Junk DNA. Junk DNA is a term coined back in the 1960s that referred to the portion of the DNA that did not code for proteins. It was believed by evolutionary scientists that the junk DNA was evolutionary leftovers from billions of years of changes within the code. In scientific circles junk DNA was referred to as pseudogenes. In Richard Dawkins book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he declares pseudogenes magnificent evidence for evolution and scoffs at creationists:
What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.
Unfortunately (for evolutionists), Junk DNA is a myth. The latest research by both creationist and evolutionary scientists show that all of the DNA code is useful even if it does not code for proteins. In fact, the news is even worse for the theory of evolution since DNA code is now shown to be not just a code in a single dimension, but has usefulness in multiple directions. An analogy for the geeks among us would be to compare DNA to a compressed data file. The compressed data file has functionality and the uncompressed data file has functionality. This further complicates the situation for evolution since any random mutation (copying error) in DNA will affect not just the “compressed file” but also the “uncompressed file.” This makes the theory of evolution as taught staggeringly unlikely to be true.
And since there’s no such thing as junk DNA, it takes away one of the “strongest” evidences for evolution.
As more and more evidence is coming to light regarding genetics, evolution is scrambling for the ever-diminishing shadows. The four major lines of evolutionary assumptions within genetics is rapidly waning:
- Homology – Homology is the evolutionary assumption that since different species of animals have similar features, then they must have had a common ancestor. But with the advent of genetics, scientists are finding that the relationships defined by homology are vastly different when DNA is compared.
- Absolute Genetic Differences – Chimps and humans are said to have a common ancestor about 6 millions years ago. But since the genetic code for both chimps and humans have been de-coded, the differences are found to be 900,000,000 and growing. The problem for evolutionists is that not enough time has passed for this many differences to have mutated in the genetic code.
- Junk DNA – As already covered above, scientists are finding that junk DNA is useful after all.
- Shared DNA mistakes – The assumption that if species are related to each other with a common ancestor, they should have shared mistakes in their code is now shown to be just that…an assumption. It relates back to the idea that non-coding portions of DNA were junk, but have now been shown to be functional. Since the “mistakes” have vanished because they are now shown to be worthwhile portions of the DNA, then the assumed history of shared mistakes is also vanishes.
Not only is junk DNA a myth, but the DNA code represents multiple levels of information, which is sometimes known as epigenetics. A more detailed description of epigenetics is available here. This secondary layer of complexity further deepens the problem for evolutionists in explaining the way that genetic mutations affect the “emergence” of new information for building wings, flippers, gills, lungs, echolocation, blood-clotting cascades, or ligaments where once there were none. If random mutations to existing code is supposed to provide the source for new features in creatures, and the existing code has at least two levels of complexity, then a random mutation will be forced to overcome the “scrambling” of both levels to remain viable after natural selection acts on the new code. The problem more than doubles for evolution.
UPDATE: Further research into the collapse of the theory of junk DNA has been published in scientific journals.
It would seem the answer is yes — and evolutionary assumptions helped create the problem.
UPDATE 2: It looks like the ENCODE project continues to make the theory of evolution irrelevant.
If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong.