Is most of our DNA junk, as predicted by Darwinism, or functional, as predicted by intelligent design?

Question

The term "junk DNA" fits the "random mutation" hypothesis of evolution, in which evolution was driven by random copying errors. With copying errors, a whole bunch of garbage would likely accumulate somewhere.

However, an intelligent designer would not make junk, and the unknown functions of most or all of DNA would eventually be discovered. Thus, we have a testable hypothesis on the contrary theories of Darwinism and ID. Where is the evidence pointing?

Answer 1

The theory of intelligent design and materialistic evolutionary theories, both chemical and biological, differ in their interpretation of so-called junk DNA. Since neo-Darwinism holds that new biological information arises as the result of a process of mutational trial and error, it predicts that nonfunctional DNA would tend to accumulate in the genomes of eukaryotic organisms, organism whose cells contain nuclei. Since most chemical evolutionary theories also envision some role for chance interactions in the origin of biological information, the first simple organism, as a kind of remnant of whatever undirected process first produced functional information in the cell. For this reason, most evolutionary biologist concluded upon the discovery of non-protein-coding DNA that such DNA was ‘junk.’ In their view, discovery of the non-protein-coding regions confirmed the prediction or expectation of naturalistic evolutionary theories and disconfirmed an implicit prediction of intelligent design.



Intelligent design theorists advance a different view of non-protein-coding DNA. The theory of intelligent design predicts that most of the non-protein-coding sequences in the genome should perform some biological function, even if they do not direct protein synthesis. Intelligent design theorists do not deny that mutational processes might have degraded or ‘broken’ some previously functional DNA, but we predict that the functional DNA, the signal, should dwarf the nonfunctional DNA, the noise, and not the reverse. As William Dembski explained and predicted in 1998: “On the evolutionary view we expect a lot of unless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.” The discovery in recent years that non-protein-coding DNA performs a diversity of important biological function has confirmed this prediction. It also decisively refutes prominent critics of intelligent design who have continued to argue that the genome is composed of mostly useless DNA.



Contrary to their claims, recent scientific discoveries have shown the non-protein-coding regions of the genome direct the production of RNA molecules that regulate the use of the protein-coding regions of DNA. Cell and genome biologist have discovered that these supposedly ‘useless’ non-protein-coding regions of the genome:



(1) regulate DNA replication, (2) regulate transcription, (3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material, (4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes, (5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane and matrix, (6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing, (7) modulate translation, (8) regulate embryological development, (9) repair DNA, and (10) aid in immune-defense or fighting disease among other functions.



In some cases, ‘junk’ DNA has even been found to code functional genes. Overall, the non-protein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously. Indeed, far from being ‘junk,’ as materialistic theories of evolution assumed, the non-protein-coding DNA directs the use of other information in the genome, just as an operating system directs the use of information contained in various application programs stored in a computer. In any case, contrary to the often heard of criticism that the theory makes no predictions, intelligent design not only makes a discriminating prediction about the nature of ‘junk’ DNA; recent discoveries about non-protein-coding DNA confirm the prediction that it makes.



@Jabber wock, junk DNA is the DNA that does not code for proteins found in the genomes of both one-celled organisms and multi-cellular plants and animals.

Answer 2

Junk DNA has the same function as the extra non-functional DNA on the end of telomeres.

SACRIFICE.



its non functionality allows mutations to occur freely upon it without harm to the organism.



did you know that during replication, the non leading strand has a part of its information lost? this happens EVERY SINGLE TIME due to the process of backwards copying and this is what prevents immortality/perfect genetic replication.



so yeah, although most DNA doesnt code for proteins/act as gene regulators. non functional DNA have an obvious purpose, indeed a purpose can be attributed to anything that exists.

Answer 3

1) The theory of evolution did not "predict" Junk DNA. Junk DNA was discovered, and then was made to fit evolutionary theory after the fact. The premise of your argument is false.



2) Junk DNA is a term from DNA that doesn't code for proteins. It was a misnomer, because it assumed the only function of DNA is to code for proteins, but now we know there are other uses for DNA. Unfortunately, the term "Junk DNA" - misleading as it is - remains.



3) Various forms of Junk DNA - pseudogenes, SINEs, LINEs, and endogenous retroviruses - have all been found to have functionality. Therefore, evolution producing "junk" DNA that is accumulated garbage is no longer the only viable explanation for the existence of non-coding DNA.



4) As respects to time, Junk DNA is being found more and more to have functionality, especially in gene expression. This is consistence with living things being created, for we would expect for there to be functionality for most if not all DNA.



5) Some DNA may truly be Junk DNA, but research has shown some Junk DNA to be repeatable (Such as intron insertion points in fleas). Hence, common Junk DNA may not be because of a common ancestery, but is a repeatable phenomenon.

Answer 4

"Darwinism" did not "predict" junk DNA, if by that you mean it was predicted before it was found. Before it was found, not enough was known about genetics to provide a basis for making a prediction that there would be such a thing.



The so-called junk DNA is actually evidence of evolution. Much of it consists of non-functioning genetic remains from our long-ago ancestral precursor species. Junk DNA, in fact, sometimes becomes incorporated with functioning DNA during the evolutionary process to provide new functions.



http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-junk-dna-uncovers-nature-ancient.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/evolutionary-sc.html



Intelligent design can make no predictions about what should be found in anything because there is no basis in intelligent design from which to make predictions. The only thing intelligent design proponents can do is make statements about after-the-fact findings.



Now here is a prediction derived from evolutionary theory.



About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.



That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.



Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525



The following site (which is an NIH human genome site), however, does have this statement: "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002."



http://www.genome.gov/13514624



These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html



No creationist or ID pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.

Answer 5

I'm an atheist. I believe in evolution - there is more to evolution theory than just natural selection.



We may have managed to decode the human genome, but we are a long way from (and possibly never will) understand all it's complexities. At many times in our history mankind has had the mistaken belief that we understand more than we do. My fear is that we are embarking on another exercise in eugenics. Despite having no faith in a god I can still believe we, as humans should be careful how we fiddle with life.

Answer 6

You are not keeping up with science. DNA discoveries are continually finding that what they thought was junk DNA has a purpose, is dormant or is recessive in one individual and active in another.

You may have to reassess how that fits into your theories.

Answer 7

I think there IS a lot of random junk DNA - look at all the genetically carried diseases, malformed humans and animals. And Plants.



I don't think it's accurate, though, to say there is EITHER "Darwinism" OR Intelligent Design, as it is proposed. Think of all the other possibilities.



I believe that our creator is involved in our evolution. But our creator is not perfect and works through evolution, not through direct creation of perfection. This universe is an odd creation of God's and we don't know why he/she/it/them is doing it. It's plain to ME, though, that it is all about evolution towards SOMETHING! Something like incorporating the energy of God more and more completely into this physical world. It has much to do with love and caring for one another, when it comes to being human. Boy, is it hard to be human!!

Answer 8

Darwin didn't know anything about DNA. In fact, he actually thought that the cell was the smallest part of a living thing!



He started with a faulty premise, and drew an erroneous conclusion!



Ever since then, other views, opinions, and theories have been built on the unproven conjecture of Darwin!



The entire theory is built on a house of cards, and modern scientific methods are demonstrating just how false this theory really is, as scientists delve into the secrets and mysteries of the DNA molecule, it's functions, etc!



Even the outspoken atheist, Dr. Flew, had to finally admit that evolution couldn't be true, in light of all the research being done on the DNA molecule! He said in an interview that he would have to commit "intellectual suicide" in order to continue to accept evolution.



I would like to extend the invitation to you to leave your stone-aged, cave-man, goat-herder, bronze-aged myths, and join us here in the 21st century, where TRUE science is debunking the myth of evolution on a nearly daily basis!

Answer 9

What God created is not junk so I disagree with Darwin on this and probably 98% of the rest of what he teaches. I wouldn't care to read any of his books. It would be a waste of time.



You are absolutely right that an intelligent designer would not make junk and he didn't. Our DNA is functional and we are marvelous creatures that God created, the highest form of life on this planet.



Psalm 139:13-16 (King James Version)



13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.



14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.



15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.



16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Answer 10

Neither.



Junk DNA is left over from previous forms of life, as in, ancestors, that may or may not be used currently. However, it is sometimes used again in the future.



It does not prove of anything to do with a formal cause. It is roof of the difference between us what what our ancestors were like.

Answer 11

Good question. The current research (or at least the most current research I have seen) suggests that so-called junk DNA may have a role in promoting generation-to-generation mutation, which would support evolution, obviously.

Answer 12

Unless diabetes, bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, to name a few of the more popular conditions, are considered functional, I'll go with the junk hypothesis.

I really can't see why causing unnecessary suffering to a person through their life would be the outcome an intelligent designer would work towards.

Unless, of course, that intelligent designer is the Christian God, who is well known for His sadism.

Answer 13

Darwin couldn't explain his dilemma of the Cambrian explosion more or less his unintelligent ramblings of his hate for religion.

Why people still look to him as leader of evolution is beyond me.

Answer 14

The junk DNA argument got thrown-out quite some years back.



Nice fail though.

Answer 15

An Intelligent designer would along for trial and error in mutations to preserve the species

Answer 16

While I doubt you understand what you are babbling about:



The amount of total genomic DNA varies widely between organisms, and the proportion of coding and noncoding DNA within these genomes varies greatly as well. More than 98% of the human genome does not encode protein sequences, including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA.

Answer 17

You are right, an intelligent design will not have junk DNA. How do you explain children with Down Syndrome, children born handicapped?



Some intelligent designer.

Answer 18

The answer is in Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled".

Answer 19

The theory of evolution is not "Darwinism" and doesn't say that most DNA is junk. Your understanding of science is way out of date.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html

Answer 20

either formerly useful or potentially useful in the future

I think the evidence points to God

Answer 21

I am unaware that ID makes any actual testable falsifiable predictions (a prerequisite of science) - how could that one be falsified? What defines 'junk'?

Answer 22

DNA clearly shows that ID is sheer nonsense (as if it needed help in that department).

Answer 23

It all accumulated in the minds of christians...