The DNA evidence in that article does not rest upon any claim about whether the "vast majority" of DNA is junk or not.
Indeed it does. First of all, while the word 'psudogene' sounds scientific, it is total nonsense. All it means is that it looks like a gene but it does not produce any proteins that anyone knows about. It is essentially, what evolutionists accuse their opponents of all the time - an argument from ignorance. An argument whose basis is that because we do not know what that DNA is for, it is there just to prove evolution, which is total nonsense. First of all, the DNA in the human genome gets reproduces in just about every human cell (with a few significant exceptions). We are talking about some 100 trillion cells. To reproduce garbage which is essentially what you are talking about, just so that evolutionists nowadays could use it to prove their theory is not only nonsensical, but also a denial of a central part of their theory - that unfitness is destroyed. As a I said, only the tremendously arrogant evolutionists would be willing to make such a silly claim. Since the code they are speaking about is indeed the one they also call 'junk DNA' and which science has shown is even more important than the DNA in genes, the evolutionists have been shown up to be talking - as usual - totally unscientific nonsense.
And since the available evidence does indeed indicate that most human DNA is "junk" of one type or another (retroposons, "stuttered" repetitions, etc.), that *is* the *scientific* position, not an "unscientific" one as you ironically assert.
First you state that this has nothing to do with junk DNA and then you try to talk away the scientific evidence that junk DNA is not junk. For your information, the last half dozen years just about all that biologists have been doing is looking for the purpose of this 'junk DNA' and scientists do not call it junk, they call it 'non-coding' DNA nowadays because the evolutionist LIE has been totally disproven by REAL SCIENCE. In fact a Nobel Prize winner said that the genes are just factories, the control of those factories is outside the genes. That part which is outside the genes is the part which the evolutionists moronically and/or dishonestly called 'junk DNA'. And indeed it is correct to call their assertion 'moronic and/or dishonest'. It should have been obvious (and indeed was) to many scientists and even non-scientists, that genes have to be regulated and that such regulation required very specific controls. That is the massive job which your 'junk DNA' does.
But, let's stop wasting time and go to the nub. Fact is that pseudogenes are there for a purpose as the following shows:
"Pseudogenes have long been considered merely defective copies of functioning genes and relics of our evolutionary past. New research on mice, however, has found evidence suggesting the pseudogene Makorin1-p1 plays a crucial regulatory role in the expression of the coding gene (Makorin1) within the cell. This finding is the latest example of research discovering sub-cellular functioning where it was not expected.
Findings like these have important implications for the authority of Darwinian evolution. A major element of the Darwinian argument springs from the belief that an intelligent designer would not create biological systems that look like what biologists see. Negative evidence for a designer, then, is seen as positive evidence for the purposeless Darwinian mechanism. For example, in “Life’s Grand Design” biologist Ken Miller (1994) states,
“The theory of intelligent design [ID] cannot explain the presence of nonfunctional pseudogenes unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, in contrast, can easily explain them as nothing more than failed experiments in a random process of gene duplication that persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants.”
So, Miller asserts that [Darwinian] evolution, and not ID, can explain the non-functionality of pseudogenes and therefore, their presence should be viewed as positive evidence for evolution. Many other Darwinists have pointed to the non-functionality of pseudogenes in debates with creationists and IDers – even a cursory search of debate transcripts on the Internet can verify this.
Now that it has been found that at least one pseudogene plays a functional role, can pseudogene functionality be used as evidence against evolution? Evidently not if you’re committed to Darwinism. In the same journal article that uncovered the functional role of Makorin1-p1 we find the following after-the-fact explanation:
“Indeed, it [the functioning pseudogene] suggests that evolutionary forces can work in both directions. The forward direction is driven by pressures to create new genes from existing ones, an imperfect process that often generates defective copies of the original.
But these defective copies need not be evolutionary dead ends, because pressures in the reverse direction could modify them for specific tasks.” (Hirotsune, et al., 2003)
From: Wedge Update 5/23/03
So the above not only shows that evolutionists are absolutely wrong about pseudogenes, but also their duplicity and their acting like Communists, Nazis and the totalitarians in 1984 who the day after having had their long held statements shown to be the absolute garbage they were, start claiming that they always said it was so. So get with the program before you face a pogrom!
No, that's not quite right; look at p.9, footnote 28 in the link I posted earlier: Ape in God's image. It looks a whole lot like a gene with a single mutation.
Now look at the same page, notes 31 and 32. Don't they look a whole lot alike, except for a single difference?
To reproduce garbage which is essentially what you are talking about, just so that evolutionists nowadays could use it
Just so that evos could use it? Aren't these mutations really there? Anyone can use it.
but also a denial of a central part of their theory - that unfitness is destroyed.
What is unfit about having non-coding dna? It may be a problem for bacteria, who need to reproduce very fast, but how is it a problem for metazoa?
That part which is outside the genes is the part which the evolutionists moronically and/or dishonestly called 'junk DNA'. And indeed it is correct to call their assertion 'moronic and/or dishonest'. It should have been obvious (and indeed was) to many scientists and even non-scientists, that genes have to be regulated and that such regulation required very specific controls. That is the massive job which your 'junk DNA' does.
So why does something which is identical to one of the genes needed for ascorbic acid synthesis (except for one base-pair) regulate development in primates, but in other mammals just helps make vitamin C? Are you saying it evolved into a regulatory function because it wan't needed any more? Just what are you claiming? That all noncoding dna is regulatory? that none of it is 'junk'?
Now that it has been found that at least one pseudogene plays a functional role, can pseudogene functionality be used as evidence against evolution? Evidently not if you’re committed to Darwinism. In the same journal article that uncovered the functional role of Makorin1-p1 we find the following after-the-fact explanation: “Indeed, it [the functioning pseudogene] suggests that evolutionary forces can work in both directions. The forward direction is driven by pressures to create new genes from existing ones, an imperfect process that often generates defective copies of the original. But these defective copies need not be evolutionary dead ends, because pressures in the reverse direction could modify them for specific tasks.” (Hirotsune, et al., 2003)
So, at least one pseudo gene has a use; therefore they all do? BTW, isn't this an example of a gene being hijacked into an entirely new function? Haven't you claimed that this is impossible?
What sort of research would you propose to show that the defective gene needed for vitamin c synthesis in the great apes and people really serves a purpose, and isn't just a fossil showing that we share a common ancestor with the rest of the grerat apes?