The "Junk DNA" Error: An Example of Evolutionist Ignorance

So far, the Human Genome Project has revealed only the sequence of the code in DNA. We still do not know, apart from a few genes, which functions in the human body these codes determine. Some 30,000 genes-only 3% of human DNA-encode the protein in the DNA chain and work in a demonstrably active manner. We still do not know what purpose is served by the rest of the long DNA chain.

At this point, evolutionists place one-sided interpretations on that mystery. Darwinist scientists suggest that the genes in question have no purpose and consist merely of nonsensical or "junk" sequences. They claim that these genes have lost their functions over the course of an evolutionary process lasting millions of years. In fact, this preconception has been refuted by new scientific discoveries. Until five or six years ago, scientists gave the name "junk DNA" to large strings of genes whose functions were unknown-thus they couldn't describe them as genes. Contrary to their claims, however, it has emerged that these actually direct vital functions are of critical importance in the repair of functioning gene segments. ¹⁴⁵

In an article in the journal Nature Genetics on 13 May, 2002, Dr. John V. Moran and his team reported that the active parts of junk DNA were sections carrying out repair services for the genome.¹⁴⁶ These can produce copies of themselves in a manner similar to copying and pasting a section of text-an exceedingly useful function when the DNA's double helix begins to separate. The double helix can be damaged when chemicals reach the cell or when there is any outside pressure, which can lead to cell death. Those parts of DNA formerly claimed to be junk travel around inside the genome and identify such faulty separations; when they encounter such a phenomenon, they go into action and bring that region back together into alignment.¹⁴⁷

From time to time, evolutionist sources suggest that some organs in living things no longer have any function, having been inherited from these species' ancestors. For example, the appendix or the coccyx in the human body were for years regarded as vestigial organs, no longer of any use. However, recent scientific research has revealed that all these organs do actually have important functions. The list of organs that evolutionists at the beginning of the 20th century described as "vestigial" is now totally discredited. In the words of the evolutionist writer S. R. Scadding, "As our knowledge has increased, the list of vestigial structures has decreased."¹⁴⁸ In the same way, the claim put forward by evolutionists, that a large part of DNA serves no purpose, has also been discredited by recent discoveries.

The Human Genome Project and other genetic research have established that during the process of protein manufacture, genes constantly interact with one another. During this process, one gene does not act independently of other sections of DNA. As one gene works-particularly during the early stages of protein coding-sections of DNA that do not constitute genes regulate it. For that reason, no scientist who closely monitors such research any longer attaches any validity to the concept of junk DNA.

Even though evolutionists may not welcome the fact, those sections of DNA once claimed to be junk are actually in a constant state of activity and have various functions as yet undiscovered has been around for some time. In Science magazine, a team of molecular biologists from the Harvard Medical Faculty and physicists from Boston University shed light on this subject in a 1994 report titled "Does nonsense DNA speak its own dialect?"¹⁴⁹ Based on their study of 37 DNA strips containing 50,000 base pairs, taken from various living things, they reported that so-called junk DNA, which occupies 90% of human DNA, is actually written in a special language. Their tests revealed that the DNA described as "junk" was by no means meaningless. An article titled "Hints of a language in junk DNA" reported studies by Boston University's Eugene Stanley demonstrating that DNA sequences had features resembling those of a human language.¹⁵⁰

Ignorance was without doubt one of the reasons why these 97% of DNA sequences w ere formerly described as serving no purpose. The Cleveland University evolutionist scientist Evan Eichler admits this:

The term "junk DNA" is a reflection of our ignorance.¹⁵¹

Ernst Mayr, himself an evolutionist, also refers to the inadequacy of our knowledge about genes:

A serious practical limit to science is the difficulty of exhaustively explaining the workings of a highly complex system. The same practical point can be made about the regulatory mechanisms of the genome, which are highly complex and which are still far from being understood. ¹⁵²

An article titled "The Unseen Genome: Beyond DNA" in the November 2003 Scientific American magazine quotes John S. Mattick, director of the Molecular Bioscience Institute at Queensland University in Australia:

Indeed, what was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.¹⁵³

Prof. Mattick, a molecular biologist, refers to the importance of these strings known as introns that do not directly participate in protein production, and to erroneous interpretations made regarding them:

The failure to recognize the full implications of this . . . may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.¹⁵⁴

In New Scientist magazine published November 19, 2005, the importance of so called junk DNA is mentioned:

... remarkably, junk DNA may turn out to be as important as genes-if not more so. . . What's so special about junk DNA that ensures it is mothballed in this way? One clue comes from comparing genomes . . . it could encode vital information that scientists haven't yet unraveled-the more DNA, the higher the capacity to store information and produce complex organisms. One thing is clear. Now that we've mapped our genes, it's time to start exploring the junkyard.¹⁵⁵

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, also states that those parts of DNA referred to as so-called junk are in fact nothing of the sort:

I have been troubled for a long time about the way in which we dismissed about 95% of the genome as being junk because we didn't know what its function was. We did not think it had one because we had not discovered one yet. I found it quite gratifying to discover that when you have the whole genome in front of you, it is pretty clear that a lot of the stuff we call "junk" has the fingerprints of being a DNA sequence that is actually doing something, at least, judging by the way evolution has treated it. So I think we should probably remove the term "junk" from the genome.¹⁵⁶

Evolutionist geneticists wished to portray those DNA sections they described as junk as compelling evidence for their theories. For years, their way of dismissing these sections as unimportant and their adherence to dogmatic beliefs in evolution prevented scientists from investigating those "junk" components, as was described in the journal Science:

Although catchy, the term "junk DNA" for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s.¹⁵⁷

Dr. Paul Nelson revealed the scientific dilemmas facing the theory of evolution in several studies. He provides an account of the concept of junk DNA in an article titled "The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More":

In one of his later books, written with his wife Ann Druyan (Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, Ballantine, 1992), the late Carl Sagan argued that "genetic junk," the "redundancies, stutters, [and] untranscribable nonsense" in DNA, proved that there are "deep imperfections at the heart of life." Such comments are commonplace in the biological literature-although perhaps less common than they were a few years ago. The reason? Geneticists are discovering functions for what used to be apparent genetic debris.¹⁵⁸

In an article titled " 'Junk' DNA reveals vital role: Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable," Helen Pearson reports that:

Scientists are puzzling over a collection of mystery DNA segments that seem to be essential to the survival of virtually all vertebrates. But their function is completely unknown. The segments . . . lie in the large parts of the genome that do not code for any protein. Their presence adds to growing evidence that the importance of these areas, often dismissed as junk DNA, could be much more fundamental than anyone suspected. ¹⁵⁹

Dr. Kelly A. Frazer, who investigated those sections of DNA claimed to be junk for the Perlegan Sciences company, says, "People will be intrigued by this [finding]. It is the kind of stuff that blows people away." while the Cambridge Broad Institute geneticist Kerstin Lindblad-Toh describes these studies as "the tip of the iceberg."¹⁶⁰

But despite these findings, most evolutionists continued to advocate the concept of junk DNA right to the bitter end, since it suited their own purposes. Finally, however, intense research into DNA proved that the DNA sections in question were vitally important, and were therefore beneficial DNA segments. Thus another Darwinist gaffe went down in the pages of history.

References

145. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/uomh-pop051002.php ↩
146. Denyse O'Leary, By Design or By Chance?, p. 235. ↩
147. Ibid. ↩
148. S. R. Scadding, "Do Vestigial Organs Provide Evidence for Evolution?", Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 175. ↩
149. Elizabeth Pennisi, "Does Nonsense DNA Speak Its Own Dialect?", Science News, Vol 164 , 10 December 1994. ↩
150. Michael J. Denton, Nature's Destiny, p. 290; ["Mining Treasures form Junk DNA", Science, 4 February 1994; "Hints of a Language in Junk DNA", Science, 25 November 1994]. ↩
151. Gretchen Vogel, " Objection #2: Why Sequence the Junk?", Science, vol. 291, no. 5507,16 February 2001, p. 1184. ↩
152. Ernst Mayr, This is Biology, The Science of the Living World, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 7th edi­tion, USA, 1999, P. 105. ↩
153. W. Wayt Gibbs, "The Unseen Genome," Scientific American, November 2003, p. 53. ↩
154. Ibid.. ↩
155. "The Word: Junk DNA", New Scientist, 19 November 2005. ↩
156. Francis S. Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome Project", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, p. 147. ↩
157. Wojciech Makalowski, "Not Junk After All", Science, 23 May 2003, Vol 300, no. 5623, pp. 1246-1247. ↩
158. Paul Nelson, "The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More", 1997; http://www.arn.org/docs/ ↩
159. Helen Pearson, "'Junk' DNA reveals vital role: Inscrutable genetic sequences seem indispensable", 7 May 2004; http://www.bi­o­ed­on­line.org/news/news.cfm?art=956 ↩
160. Ibid. ↩