Junk Evolutionary Science on Junk DNA
When scientists first discovered that the genome (the collection of genes) of living creatures contained a great many genes that did not code for proteins, they dubbed it "junk DNA". The vast majority of human DNA fell into this category, and not just humans, but in virtually all living things. They heralded this as strong evidence that macro-evolution occurred. After all the reasoned, the extra genes that are just sitting around not doing anything have to be either evolutionary leftovers, or construction areas for the next evolutionary great leap forward.
It turned out that "Junk DNA" was not junk at all. Rather, the non-coding regions regulated gene expression in the genes that did code. Such DNA turned out to be "highly conserved" among similar groups, such as mammals. That strongly indicated that such genes were important. When evolutionist discover a finding that is contrary to the theory, they never question the theory, they just cobble the new finding unto the theory somehow.
A Common Designer could fit the evidence just as well as a common ancestor for conserved non-coding DNA in similar groups. And conserved non-coding DNA shut another potential door for evolutionary adaptation. These non-coding genes were not just sitting around with no function for generations until by some miracle the right mutations resulted in a genes that assembled into a useful new adaptation. No, they needed to stay pretty close to what they were to properly perform the original regulatory function.
But just in case that door needs nailing shut, here comes the genome of the humped bladderwort, a strange carnivorous plant. If any plant has done a lot of evolving, it ought to be that one, based not only on its morphology but also its genes- it has triple the chromosomes of most plants. But what it does not have is non-coding DNA, at least not to any respectable degree.
The tone of the article is one of near shock. Apparently non-coding DNA is not necessary for complex life forms, even forms that seemed to have undergone a lot of adaptations. They speculate that the plant has some mechanism that strips non-coding DNA from the genome, though how it does this while still undergoing all the adaptations they think it underwent, and still functioning it a mystery to them.
Scientists are clearly missing something important. Chalking up every unexpected finding to the wonders of evolution, an "evolution of the gaps" as it were, becomes increasingly incredulous to the honest mind.
It turned out that "Junk DNA" was not junk at all. Rather, the non-coding regions regulated gene expression in the genes that did code. Such DNA turned out to be "highly conserved" among similar groups, such as mammals. That strongly indicated that such genes were important. When evolutionist discover a finding that is contrary to the theory, they never question the theory, they just cobble the new finding unto the theory somehow.
A Common Designer could fit the evidence just as well as a common ancestor for conserved non-coding DNA in similar groups. And conserved non-coding DNA shut another potential door for evolutionary adaptation. These non-coding genes were not just sitting around with no function for generations until by some miracle the right mutations resulted in a genes that assembled into a useful new adaptation. No, they needed to stay pretty close to what they were to properly perform the original regulatory function.
But just in case that door needs nailing shut, here comes the genome of the humped bladderwort, a strange carnivorous plant. If any plant has done a lot of evolving, it ought to be that one, based not only on its morphology but also its genes- it has triple the chromosomes of most plants. But what it does not have is non-coding DNA, at least not to any respectable degree.
The tone of the article is one of near shock. Apparently non-coding DNA is not necessary for complex life forms, even forms that seemed to have undergone a lot of adaptations. They speculate that the plant has some mechanism that strips non-coding DNA from the genome, though how it does this while still undergoing all the adaptations they think it underwent, and still functioning it a mystery to them.
Scientists are clearly missing something important. Chalking up every unexpected finding to the wonders of evolution, an "evolution of the gaps" as it were, becomes increasingly incredulous to the honest mind.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Tuesday, May 14, 2013
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home