But... That would be *so* out of character for both that particular poster, and anti-evolutionists in general.
Oh, wait, no it wouldn't, my mistake.
Jennyp, based on previous experience, I believe you will find yourself having to deal with a storm of red herrings now in response to your post, so be prepared.
Also be prepared to point out that contrary to bone-headed (and unsupported) claims that "it probably never was 'junk'", the fact remains that even though rare cases have been found of specific pieces of "junk DNA" (i.e. non-coding DNA) having some use, only an idiot would leap from that to the conclusion that "it probably never was 'junk'" on the whole, because a) the vast majority of "junk DNA" is non-conserved, a clear indication that it is, indeed, not used in the genome, among many other lines of general evidence supporting the same conclusion (is your correspondent ignorant of these, or just dishonest?), and b) specific tests of "junk DNA" have shown that if it's used at all, the use is extremely rare or subtle, because giant whacking swatches of it can be removed entirely without any kind of obvious harm to the animal.
For example: Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. In short, the researchers snipped over 2.3 *million* basepairs of apparently "junk DNA" out of mouse DNA, then produced offspring mice which were entirely missing that DNA. The resulting mice were normal in all respects. As a press release states:
Another specific piece of evidence is that the genome of the fugu fish (as well as other fish in the blowfish family) is remarkably "clean" compared to that of other fish (or other vertebrates), even other fish which are rather closely related. It's *missing* most of the DNA that other fish (and vertebrates) have that are collectively known as "junk DNA", and as a result has a genome that is nearly "pure" genes (i.e. coding regions) stripped of most non-coding regions. And the fugu gets along just *fine* without them. How and why its genome got "streamlined" by "cleaning house" of most of its "junk DNA" is a fascinating question which is being looked into, but the fact remains that if this "junk DNA" is all that critical and "actually" used for something after all, on the whole, then how does the fugu do so swimmingly (sorry, bad pun) without it at all?"In these studies, we were looking particularly for sequences that might not be essential," said Eddy Rubin, Director of the JGI, where the work was conducted. "Nonetheless we were surprised, given the magnitude of the information being deleted from the genome, by the complete lack of impact noted. From our results, it would seem that some non-coding sequences may indeed have minimal if any function."
A total of 2.3 million letters of DNA code from the 2.7-billion-base-pair mouse genome were deleted. To do this, embryonic cells were genetically engineered to contain the newly compact mouse genome. Mice were subsequently generated from these stem cells. The research team then compared the resulting mice with the abridged genome to mice with the full-length version. A variety of features were analysed, ranging from viability, growth and longevity to numerous other biochemical and molecular features. Despite the researchers' efforts to detect differences in the mice with the abridged genome, none were found.
So I repeat -- there are very good reasons, based on testing and on the evidence, that "junk DNA" on the whole really is "junk". And that doesn't change even if a *few* specific non-coding regions end up being involved in gene expression or whatnot. Finding a few discarded items of value in the city dump doesn't magically change the whole thing into a mountain of pearls.
Finally, you might want to point out that his subsequent "conclusion" falls flat because it is based on a false premise: "That it is not 'junk' is, therefore, in contradiction to that certain theory". Complete twaddle. First, it has in no way been established that it in fact "not junk" on the whole. Evolution does not *require* non-coding regions to be totally useless. Nor does it require that they not be. That doesn't change the fact that even if *some* fraction of "junk DNA" is useful in some manner, *any* significant amount of "junk" in the genome is more in keeping with the expected results of evolutionary processes, than with "intelligent design". Ah, now we glimpse what might be his real motivation for struggling mightily against the conclusion which the evidence actually supports... ("It *must* be useful, it *must* be -- g-d doesn't make junk!)
Unlike his false accusations, scientists actually go where the evidence takes them (as they have in this case).
I have noticed over the years that AC never says what HE really believes. He is very good at picking up on misstatements by Freepers and loose wording by science writers, but he never says exactly what he thinks junk DNA is doing.
I can only assume that this would expose his hypothesis to testing.