AIG has a nice two part series on Junk DNA (Part II), and one thing caught my eye – the fact that evolutionists not only errantly identified junk DNA as "noncoding" and therefore leftovers from evolution’s randomness, but would have predicted that much of the DNA was not conserved across species because it was not necessary.

On the last point, they were half right, and in being half right, were entirely wrong.  As it turns out, much of the junk DNA is critical for gene regulation, but it is NOT conserved.  What does that mean?  That is was not inherited from ancestors, as evolution would predict if it is essential to life.  Evolution fails again. 

So here’s what the evolutionists expected:

Ewan Birney, a coordinator of ENCODE at the European Bioinformatics
Institute in England, said that, “The expectation was that many of the
most active DNA sequences in humans would be prevalent in other
mammals, too, because evolution tends to save and reuse what works
best.”1
Their expectation is that non-coding DNA will be conserved (similar in
sequence among species) because it is functional—just as many of the
genes (protein-coding regions) are conserved. Rather than believing in
a common Designer, God,
who used similar parts in different organisms, they believe in common
ancestry (no God), where similar parts are “save[d] and reuse[d].”

But what did they find?

The ENCODE Project Consortium states, “Surprisingly, many functional
elements [of the non-coding DNA] are seemingly unconstrained [not
conserved] across mammalian evolution.”2
This means a large portion of the non-coding DNA among the 23 different
mammalian species studied was not conserved (or similar). It appears
that approximately 50% of the non-coding DNA that was found to be
functional was not conserved.2 On the flip side, 40% of the non-coding DNA that was conserved has no known function.2
This 40% will be further studied because of their belief that if it is
conserved, it is important and does have a function (just not one that
is testable yet).2 What about the 50% that is not conserved?

WHAT indeed.  I’m sure they will ignore this, and try to find the functionality of the 40% that has no known function.  Of course, creationists believe they will find a function, but not because it was conserved, but created.

Once again, we see how evolution is a bankrupt theory for atheists to comfort themselves with, and not much more – unless you’re a eugenicist.

Again because of their evolutionary assumptions that if it’s not
conserved (based on the assumption that it should be because all
mammals share a common ancestor) it’s not important, almost half of the
junk DNA is being relegated to a category in which it may not be
further studied. Once again we see evolutionary ideas inhibiting
science.

RELATED POSTS:

Tags: