Most junk DNA is still junk DNA.
But that isn’t the question under discussion.
You have proposed a couple of things: that some plasticity is front loaded into the genomes of created types — enough to allow some range of adaptation, but not not, as Wallace suggested, “indefinite” adaptation.
There’s a fair bit of work to be done to make this a scientific hypothesis. We know, and have known for a long time, that populations are not infinitely malleable. If they were, there would be no extinction.
So what you need is a description of how front loading works, along with some projection about how current species will respond to change. If the code for adaptation is front loaded, you could perhaps uncover the biochemistry that produces the necessary mutation at the necessary time.
And while you are at it, you could find the mechanism that causes this front loaded adaptation to take hundreds of thousands of generations to appear.
Junk DNA? Probably not!
“Not ‘Junk DNA’ After All: Tiny RNAs Play Big Role Controlling Genes
ScienceDaily (Oct. 26, 2007) — A study by researchers at the Yale Stem Cell Center for the first time demonstrates that piRNAs, a recently discovered class of tiny RNAs, play an important role in controlling gene function.”
Worth a look.
Twin Strands Of DNA Seek Each Other Out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961038/posts
Looks like DNA likes to be stable and resistant to change.
Have scientists thoroughly analyzed the entire genome and determined the function or non function of each gene and bit of DNA that the cells contain that they are able to make that determination?
Or are they just assuming that there's no function because they haven't determined what it is yet?
You have proposed a couple of things: that some plasticity is front loaded into the genomes of created types — enough to allow some range of adaptation, but not not, as Wallace suggested, “indefinite” adaptation.
That would have been in the initial created kinds. There will be no front loaded genes in species which exist today. Many characteristics would have been lost with the kinds isolation from each other so the genomes are no longer loaded.
Science isn't the final word on everything. Just because science proposes the best it can doesn't mean that it's right, it simply means that it's the best they have.
We are not obligated to accept what science has to offer as correct simply because there's no better explanation they can propose.
Science is working on woefully incomplete data and knowledge. Granted we're learning more by the day, but the more we learn only goes to show how much more we don't know. But to make determinations based on such limited data and knowledge of what we're working with and what happened in the past is not possible. Guesses is about the best science can offer.
And that's not good enough.