“Junk” DNA Discovered to Have Both Cellular and Microevolutionary Functions

Evolution News & Views ^ | November 3, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

“Junk” DNA Discovered to Have Both Cellular and Microevolutionary Functions

Evolutionists have long sought mechanisms for the origin of reproductive barriers between populations, mechanisms which are thought to be key to the formation of new species. A recent article in ScienceDaily finds that “Junk DNA” might be the “mechanism that prevents two species from reproducing.” Basically, so-called “junk”-DNA is involved in helping to package chromosomes in the cell. If two species have different “junk” DNA, then this prevents the proteins in the egg from properly packaging the chromosomes donated by the sperm. The organism does not develop properly. As the article, titled “Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered,” explains:

during early development, the proteins required for cell division come from the mother. The researchers speculate that the heterochromatin of the male D. melanogaster's X chromosome has rapidly evolved, such that after mating, the machinery involved in DNA packaging from a D. simulans mother no longer recognizes the D. melanogaster father's "junk" DNA, Ferree said.

Even though this study only looked at fruit fly non-coding DNA, the amount of non-coding DNA was enormous: “The problematic region of D. melanogaster's X chromosome contains about 5 million base pairs of DNA, while the same region of D. simulans' X chromosome contains only about 100,000 base pairs, a 50-fold difference.” It seems that “junk” DNA—long ignored by evolutionists—not only has key functions for chromosomal packaging but also for microevolutionary processes that help create reproductive isolation between populations.

[Moonman62]

"The junk idea has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with evolutionary philosophy of Creationists."

Somebody in the science world must be paying attention to "junk" DNA since we are learning so much new about it.

[GodGunsGuts]

==And who am I to question experts on ignorance?

It is good you have finally realized that the evos are experts on ignorance. Now you are ready to take the next step, which is to question their ignorance. That one is a little more difficult, because it involves courage.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It seems that “junk” DNA—long ignored by evolutionists

Instead of studying DNA by doing science, they should have read about DNA in the Bible.

[OldNavyVet]

From page 306 of “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones.

“Given all this emphasis on efficiency, it is a surprise to find great tracts of repetition and decay within the DNA. There are not just thousands of repeats of the same message, but hundreds of delaiadated ruins of what once were working genes. Such pseudogenes, as they are known, are everywhere, in mammals at least. The hemoglobin gene family has half a dozen, each corrupted almost beyond recognition. Long ago, a mutation destroyed the switch that turns the gene on, or inserted an instruction that it should stop doing its job, or damaged its ability to edit its message. Some pseudogenes are the remnants of viral attack and have been read back into the DNA from an edited version of the genetic message to be scattered where they fall. Evolution at once lost interest; as soon as the gene stopped work it was, in effect, invisible. Such structures sit for millions of years and crumble until thier shape can barely be discerned.

[HospiceNurse]

For 5 points, please demonstrate the production of ATP within a cell from one molecule of C6H12O6.

Every college Biology major freshman has to. Give it a shot.

[FormerRep]

Knowledge of CAC and Krebs cycle are not a requirement to be a denier.

I think you’re expecting too much.

[GodGunsGuts]

Way to try and shift the conversation away from the OP. I can see why, it makes the Temple of Darwin look ignorant and silly.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 —> 38 ATP + 6CO2 + 6H2O

[GodGunsGuts]

Yep, that’s the evolutionary philosophy I’m talking about.

[FormerRep]

That’s a formula triple G. The question was to explain it. How it happens. Where it happens. The intermediates, the steric hindrance forces that push conformational changes, catalysts, the required energy input to drive the reaction. You know - the details. Anyone can google up a formula.

She said a freshman biology student can do it. Some of them I suppose - most I taught took it to fill a science requirement.

[HospiceNurse]

I ased you to demonstrate. I get the idea that biology is alien to you.

[Natural Law]

"It seems that “junk” DNA—long ignored by evolutionists..."

The premise should have been that junk DNA was long misunderstood, not long ignored. If junk DNA was being ignored how could it have been studied to this conclusion?

It does, however, further trivialize the whole "Baramin" concept.

[GodGunsGuts]

I have taken college-level biology classes. Have you? And rather than wasting my time remediating your lack of education on ATP production, may I suggest you consult the following. Trust me, it is soooooo remedial, that even a darwin-drone can get it:

http://w3.salemstate.edu/~sdion/presentOverviewofATPProduction.ppt#256,1,Overview of ATP Production

[Natural Law]

"C6H12O6 + 6O2 —> 38 ATP + 6CO2 + 6H2O"

What does the ADP to ATP conversion process have to do with this thread?

[GodGunsGuts]

Exactly.

[FormerRep]

Wow. That was from a state college? It looked more like what you’d get in a junior high. You’re right - that was remedial.

No wonder the Indian nationals are out scoring the United States in biology exams.

If that’s and example of what you were taught triple-G then I understand why you hate biology so much. :)

[GodGunsGuts]

It was ignored precisely because it was misunderstood. Plenty of evos have admitted this in print, one even going so far as to declare it one of the biggest blunders in the entire history of science, so this news really shouldn’t be all that controversial.

[Natural Law]

"What does the ADP to ATP conversion process have to do with this thread?" "Exactly."

I would much rather discuss and field test the anaerobic fermentation process if we want to get sidetracked in a discussion of organic chemistry.

[GodGunsGuts]

Now you’re talking!

[Natural Law]

"Now you’re talking!"

We spend way too much energy on the 1-2% of the things we disagree about. Too bad we couldn't all get together for a glass or six of holiday cheer for having survived the first year in the Reign of Obama.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

The meaning of the term "junk" in the phrase "junk DNA" is generally misunderstood, because it was a handy term for the popular press and other nonscientists to grab onto. But the guy who originally came up with the term in 1972 wrote, in his paper titled "So Much 'Junk' DNA In Our Genome" (note the quotes around "junk"--apparently he didn't mean it to be taken literally),

The creation of every new gene must have been accompanied by many other redundant copies joining the ranks of silent DNA base sequences, and these silent DNA base sequences may now be serving the useful but negative function of spacing those which have succeeded.

So from the beginning, "junk DNA" was thought to have at least a passive role. And in 1990, another scientist was being interviewed:

Kimura: I was very impressed with the statement that 98% of the human genome is junk rather than garbage. Our daily experience suggests that sometimes 'junk' is valuable. Is it possible that some of the so-called junk genes might be found to be valuable...?
...
Brenner: ....In one sense, organisms are very much like us! You get a wooden box and decide to keep it to make a bookcase out of it one day, but you never do because it's much cheaper to buy a bookcase, and so the wooden box remains as junk....
...
Davis: Is it possible that some, or much, of the as definable a function as, say, making an enzyme, but has regulatory roles that will turn out to be more than junk?
Brenner: I would be a fool if I denied that; it is possible, but that is another question I am going to leave for our successors. I am certainly not going to try to prove or disprove it for every piece of junk, and I shall avoid it.

So the idea that biologists were convinced that "junk DNA" had no purpose whatsoever was never really true and certainly hasn't been true for nearly 20 years, despite the efforts of some to make it appear that scientists are being blindsided by these discoveries. As someone pointed out, there's a reason they're investigating the stuff in the first place.