cannot explain DNA... Joe

Non-coding DNA has been widely recognised by biologists as having potential function since at least 1971 -- before Ohno publicly coined the term "junk DNA". Bostock, C. (1971) “Repetitious DNA” Advances in Cell Biology 2: 153-223

Ever since the initial demonstration of the existence of repetitive DNA there has been no dearth of theories on the function of this material. ... Following is a list of functions that have been proposed ... 1. Recognition of centromeres of common origin. 2. Recognition between homologous chromosomes during pairing. 3. Regions involved in the initiation of replication and/or transcription. 4. Sites concerned with specifying the folding patterns of chromosomes. 5. Recognition sites for the process of genetic recombination. 6. Provision of raw material for genetic divergence. 7. Reflection of similarities in the structure of different proteins. 8. DNA concerned with the regulation of gene expression (regulatory DNA). 9. Reflection of multiplicity of repeated genes, as for example, in the master and slave or multistranded chromosome hypothesis. ... None of the recognition functions, i.e., recognition of centromeres, initiation sites, pairing sites, recombination sites, folding sites, or regulatory sites, that we have discussed is mutually exclusive of the others. They all relate to cellular phenomena that have been demonstrated or inferred from other data. All these phenomena probably exist within every higher organism. Therefore, DNA involved in each of these functions could contribute in varying degrees to the repeated portion of the genome.

Over subsequent decades many, many papers have been written by biologists expanding on this expectation that much "junk" DNA actually had functional activity. 1974 — E. Southern, “Eukaryotic DNA” in MTP International Review of Science, Biochemistry Series One, Volume 6, Biochemistry of Nucleic Acids, (1974) University Park Press, Baltimore. pp. 101 – 139:

... large variations in genome size could readily be accommodated if a high proportion of the DNA were used for functions other than coding for proteins. A number of such functions have been proposed and incorporated into hypothetical structures for the eukaryotic genome.

1977 — D.M. Skinner, “Satellite DNAs” BioScience 27 (1977) pp. 790-796:

Satellites [tandemly repeating, non-coding DNA] constitute from 1% to 66% of the total DNA of numerous organisms, including that of animals, plants, and prokaryotes. Their existence has been known for about 15 years but, although it is thought that they must be biologically important ... their functions are still largely in the realm of speculation.

1980 — Orgel & Crick, Nature (284: 604-607), p. 606:

Thus, some selfish DNA may acquire a useful function and confer a selective advantage on the organism.

1982 — R. Lewin, “Repeated DNA still in search of a function” Science 217 (1982) pp. 621-623:

Some repetitive DNA will undoubtedly be shown to have a function, in the formal sense, some will likely be shown to exert important effects, and the remainder may well have no function or effect at all and can therefore be called selfish DNA. Repetitive DNA constitutes a substantial proportion of the genome (up to 90% in some cases), and there is considerable speculation on how it will eventually be divided between these three groups.

CLAVDIVS

Dionisio: To what extent is miRNA-mediated repression reversible and how is this regulated in the cell?

The futile search for the master regulator :) SLT: "When regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates?" Box

Nature Genetics 46, 136–143 (2014) doi:10.1038/ng.2870 ...the underlying molecular mechanisms are largely unknown... ...understanding islet genome regulation could therefore provide valuable mechanistic insights. We have now mapped and examined the function of human islet cis-regulatory networks. We identify genomic sequences that are targeted by islet transcription factors to drive islet-specific gene activity and show that most such sequences reside in clusters of enhancers that form physical three-dimensional chromatin domains. ...islet transcription factors interact functionally with the epigenome and provide systematic evidence that the dysregulation of islet enhancers is relevant to the mechanisms underlying... http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n2/full/ng.2870.html

Dionisio

MicroRNAs—getting the hang of it doi:10.1038/cdd.2014.114 As pointed out by Wilczynka and Bushell, several questions remain to be answered: are all miRNA targets bound by the same protein complex or do RISC complexes come in different flavors with different functionalities? To what extent is miRNA-mediated repression reversible and how is this regulated in the cell? How does miRNA-mediated repression interplay with other regulatory mechanisms such as various RNA modifications? Clearly, there is still a lot to learn. http://www.nature.com/cdd/journal/v22/n1/full/cdd2014114a.html?WT.ec_id=CDD-201501

Easy questions, aren't they? :) Dionisio

Semi-related: Dr. Giem has a new video uploaded Overlapping Genetic Codes 12-6-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WZy0n60_ZU In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" Chapters 6 and 9 (at least) argue that stretches of DNA can have multiple functions encoded into them. We will partially evaluate the strength of the evidence behind that argument. bornagain77

Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: "Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species" http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 3" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-11-17T14_14_33-08_00 Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 4 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-4/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 5 (emphasis on ENCODE and the loss of the term 'gene' as a accurate description in biology and how that loss undermines the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-5/ Biological Information - Not Junk After All 11-29-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO-7kVBA_JM In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" the chapter entitled "Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information" discusses the various functions of DNA and finds that non-functional DNA is a small minority. bornagain77

Oh? Does anyone remember when BioLogos founder Francis Collins was fronting “junk DNA”? So we were all suppose to rush to believe that. But hey, now we aren’t.

Next we'll probably hear that evolutionary biologists are pushing the name of Jonathan Wells as a nobel laureate candidate. awstar

AVS: "Yes, the initial “junk” label was probably premature" Yes. Let's say "premature". :) "there is still a large portion of the genome simply made up of single sequence repeats." I would suggest to avoid making the same "premature" thing twice! That will be shown to be the most important part, sooner or later... :) gpuccio

Don't worry, there is still a significant amount of non-coding DNA that is still classified as "junk" and will likely remain so. Yes, the initial "junk" label was probably premature (shame on us!), but there is still a large portion of the genome simply made up of single sequence repeats. AVS

I wonder if Biologist Larry Moran will backpedal about junk DNA any more than the way in which he has tried to backpedal on other biologists long help acceptance of "junk" DNA and why it was a prediction of evolution. Junk DNA is both evidence for evolution and mostly functional DNA is also evidence for evolution. Kinda makes me think that evolution is not falsifiable. ForJah

Darwinian evolution predicted this, there is no junk, natural selection, random mutation and drift are very efficient unguided processes capable of optimizing the code...... Junk out! That's what we predicted all along! Darwinism is a fact! And if you deny it you are stupid because a designer would not have done it that way! Andre