The evidence is pretty clear: there is little (and likely none) "junk DNA".

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001...

Not only is there no junk DNA, but the evidence shows that the controller regions of DNA are often in close approximation spatially with the genes they regulate, despite being quite separated linearly on the DNA strand.

Any theories out there as to how this situation came about simply by an accumulation of random mutations? How would such a random process lead to essentially 100% functional DNA? And how would all these controlling regions happen to end up spatially adjacent to their respective genes?

Any theories out there as to how this situation came about simply by an accumulation of random mutations? How would such a random process lead to essentially 100% functional DNA? And how would all these controlling regions happen to end up spatially adjacent to their respective genes?

They will be mechanistic whatever the explanation. Magic only works for those who aren't intellectually adroit enough to dig for answers.

They will be mechanistic whatever the explanation. Magic only works for those who aren't intellectually adroit enough to dig for answers.


The silly thing is someone so biased against the evidence at hand can act condescending with a straight face.

The silly thing is someone so biased against the evidence at hand can act condescending with a straight face.

It's easy to be condescending.

We have a broken lamp, and household with kids and dogs. Perfectly reasonable to conjecture that a child, a dog, or both might be responsible for the broken lamp.

Unfortunately, in the case of creationism, you have a broken lamp, an office complex restricted exclusively to adults, and your trying to say the broken lamp is evidence of kids and dogs.

It doesn't work that way within intelligent circles. Any issues that ever arise from the mechanistic process will only lead to another mechanistic process and explanation until you can demonstrate and prove that some outside agent exists.

Forensics doesn't consider ghost or demons as possible suspects when someone is found dead within a securely locked structure, and science doesn't consider god excited a neutrino to faster than light speed when an experiment suggested one had. Physicists were ready to tear down all of Einsteins Theories and were excited about the prospect of having to come up with a new explanation for how the universe works.

What's silly is you continually stop by here and think that a potential problem with genetics or evolution proves god is at work. It never has and never will. Stop being lazy and riding the coattails of real science and prove god exists and is at work in the universe.

Yeah, I know. That would require some real brains and actual work. A tough road to hoe for anyone who was raised to believe exactly and only what they were told to believe.

against the evidence at hand

By "evidence at hand" you must mean "I don't know how it works, so an invisible man must have put it there."

For the record, that doesn't count as "evidence."

The silly thing is someone so biased against the evidence at hand can act condescending with a straight face.




I haven't seen anyone refuting the evidence. To what bias are you referring?

What you should really know about the concept of junk DNA is that, first, it was not based on what scientists didn't know, but rather on what they did know about the genome; and second, that concept has held up quite well, even in light of the ENCODE results. Among the reasons that scientists in the 1970s and '80s began to believe that much of the genome is non-functional was the observation that very similar species could have very different genome sizes. There is no reason to believe that similar species require dramatically different amounts of functional DNA, and thus something other than functional requirements must explain differences in genome size. Scientists also discovered that our genomes contain parasitic, virus-like elements called "transposons" that have the ability copy themselves within our cells. This DNA ecosystem makes our genomes more like a jungle than a precision machine. At the latest count, transposon-derived DNA makes up at least half of our genome. The transposon-derived sequences in our genomes do not have to be explained by invoking some useful function for it. There is no mystery here: this DNA is there because it can replicate.

Michael White: A Genome-Sized Media Failure
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-white/media-genome-sci...