> Home

> Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Common Descent (Darwinism)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> How Does Evolution
Supposedly Work?

> Mutations

> Genetics

> Genetic Recombination

> Gene Duplication

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> “Junk” DNA – The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	“The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. With declining ad revenue already widespread, and employee layoffs and contract buyouts in the editorial departments of news organizations like Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post as well as the New York Times – reporting on an evolution paradigm shift could mean the loss of even more advertising and/or yet another editor’s job. But neither will most science blogs report there’s a paradigm shift afoot because they share the same ideology as the corporate media. At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolutionary biology. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middle-brow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers.” —Suzan Mazur "Altenberg 16 An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up?" An E-Book in 6 Parts - Part 1 - Chapters 1, 2 & 3, 6 July 2008. http://www.scoop.co.nz/ stories/HL0807/S00053. htm#introduction

“Junk” DNA – The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science

For over 50 years, almost all evolutionists held the position that various types of genetic material, labeled “junk” DNA, had no function and was useless left over elements from evolutionary predecessors.

What is “junk” DNA? The term refers to the 98.5% of DNA that does NOT code for feature and trait specific genes.
Due to the very premise of, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution*,” evolutionists arrogantly DENIED the critical nature of “junk” DNA, only to discover that it is the key to cell health and development, and the primary link to disease!
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

For more information, go to:
http://www.junkdna.com/ipgs_staged/postgenetic_medicine.html
http://www.junkdna.com/junkdna_diseases.html

• "Ah - so much of the genome - after all only about 1.5% of it is coding for protein. The rest of it is probably involved in this regulatory stuff, and for a long time were were a bit dismissive about that 98.5% of it and said that a lot of it was kind of a junk. I don't think people are using the word "Junk" any more when they are talking about the genome, because the more we study, the more functions we find in that "filler" - which is not a "filler" at all."
  Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, in a video interview to Charlie Rose on July 29, 2008, upon his resignation from the Human Genome Project. (After discovering that “junk” DNA was the key to cell health, Collins realized that the gene-centered research was misdirected.)
  http://www.junkdna.com/2008_pre_hologenomics.html#admission_upon_resignation
• “When the Human Genome Project was complete, DNA bowed out of the limelight and gave way to RNA as a major player in genetic regulation. Now, findings at Rockefeller University mirror this ideological shift, revealing that one of the most important physiological events in the body — the wiring of motor neurons and muscles — is regulated at the level of RNA.
  The findings upturn dogma in the field and further point to the increasingly indisputable role of RNA as the molecule behind biological complexity.”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315091400.htm
  
• “Scientists studying the human genome have always focused on the genes that encode proteins. This is because proteins are required for nearly every conceivable biological process. So we often tend to think of the genome as a kind of human 'component list' …
  Remarkably, however, protein-coding genes account for only 1.5 per cent of the human genome – but the remaining 98.5 per cent of the DNA is not merely junk.”
  http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD023551.html
  
• "There's been a quiet revolution taking place in biology during the past few years over the role of RNA," says Dr Alexandre Akoulitchev, a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford. "Scientists have begun to see 'junk' DNA as having a very important function. The variety of RNA types produced from this "junk" is staggering and the functional implications are huge."
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070121162811.htm
• “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 …
  "It's a radical concept, one that a lot of scientists aren't very happy with," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. "But the scientific community is going to have to rethink what genes are, what they do and don't do, and how the genome's functional elements have evolved.”
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/
  
• “A cellular structure discovered 125 years ago and dismissed by many biologists as "cellular garbage" has been found to play a key role in the process of cytokinesis, or cell division, one of the most ancient and important of all biological phenomena …
  "Several diseases are caused by cells that don't divide properly, or divide out of control, as in cancer," she says. "In addition, proteins that work during cell division may also work in the neurons in our brain or during wound healing, for example. So understanding how cell division works can help us understand how many other specific types of cells function."
  … "It was identified over 125 years ago by Walther Flemming, but hadn't been studied much or paid attention to since," she explains. "Most people thought it was cellular garbage."”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040527234509.htm
  
• “Every mammalian cell has a single primary cilium. This structure sticks out from the cell membrane like a cellphone aerial. First noticed by 19th Century microscopists, it was thought to be a useless, vestigial structure like the appendix. But recent discoveries show it is absolutely pivotal in cell differentiation and maintenance of tissue and organ structure and function.”
  http://scimednet.blogspot.com/2008/06/primary-cilium-antenna-for-organising.html
  
• “The CSHL team found that double-stranded structures also form from "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes, in the past assumed to be useless "junk DNA," are damaged copies of normal genes left over from previous genetic events. The researchers found that RNA copies of normal genes sometimes pair up with copies from the related pseudogenes, resulting in double-stranded RNAs that -- far from being junk -- are able to activate the cell's regulatory apparatus.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080513153947.htm

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 still maintains his ignorance today:
“For the genome is littered with dead genes. Huge wastes of DNA territory comprise a graveyard of discarded, superseded old genes (plus meaningless sequences of nonsense DNA that never functioned) with occasional islands of current, extant genes that are actually read by the translating machinery and turned into action. Dead, untranslated genes are called pseudogenes."
Richard Dawkins, “Dawkins on Darwin,” published in TimesOnline, February 11, 2009.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5707143.ece

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.

Within the last year, even the New Scientist falls for the ruse:
“There is no doubt that most of the genetic differences between humans and other apes - and between different human populations - are due to genetic drift. However, most of these mutations are in the nine-tenths of our genome that is junk, so they make no difference.”
Michael Le Page, “Evolution myths: Natural selection is the only means of evolution,” New Scientist, April 2008.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13616-evolution-myths-natural-selection-is-the-only-means-of-evolution.html

In the following research article, the authors first admit that ‘junk DNA’ “plays critical roles in both health and disease,” but then they regress back to thinking it just might be “’genomic noise’ without any biological function.” Why?
Because evolutionists can’t think past their evolutionary-based presupposition that evolution is true so genetic material MUST correlate with common descent … regardless of the evidence!
“A research team at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center has uncovered a vast new class of previously unrecognized mammalian genes that do not encode proteins, but instead function as long RNA molecules.
Their findings, published in the February 1st advance online issue of the journal Nature, demonstrate that this novel class of "large intervening non-coding RNAs" or "lincRNAs" plays critical roles in both health and disease, including cancer, immune signaling and stem cell biology …
"The challenge in finding these lincRNAs is that they have been hiding in plain sight," said John Rinn, a Harvard Medical School assistant professor at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and an associate member of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. "The human and mouse genomes are already known to produce many large RNA molecules, but the vast majority show no evolutionary conservation across species, suggesting that they may simply be 'genomic noise' without any biological function.'”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201141601.htm

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

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

	“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.” —W. Wayt Gibbs Senior writer at Scientific American, “The Gems of "Junk" DNA,” Scientific American, November, 2003. (Gibbs was one of two recipients of the first annual Winstar Institute Science Journalism Award for his coverage of epigenetics.) http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Junk-GenomeNov03.htm