Category: ‘Junk DNA’

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, 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

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

« Previous PageNext Page »