Replies

Degeneration in action? Have you seen the kids today?! :-) Ok, seriously, sub-human species is VERY possible IMHO, but who knows. My point was look at the DNA, its full of junk - regions of no use, no longer coding, or even foriegn DNA such as what appears to be no longer functioning proviral genomes.

Ironically, many creationists celebrate whenever some more junk DNA is found to have a function after all, because it proves that "God don't make junk".

OTOH, large stretches of noncoding DNA are compatible with evolution: When a gene duplicates and gets re-inserted into the genome, it goes in somewhere pretty much at random. There's certainly nothing that prevents it from getting inserted in the middle of an existing gene. When this happens, the original gene us usually completely disrupted, which is hardly ever a good thing.

But if the duplicated gene gets inserted in the middle of junk, then its insertion doesn't disrupt any existing gene, and it's free to mutate into something that can "find another job to do" in the cell without first killing the organism.

Because of this, it's advantageous for a species to have lots of junk DNA. Macroevolution via gene duplication & modification probably couldn't ever get off the ground without it.

I think that the "junk" sequences in DNA are the unknown territory, and that their function in not yet known. Since this is a crevo thread, I make no warranty, express or implied, that my opinion supports one side or the other.

The "junk" sequences remind me of a math class where some functions were described as having no use in the real world. I wondered if the uses had not been found yet and the instructor was offended. He believed that useless functions were a beautiful aspect of math. I was lucky, he did not hold it against me at grade time, the man was a true believer in the search for truth.

Ironically, many creationists celebrate whenever some more junk DNA is found to have a function after all, because it proves that "God don't make junk".

Some of what was once labeled "junk" was found to have a real function; however, much of the junk, is just that, junk, no use, it sits in the genome contributing nothing to the organism.

OTOH, large stretches of noncoding DNA are compatible with evolution: When a gene duplicates and gets re-inserted into the genome, it goes in somewhere pretty much at random. There's certainly nothing that prevents it from getting inserted in the middle of an existing gene. When this happens, the original gene us usually completely disrupted, which is hardly ever a good thing.

It's also compatible with the degeneration of a perfect creation.

But if the duplicated gene gets inserted in the middle of junk, then its insertion doesn't disrupt any existing gene, and it's free to mutate into something that can "find another job to do" in the cell without first killing the organism.

This is a "cute" idea, but there is nothing that has been objectively seen since the dawn of genetic science that suggests this ever happens. Although, you are free to your conjecture, it is not entirely impossible, just highly improbable. I'm sure Vegas would be happy to give you odds on that one.

Because of this, it's advantageous for a species to have lots of junk DNA. Macroevolution via gene duplication & modification probably couldn't ever get off the ground without it.

If you say so :-)