Doesn’t Junk DNA prove our evolutionary past?

Junk DNA?

One of the great errors of evolution is that evolutionists falsely assume that evolution has more answers than they actually have. If an evolutionists says it, it must be a fact. In truth, evolution is based on many assumptions and even disproved data. Ernst Haeckel’s falsified embryo development, disproved and falsified missing links, junk dna, vestigial organs and other disqualified evidence are still taught as fact in order to persuade students to buy into the evolutionary belief system. As these false assumptions are proven to be false by science, they continue to be taught by educators. Once evolutionary researchers reject an assumption, it is complete dishonesty to continue to teach these things as fact. It could have been claimed that it was a mistake based on a lack of information in the past, but once the truth is known, if evolutionist continue to claim the error as a fact, then it has become a lie.

Junk DNA is such an example. No credible scientist still claims that there is such a thing as junk DNA. It has now been proven to provide a necessary function in DNA. When scientists were unaware of the function of certain parts of the DNA they jumped to the false conclusion that it was junk, but now we know that it serves in regulating how proteins are formed and other regulatory functions. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that this was a false assumption, but dishonest educators continue to teach this to students knowing that students will never question or look at the facts on their own. Even evolution believing scientist disclaim the concept of junk DNA. Below is an article taken from the pro-evolution BBC on the science of what was once called junk DNA:

Salvage prospect for ‘junk’ DNA

By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter

DNA   Image: BBC

The genome may possess far more complexity than was imagined

A mathematical analysis of the human genome suggests that so-called “junk DNA” might not be so useless after all.

The term junk DNA refers to those portions of the genome which appear to have no specific purpose.

But a team from IBM has identified patterns, or “motifs”, that were found both in the junk areas of the genome and those which coded for proteins.

The presence of the motifs in junk DNA suggests these portions of the genome may have an important functional role.

The findings are reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

But they will have to be verified by experimenters in the lab, the scientists behind the work point out.

Dr Andrew McCallion, who was not an author on the new paper, commented: “Up until not so long ago, we were under the impression that the vast majority of information in the genome, if not all of it, was encoded in those stretches of DNA that encoded proteins.

“We now understand there is much more complexity involved,” Dr McCallion, from the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, US, told the BBC News website.

Lead author Isidore Rigoutsos and colleagues from IBM’s Thomas J Watson Research Center used a mathematical tool known as pattern discovery to tease out patterns in the genome.

This technique is often used to mine useful information from very large repositories of data in the worlds of business and science.

Scrapheap challenge

They sifted through the approximate total of six billion letters in the non-coding regions of the human genome and looked for repeating sequence fragments, or motifs.

“One of the things that arises from this paper is that junk DNA may not be junk. But this needs to be verified,” Dr Rigoutsos told the BBC News website.

The researchers found millions of the motifs in non-coding DNA. But roughly 128,000 of these also occurred in the coding region of the genome. These were also over-represented in genes which are involved in specific biological processes.

These processes include the regulation of transcription – the beginning of the process that ultimately leads to the translation of the genetic code into a peptide or protein – and communication between cells.

Dr Rigoutsos said his team’s work suggested, “a connection between a vast area of the genome we didn’t think was functional with the part of the genome we knew was functional.

“The average lab does not have the resources to prove or disprove this, so it will need a lot of effort by lots of people,” he explained.

THE DNA MOLECULE

Graphic, BBC

The double-stranded DNA molecule is held together by four chemical components called bases

Adenine (A) bonds with thymine (T); cytosine(C) bonds with guanine (G)

Groupings of these “letters” form the “code of life”; there are about 2.9 billion base-pairs in the human genome wound into 24 distinct bundles, or chromosomes

Written in the DNA are about 20-25,000 genes which human cells use as starting templates to make proteins; these sophisticated molecules build and maintain our bodies

Gene silencing

The paper in PNAS suggests that the actual positioning of the motifs is associated with small RNA molecules that are involved with a process called post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS).

“A human embryo starts out as a single fertilized cell and rapidly divides into a widely complex series of cells that become a human being,” explained Dr McCallion.

“Every cell in that human being contains the same complement of genes and what makes each cell different is the precise way that genes are turned on and turned off.”

PTGS turns genes off after the process of transcription has taken place. One way in which this occurs is through “RNA interference”, which involves the introduction of double-stranded RNA molecules.

These trigger the degradation of another type of RNA molecule known as messenger RNA (mRNA), “down-regulating” the gene. During transcription, this molecule encodes and carries information from genes to sites of protein synthesis.

“These regions may indeed contain structure that we haven’t seen before,” said Dr Rigoutsos.

“If indeed one of them corresponds to an active element that is involved in some kind of process, then the extent of cell process regulation that actually takes place is way beyond anything we have seen in the last decade.”

Eddie Snipes
2007

One thought on “Doesn’t Junk DNA prove our evolutionary past?

  1. I am seeing critical mention of individuals teaching about the false assumptions of evolution. As a biology teacher I teach whatever the text books contain and will add ancillary information that complements or even contradicts the instruction in the text. Because of controversy over teaching evolution these books are often difficult to get passed by nervous school boards. I can’t imagine consciously teaching inaccurate facts about evolution. Any scientist or instructor of any merit desires to teach the most current science on any subject but it is important to instruct on breaking new developments on science only after rigorous peer review and vetting by the science community.

    Can you say any of this about religion? Questioning the insanity of much of the bible’s credibility and rationale will get you shunned and denounced for being a heretic and in some cultures today and in cultures centuries before a person might be executed or tortured. In the science community you may well get a Nobel Peace prize. This revision and adjustment of the leading theory in science is expected and promoted. Religion might profit from this rational level of self criticism. For example, we wouldn’t have had to wait for centuries before the Vatican revised their position on the concept of Limbo for unbaptized infants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *