Category: ‘Junk DNA’

He said it: Darwin’s junk DNA zealots “have forfeited any claim … to be speaking for science”

“If Coyne and Avise were not ignorant of the evidence, then they misrepresented it – and they continue to do so.” more

PZ Myers, the self-described Paris Hilton of atheists, on junk DNA

Link offered to a believable look at “junk DNA.” more

Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA

I leave it to open-minded readers of The Myth of Junk DNA to decide whether “paulmc” was correct in claiming that “the science at the moment really does fall on one side of this: large amounts of putative junk exist in the human genome.” more

Vid:The Debate That Never Was: Craig vs Dawkins – “junk DNA” does show up though

We’re told that the panel’s biologist claimed that all the DNA besides the 2% protein-coding regions is redundant junk. more

Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives

I encourage readers not simply to take my word for anything, but to go the scientific literature and check for themselves. After all, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence. more

What advice, on junk DNA, would Jonathan Wells give Francis Collins or Richard Dawkins?

“Unlike Collins, Dawkins seems utterly oblivious to recent developments in genomics. I would encourage him to read some of the scientific literature.” more

Biochemist Larry Moran responds to Jonathan M’s junk DNA post

Here, at Sandwalk: “A twofer” Here’s Jonathan M’s post: “Thoughts on the ‘C-Value Enigma’, the ‘Onion Test’ and ‘Junk DNA.’” more

Markus Rammerstorfer, one of our authors, writes on the significance of Junk DNA

Comparing the case of the vertebrate eye with the RLN, we are quickly handicapped in the latter case by a lack of knowledge and understanding. Judging the quality of a design presupposes a reasonable understanding of it. Otherwise it’s just talk. In which category does the case of ‘junk DNA’ belong? more

Junk DNA: The original ‘onion test’ is a biological non-sequitur

“Why should those scientists justify their proposals by referring to onions, which have neither brains nor placentas?” more

Thoughts on the “C-Value Enigma”, the “Onion Test” and “Junk DNA”

This morning I was observing some of the recent comment thread activity on Uncommon Descent, and my attention was drawn to this comment by Nick Matzke on the subject of the “onion test” argument for junk DNA: I have [The Myth of Junk DNA], and all [Jonathan] Wells does is gloss past T. Ryan Gregory’s… more

Not only is genome alteration for placental pregnancy a “huge cut-and-paste operation,” study finds, but …

” … the expression of these genes in the uterus is coordinated by transposons — essentially selfish pieces of genetic material that replicate within the host genome and used to be called junk DNA.” more

Jonathan Wells trash talking at Salvo on junk DNA

Unlike Collins, Dawkins seems utterly oblivious to recent developments in genomics. I would encourage him to read some of the scientific literature. more

Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It

Those of you who have been following this blog, as well as Evolution News & Views, for some time, will be aware that I have previously discussed, across multiple articles, the phenomenon of endogenous retroviral inserts into the genomes of primates. Those familiar with the debate over origins will also be familiar with the various… more

Cellular mid-bodies (once thought rubbish) are the new junk DNA?

There must be some reason the cell doesn’t just get rid of them like all the rest. more

Famous astrophysicist: Space aliens are hiding – on Earth. Maybe in “junk DNA”

Anti-science is everywhere now. Especially in science. That’s why its an election issue. more

How biologists who want science to be worth their trouble can free themselves from the Darwin lobby

By taking the Darwin lobby seriously enough to robo-react on cue, scientists imply that they agree with its fundamental premise that it has the right to run supporters’ lives, ruin doubters’ lives, and do everyone’s thinking for them, for their own good. more

New York Times reviewer exhibits why theory trumps evidence in physics today

This review would have made more sense in the glory days of the space race. And you knew it would degenerate into Darwinism didn’t you? more

The Value Of Probabilistic Arguments In The Debate Over Evolution

During the course of our discussion, Pigliucci made some claims which astonished me — especially as arguments coming from a trained philosopher and world-renowned evolutionary theorist. more

Junk DNA: At Biologos, some keep the faith – it’s junk and that proves evolution

Philosopher Michael L. Peterson explains junk DNA for us at BioLogos in “Evolution and the Deep Resonances between Science and Theology, Part 5” (July 20, 2011): Evolution is the only rational way to account for the molecular uniformity of all organisms, given that numerous alternative structures and fundamental processes are, in principle, equally likely. Moreover,… more

Junk DNA: The Darwin faithful know in their hearts that it’s still junk

Junk DNA: Score one for Darwinists rapidly becoming irrelevant to the main events. A guy can only get that kind of thing so wrong for so long and then … more

« Previous PageNext Page »