Category: ‘Junk DNA’

Todd C.Wood: ENCODE data tempts some to anticreationist conspiracy?

Darwin’s men were misled by their own beliefs into adopting the highly improbable idea that most of the genome is junk and now they can just stew in it. more

Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis

Evolutionnews.org just published an article by me titled “Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis.” Here is an excerpt: The logic of the design inference moves from a marker of intelligence (specified complexity) to an intelligence as causal agent responsible for that marker. The direction of this logic can, however, be reversed. Thus, instead, one can postulate […] more

Latest ENCODE Research Validates ID Predictions On Non-Coding Repertoire

Readers will likely recall the ENCODE project, published in a series of papers in 2007, in which (among other interesting findings) it was discovered that, even though the vast majority of our DNA does not code for proteins, the human genome is nonetheless pervasively transcribed into mRNA. The science media and blogosphere is now abuzz […] more

Not only did Darwin’s followers believe in a “vast amount of functionless so-called ‘junk DNA’” …

… they taught their fans to believe it too. more

Ken “we suck” Miller wrong again — peer reviewed article obliterates Miller’s claims

Lamenting the fact Darwinist have a hard time persuading the public, Darwinist Ken Miller once said of himself and his colleagues”WE SUCK“. Curiously, Jerry Coyne said the same thing, “WE SUCK“. Egg surely is now on Ken Miller’s face in light of new scientific developments. But first, what did Miller claim: “Intelligent design cannot explain […] more

Sometimes, one runs into ID opponents who are just so confused ….

… that it is hard to know what to say in response. more

Mouse junk DNA: “vast amounts of information vital to gene function”

Interesting denouement for junk DNA as a supposed slam dunk for Darwinism. more

Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson vs. the UD Community

Art Hunt, from the archives of Uncommon Descent June 14, 2010: As far as the functional vs. non-functional business, there is one key fact that IDists ignore in all of this. I refer, of course, to the fact that intronic RNA is made and then thrown away. We don’t call it “junk” because we don’t […] more

Even IF the Genome is Full of “Junk”

I particularly enjoyed Denyse’s comment here about how, according to some evolutionary theorists — who should be more accurately depicted as evolutionary storytellers — Darwinian evolution programmed us to find Darwinian evolution difficult to believe. This is called science? A much more reasonable explanation is that our minds were programmed to invent computer programs, and […] more

You knew this had to happen: Junkomics

“Junkomics is the study of artificially induced expression of junk DNA sequences,” making functional elements from junk DNA. more

Three dimensional chromosome arrangements can affect genetics

The Darwinist needs to get out more. more

Transposable elements are the new “junk DNA”? May have function ….

“It seems, then, that there is positive selection for transposable elements at these sites, suggesting that insertion has a beneficial effect on the host.” more

Are Selfish Genes Selfish? Are Retro-transposons Junk?

At PhysOrg.com, they have an article dealing with the CTCF protein and its binding sites. It turns out that the CTCF has both binding sites that are common to all mammalian lineages, and thus “conserved” and “ancient”, as well as binding sites found only in particular lineages. The binding sites found only in particular lineages […] more

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

« Previous PageNext Page »