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

@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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

04:11 AM

4

04

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

03:58 AM

3

03

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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://uncommondescent.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=94sbornagain77

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

03:38 AM

3

03

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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://uncommondescent.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/7366731bornagain77

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

03:37 AM

3

03

37

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

03:29 AM

3

03

29

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

03:21 AM

3

03

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

03:20 AM

3

03

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

03:13 AM

3

03

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

02:53 AM

2

02

53

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

02:32 AM

2

02

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

02:30 AM

2

02

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

02:23 AM

2

02

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 9, 2014

December

12

Dec

9

09

2014

02:09 AM

2

02

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 8, 2014

December

12

Dec

8

08

2014

11:58 PM

11

11

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 8, 2014

December

12

Dec

8

08

2014

11:41 PM

11

11

41

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

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

December 8, 2014

December

12

Dec

8

08

2014

09:45 PM

9

09

45

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link