“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.

[freedumb2003]

Well, that does it for TToE.

Again.

[whattajoke]

Casey Luskin alert!

[GodGunsGuts]

When I read the above, the following came to mind:

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

[Spunky]

Amen!

[Teflonic]

So does this mean we are on the path to creating centaurs and mermaids?

[GodGunsGuts]

I very much doubt it...but let’s hope not!

[SlowBoat407]

God don’t make “junk”.

[whattajoke]

Hijack Alert!

centaurs and mermaids?

I can't help myself from noting that that cheater, A-Roid, has not one, but TWO paintings of himself as a Centaur in his bedroom.

I'm embarrassed to link the story, for fear that one may think I read US Magazine. But as a Phillies fan and hater of all cheaters, It's too funny to ignore.

Sorry, GGG, back to the creationism.

[skeptoid]

Casey Luskin alert!

Thanks. I'll be getting acquainted with his website

[precisionshootist]

So what happened with Pelosi? Something went dreadfully wrong somewhere.

[precisionshootist]

So what happened with Pelosi? Something went dreadfully wrong somewhere.

[RoadGumby]

There is no telling what we may be able to learn to do. However, it begs the old question: Just because we CAN do it, does that mean we SHOULD do it? Somethings are probably best left alone.

[MrB]

Same thing as Michael Jackson -

just someone not willing to accept how God made them.

[GodGunsGuts]

Good point...perhaps they are further along then we thought and are experiencing huge setbacks!

[OldNavyVet]

From page 307 of “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones.

“When seen through the lens of evolution, facts as disparate as the true affinities of birds, the life of the deep sea vents, the multiplied structure of the earthworm and the nipples of male animals all come into common focus as evidence of descent with modification. Together they bear persuasive witness to change: enough to establish the truth of evolution even without the mass of supporting evidence given elsewhere in these pages.”

[UCANSEE2]

I often wonder where the biological scientists get the idea that just because we don’t know what something is for, that it can only be junk.

[UCANSEE2]

If we apply the same type of thinking to astronomy, then most of the universe is just useless dust.

[GodGunsGuts]

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

[Moonman62]

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

And who am I to question experts on ignorance?