“Junk DNA” – The Evolutionary Nightmare

For over 60 years, almost all evolutionists held the position that ‘junk DNA’ (non-coding DNA) had no function and was just useless left over elements from evolutionary predecessors. Evolutionists arrogantly and willfully turned a blind eye to the importance of ‘junk DNA,’ only to find out now that it’s actually the key to genetic discovery:

“The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.
"Science is just starting to probe the wilderness between genes," said John M. Greally, molecular biologist at New York's Albert Einstein School of Medicine. "Already we're surprised and confounded by a lot of what we're seeing."
A slew of recent but unrelated studies of everything from human disease to the workings of yeast suggest that mysterious swaths of molecules - long dismissed as "junk DNA" - may be more important to health and evolution than genes themselves.”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/

In 1956, many scientists, including Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, proposed that ‘junk DNA’ was essential and functional genetic material. But, since that view didn’t fit with the presupposition of evolutionary philosophy, their proposals were dismissed and the next 50-60 years of research was primarily focused on pursuing the dogma that genes controlled everything:

“Bejerano and his colleagues aren't the first to suggest that transposons play a role in regulating nearby genes. In fact, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, PhD, who first discovered transposons, proposed in 1956 that they could help determine the timing for when nearby genes turn on and off."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm

This ignorance has proven to be one of evolution’s biggest blunders. Contrary to the ridiculous premise proposed by Theodosius Dobzhansky that, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," the unwillingness to entertain the slightest premise that ‘junk DNA’ might have some importance reflects the FACT that evolutionary science has been both a menace and detriment to biology.

The most famous evolutionist leading the charge was Richard Dawkins, who coined the term ‘parasitical’ when referring to ‘repetitive DNA’ in his 1976 book called The Selfish Gene. Dawkins maintained his ignorance all the way up to 2003:
“Genomes are littered with nonfunctional pseudogenes, faulty duplicates of functional genes that do nothing, while their functional cousins (the word doesn't even need scare quotes) get on with their business in a different part of the genome. And there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It 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. Once again, 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, A Devil's Chaplain, 2003, p.99.

Biology textbook author Kenneth Miller agreed with this misguided philosophy:
"From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b-globin genes."
Kenneth Miller, Life’s Grand Design, Technology Review, February-March 1994, Volume 97(2): pg. 24–32.

For years, evolutionists indoctrinated students with textbooks that claimed their mantra:

"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” …”
Molecular Biology of the Cell, 1994, pg. 373 (3rd Ed.)
“… 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 …”
Biochemistry, 1995, pg. 1138

Refusing to acknowledge the importance of most ‘junk DNA,’ the ENCODE Project Consortium still believes that most of it is just left over elements from evolution. Read an excerpt from “Junk” DNA – past, present, and future from Answers in Genesis that details ENCODE’s continuing obstinence:

“Speaking of the finding of functional non-coding DNA that is not conserved among mammals, the ENCODE Project Consortium states, “This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Pilot Project, and suggests that we take a more ‘neutral’ view of many of the functions conferred by the genome.” Again because of their evolutionary assumptions that if it’s not conserved (based on the assumption that it should be because all mammals share a common ancestor) it’s not important, almost half of the junk DNA is being relegated to a category in which it may not be further studied. Once again we see evolutionary ideas inhibiting science. As creationists, 'junk' DNA, whether conserved or not conserved among species, is important and should be studied.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/junk-dna-part-2

Because evolutionary based presuppositions consume almost all the money spent on research, we are now paying for this terrible mistake. Image the progress that could have been made if just a fraction of the following would have been discovered decades ago … What an utter display of arrogance and incompetence on the part of evolutionists!

“Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm

“No one knows yet just what the big picture of genetics will look like once this hidden layer of information is made visible, "Indeed, what was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity,'' Mattick suggests. Pseudogenes, riboswitches and all the rest aside, there is a good reason to suspect that is true. Active RNA, it is now coming out, helps to control the large-scale structure of the chromosomes and some crucial chemical modifications to them--an entirely different, epigenetic layer of information in the genome.”
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/JunkDNA111903.htm

“Scientists have shown in literally thousands of studies that the p53 gene deserves its reputation as "the guardian of the genome."
Now, University of Michigan Medical School scientists provide the most thorough evidence yet that p53 also regulates a trio of genes from the realm of so-called 'junk' genes — the roughly 97 percent of a cell's genetic material whose function is only beginning to be understood.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823113340.htm

“In a region of DNA long considered a genetic wasteland, HMS researchers have discovered a new class of gene. Most genes carry out their tasks by making a product--a protein or enzyme. This is true of those that provide the body's raw materials, the structural genes, and those that control other genes' activities, the regulatory genes. The new one, found in yeast, does not produce a protein. It performs its function, in this case to regulate a nearby gene, simply by being turned on.”
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2004/June4_2004/genetics.html

“As active agents, repeats have reshaped the genome by causing ectopic rearrangements, creating entirely new genes, modifying and reshuffling existing genes, and modulating overall GC content. They also shed light on chromosome structure and dynamics, and provide tools for medical genetic and population genetic studies.”
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-
document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110&ct=1

“Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have discovered that introns, or junk DNA to some, associated with RNA are an important molecular guide to making nerve-cell electrical channels.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205115800.htm

“'This finding revealed a surprisingly important role for piRNAs, as well as junk DNA, in stem cell division,' Lin said. 'It calls upon biologists to look for answers beyond the one percent of the genome with protein coding capacity to the vast land of junk DNA, which constitutes 99 percent of the genome.'”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm

“The extent of this unseen genome is not yet clear, but at least two layers of information exist outside the traditionally recognized genes. One layer is woven throughout the vast "noncoding" sequences of DNA that interrupt and separate genes. Though long ago written off as irrelevant because they yield no proteins, many of these sections have been preserved mostly intact through millions of years of evolution. That suggests they do something indispensable. And indeed a large number are transcribed into varieties of RNA that perform a much wider range of functions than biologists had imagined possible. Some scientists now suspect that much of what makes one person, and one species, different from the next are variations in the gems hidden within our 'junk' DNA.
IT WILL TAKE YEARS, perhaps decades, to construct a detailed theory that explains how DNA, RNA and the epigenetic machinery all fit into an interlocking, self-regulating system. But there is no longer any doubt that a new theory is needed to replace the central dogma that has been the foundation of molecular genetics and biotechnology since the 1950s.”
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/JunkDNA111903.htm



Join Our Email List Email:

Verse Here