[2005/07/15] The Death of the Concept of “Junk DNA”
The Death of the Concept of “Junk DNA” 07/15/2005 “God
don’t make no junk” has been a slogan for the self-esteem movement, and
now no less than Science
Now is providing support at the genetic level. “Don’t call it
junk” the article announces, indicating that stretches of non-coding DNA
are apparently not useless regions of material as previously believed, but
vital to the regulation of the gene-coding regions.
Studies by geneticists at UC Santa Cruz have shown that “The more complex
the organism, the more important junk DNA seems to be.” Some of
these non-coding regions are identical in mice and men. This
discovery, made last year,
hinted that these geneless regions were important, otherwise neutral
mutations should have accumulated in them during the course of
evolution. Now, comparisons between five vertebrates, four insects,
two worms and seven species of yeast have revealed a pattern that
complexity correlates with the amount of “junk DNA.” This suggests
that “the regions might contain important regulatory switches that control
basic biochemistry and development, which might help organisms build
sophisticated bodies.” Although the re-evaluation of
non-coding DNA that views it as functionally important is not yet
universally shared among geneticists, this latest revelation appears convincing to many. The new
paradigm is summed up in the photo caption in the article: “Trash is
treasure.” Another finding, from the National
Institute of Mental Health, claims that prairie vole social behavior
is encoded in “junk DNA.” The extent of the effect on social
behavior appears debatable, but the hypothesis relies on the claim that it
was caused by a section of non-coding DNA previously thought to have no
function. The press release ends, “Far from being junk, the
repetitive DNA sequences, which are highly prone to mutate rapidly, may
ultimately exert their influence through complex interactions with other
genes to produce individual differences and social diversity, according to
[Dr. Larry] Young.”
It bears repeating what we have said for
years about this:
the concept of “junk DNA” was a useless dead end that resulted from
evolutionary thinking. It is similar to the now-outmoded concept
of “vestigial organs” used for decades as proof of evolution: the idea
that the wasteful process of evolution left relics of junk in our
bodies. This viewpoint actually delayed the progress of
science. It prevented research into the function of the appendix,
tonsils, pineal gland, coccyx, pituitary gland and other body parts now
known to be useful and even vital for life and health. How long
has fruitful research into the genetic function of non-coding DNA been
delayed by the concept of “junk DNA”? Who would want to waste time
looking at junk? An intelligent-design approach to
non-coding DNA would have been entirely different. An ID scientist
would say there must be a reason for it. Just because its
function is unknown does not mean there is no function. The burden
is on the scientist to figure it out, not on nature to explain
itself. Like a puzzle fanatic trying to solve the latest
crossword, such a scientist would be motivated to search and discover
the function of the phenomenon, and might have found the secret of gene
regulation much sooner. The paradigm shift in progress
about so-called junk DNA provides a classic rebuttal to the argument
that intelligent design theory would shut down scientific
progress. Most anticreationist rhetoric includes the charge that
ID brings scientific explanation to a halt with the quick explanation,
“God did it that way.” Here we have seen that the contrary is
true. Evolution labeled genetic treasure as “trash,” and possibly
delayed our understanding of non-coding DNA for years. We
shouldn’t let the Darwinists get away with claiming credit for the
turnaround.* They caused the delay. If Darwinist
Esaus want to continue to treat nature like trash, ID Jacobs will be
glad to take possession of their hand-offs.
[2005/07/15] The Death of the Concept of “Junk DNA”
