Home » 'Junk DNA', News » Junk DNA: “The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe”

Junk DNA: “The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe”

Evolution News and Views

In “Why the Case for Junk DNA 2.0 Still Fails” (Evolution News & Views,
September 27, 2012), David Klinghoffer notes,

Confronted with the ENCODE results that attribute “function” to at least 80% of the genome, some Darwinist bloggers and critics of intelligent design have established a defensive perimeter around the precious idea of Junk DNA. It truly is that critically important to them. Their favored critique of ENCODE — call it the case for Junk DNA 2.0 — is that ENCODE’s definition of functionality is wrong. “Well, maybe it’s technically functional,” they say, “but it really isn’t.”

In the end, will our DNA turn out to be 80% functional, or 70% functional, or 90% functional? Committed anti-ID people like Larry Moran (University of Toronto) and Dennis Venema (BioLogos) will always define “function” to minimize the number. There’s not much point in squabbling with them about it. But whatever the number is now, we have every reason to expect the discovery of more and more genuine function in DNA, under any reasonable person’s definition.

The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe, insisting that the vast ocean around them is nothing to worry about.

They could resolve their problem by evolving already into whales. They say it is not even hard …

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

3 Responses to Junk DNA: “The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe”

  1. I wonder what percentage of the 10^19 to 10^20 protein molecules inside a human body Darwinists consider junk?

    Notes:

    The physics of going viral: Researchers measure the rate of DNA transfer from viruses to bacteria – June 27, 2012
    Excerpt: E. coli cells contain roughly 3 million proteins within a box that is roughly one micron (1,000 nanometers) on each side. Less than 10 nanometers separate each protein from its neighbors. “There’s no room for anything else,” Phillips says. “These cells are really crowded.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-p.....teria.html

    whereas I’ve heard that there are anywhere from 50 trillion to 100 trillion cells in the average human body, thus the conservative estimate of 10^19 to 10^20 protein molecules per one human body.

    further notes:

    The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein-maker Trashes Errors
    Excerpt: The enzyme machine that translates a cell’s DNA code into the proteins of life is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products… To their further surprise, the ribosome lets go of error-laden proteins 10,000 times faster than it would normally release error-free proteins, a rate of destruction that Green says is “shocking” and reveals just how much of a stickler the ribosome is about high-fidelity protein synthesis.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134529.htm

    And exactly how is the evolution new life forms suppose to ‘randomly’ occur if it is prevented from ‘randomly’ occurring at the protein level in the first place?

    How Proteins Evolved – Cornelius Hunter – December 2010
    Excerpt: Comparing ATP binding with the incredible feats of hemoglobin, for example, is like comparing a tricycle with a jet airplane. And even the one in 10^12 shot, though it pales in comparison to the odds of constructing a more useful protein machine, is no small barrier. If that is what is required to even achieve simple ATP binding, then evolution would need to be incessantly running unsuccessful trials. The machinery to construct, use and benefit from a potential protein product would have to be in place, while failure after failure results. Evolution (if it were true) would make Thomas Edison appear lazy, running millions of trials after millions of trials before finding even the tiniest of function.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....olved.html

    OK, where are all these trial and error ‘junk proteins’ that Darwinists need to make their theory work?

  2. The Darwinist bloggers are defending a ragged flag on a rapidly shrinking ice floe, insisting that the vast ocean around them is nothing to worry about.

    They figure that given enough time, a truly intelligent species will arise from that ocean.

  3. And it continues on with Moran > http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....f-dna.html

Leave a Reply