"We Never Said It Was Junk DNA..."

HEAVILY UPDATED with quotes and references! (as of 12:30 pm Sept 6 2012)

Evolution News (September 5, 2012): Junk No More!

Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome"

An impressive 30 studies have been released and grouped together (mostly through the ENCODE genome sequencing project) in the peer reviewed science magazine "Nature" that has verified a longstanding Intelligent Design hypothesis, that the vast majority of the human genome is NOT "Junk DNA" or "evolutionary garbage" but is in fact functional.

While Intelligent Design scientists are obviously quite enjoying this hugely important vindication of their scientific predictions (a very important part in proving a scientific theory correct), the evolutionists are having to do some serious back pedaling.


A Summary Of "Junk DNA"

"Junk DNA" has been a long standing assumption by evolutionists that most of the genome (in humans as well as all other life) is mostly "left over evolutionary garbage", DNA that we no longer use or need because we've evolved out of needing it. It has been jokingly called "Junk DNA" for many years because of this. 2% of the human genome codes for Proteins, and until recently (and now especially), this tiny drop-in-the-bucket of our total DNA has been considered pretty much "the whole story". The reason this assumption has dominated so strongly and for so long is because evolutionists had convinced themselves (believed whole heartedly) that unless the DNA is being transcoded by RNA (like the 2% of Protein coding DNA), then it is useless or not functional. Because of this belief, 98% of our DNA has largely been ignored except by the occasional study here and there.

For more about "Junk DNA" and the debate over it, see my blog post from June 2012 about this exact issue (before this new comprehensive study came out proving it all true).

As Intelligent Design scientists have been studying and pointing out for well over 10 years now, it turns out that the vast majority of our DNA (ALL of our DNA, including the 98% that has mostly been ignored) is functional (actively used). The studies by the ENCODE project and connected studies released in the peer reviewed science magazine Nature state that at least 80% of our DNA is actually (and surprisingly, to them) functional, and that indications are good that the rest of our DNA is also functional (they just haven't figured out how it's being used yet, though signs indicate that it IS being used). That's a massive blow to a main tenet of Neo-Darwinism and a big boost to Intelligent Design.


Let The Excuses And Falsehoods Fly!

Excuses and falsehoods are already starting to pop up on atheist websites and pro-evolution websites to try and "cover their butts" on this issue. Not surprising considering the huge implications (and embarrassment) of it all, and how dedicated these people are to Neo-Darwinism on the whole.

Here is a list of the things that these folks are likely to say (and starting to say already) in an attempt to pretend that they didn't just get completely outdone by Intelligent Design theory and science.



1) We knew this all along. Nothing to see here folks. All you every day non-scientist types are just catching up to what we've known for a long time...

This is the claim that seems to be the most common so far among evolutionists, that they've actually known this for a long time already. Studies HAVE been coming out for the last 5 years, and even as far back as 10 years ago, that indicated functional properties of DNA that doesn't code directly for Proteins. But the point isn't that SOME studies have found SOME functionality and usage with all this "extra" DNA. The point is that the majority of scientists and especially atheists have been making the claim that "most of it is junk" despite this evidence! But because of their previous dedication to the idea of Junk DNA in the first place, they're STILL very hesitant to accept all this new scientific data.

For example:  At "The Mermaid's Tale" Pro-Evolution Science Blog...
More Advertising, Yet A Lesson To Learn

They confirm our idea that, at its base, DNA controls protein production and perpetuates itself, but through many subtle, complex functional roles.  Many are still to be discovered, but a much larger fraction of the genome is found to have some function, and the protein coding parts have been shown to comprise only a few percent of the whole of our DNA.  Whether ENCODE has actually determined the function of 80% of the genome, as they now claim, is debatable.

Basically, the claim is, "We knew this all along..." PLUS "I highly doubt this study is anything more than hype and promotion anyway and isn't actually saying what it seems to be saying..." That's a great double whamy! First, "We've known this all along." AND "It probably isn't true anyway." WOW! Talk about covering all your bases just in case!

And another pro-evolution blog post regarding the new set of studies...
A Slightly Different Response to Today's ENCODE Hype

The claim that “lots of the genome isn’t junk after all!” is not new — people have been using this straw man for nearly 20 years. What’s novel is that the ENCODE authors are claiming that there is now evidence that 80% of the genome shows signs function, or at least of “specific biological activity”. Many people are not convinced by this, me among them. I am especially unimpressed by this figure when I read the ENCODE project lead’s own words on the subject of “function” and the 80% figure.

Again, "Nothing to see here folks. We've known this all along." PLUS "It probably isn't true anyway. Just a load of hype and show."

Also, the previous linked to article states:

Even after 5 years, $185 million, and a massive study by hundreds of researchers, there still is only evidence of function for 80% of the human genome under the most extremely generous interpretation. That leaves 20% without any signs of function whatsoever.

Oh my! It cost LOTS of money and they didn't figure out what the other 20% of the genome does? That's just terrible!... Come on! You guys were arguing that MOST of the genome is non-functional garbage. Now you're arguing that the functioning of 20% is still unknown, so they're still proven right... Give me a break!

Then that same writer goes into a spout of obfuscation, re-defining terminology and pretending that what was meant by "functional" and "not functional" wasn't really what we think or thought it was.

To get that 80% figure, you have to have a very loose definition of “function” indeed.

Basically, "It's only functional so long as you count ANY function." This is getting very disappointing. Now you're arguing that when you were before saying that "NO function" (as in ANY function AT ALL) existed, you actually meant "no MAJOR function"... *rolls eyes*

Some are undoubtedly functional, but it is quite a stretch to suggest that millions of these elements are needed to regulate our 20,000 genes (but not the 30,000 genes of a pufferfish). As Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and so far we simply do not have it when it comes to claiming that the majority of the elements in the genome have a biological function.

"Because we're all just evolved animals and fish, so most of this "extra DNA" is obviously garbage or not that important anyway..." *heavy sigh* They're a dedicated bunch aren't they?


2) We never really MEANT that it was "Junk", just that we didn't yet know any function for it. That's good science, not assuming something until we have solid proof...

The proof has been piling up for many years now, and Intelligent Design scientists have been pointing this out constantly with articles online citing such scientific studies and even publishing entire books about the topic. The proof has been there for quite a while, and the evidence pointing to this reality has been piling up for even longer. "Good science" doesn't consider most of the human genome to be garbage or non-functional just because we don't know the function of it yet. THAT is the key problem here. They assumed that all this DNA was junk, evolutionary left overs, and they stated as much repeatedly over and over again, even using it for a long time as a major argument point against Intelligent Design. "98% of our DNA is non-functional and that's exactly what we'd expect if Evolution were true!"... If they had simply said, "We don't know the function of it yet" or something else similar to that, this whole thing wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. But that's NOT what they've been saying all this time. They've been mostly argueing that this stuff truely had NO function BECAUSE it was evolutionary junk.


3) We've got scientists who suspected function for some of this "Junk DNA" too!...
Smithsonian.com: Junk DNA Isn't Junk, And That Isn't Really News

Remember in high school or college, when you learned about all that DNA inside of you that was junk? The strings and strings of nonsense code that had no function? A recent blitz of papers from the ENCODE project have the world abuzz with news that would rip that idea apart.
But, like many things that stick around in text books long after science has moved on, the “junk DNA” idea that ENCODE disproved, didn’t really need disproving in the first place.

Yes, there were a few out there who admitted even many years ago that the concept of "Junk DNA" was probably wrong and probably even harmful to the progress of science. But these people were very few and far between and only in very recent years have more scientists finally started to admit that all this DNA does actually have function and is actually being used.

However this is a classic case of "We're always right, even when we're wrong." Basically they point out evolutionists that DID get this right even from early on, and claim that this is proof that evolutionism didn't get it wrong. Sorry, but you can't constantly argue the complete opposite and then turn around and say you were right all along because of a few open-minded scientists that didn't follow the mainstream belief. Just because a very small minority of evolutionists didn't get hoodwinked by this bad Neo-Darwinist assumption doesn't mean that the rest of you guys didn't get completely blown apart. You guys are all about "consensus" until the "consensus" gets found out to be completely wrong, and then you shout, "not following the consensus is good science!" This is classic stance jumping, basically, "We're always right, even when we're wrong." As long as ONE scientist SOMEWHERE suggested that there MIGHT be function to SOME of this other DNA, then they claim that the scientific community as a whole didn't grossly screw this up. Sorry, but those smart few people who weren't blinded by Neo-Darwinism are the clear exception to the rest of you.


4) The STUDY is Junk! The scientists are lying!

Michael Eisen, a science writer, on his Twitter feed says about the study:

"measurable biochemical activity" is a meaningless measure of functional significance.

Just like from "The Mermaid's Tale", this science writer who has dedicated himself to the evolutionism debates says that the comprehensive study by the best genome sequencing and analysis project on the planet consisting of hundreds of top scientists is wrong and blowing things way out of proportion. They're basically lying to make the news... Denial at it's finest. These guys constantly argue that science is above hype, promotion, half-truths and lies, and then when it doesn't agree with them that's exactly what they claim the science is. Oi!


Closing

Those are just a few claims that the evolutionists are already starting to make, and likely to continue making for weeks and months (even years) to come. This has all been done before repeatedly as evolutionism has gotten things very wrong and had to completely change its stance and pretend like it never actually did so. All in all it always comes down to, "We might have gotten that one thing wrong, but we're right about everything else, so trust us. Even if something is currently wrong, we'll eventually get it right anyway. Good science goes in the direction that the evidence points, even when the evidence contradicts long held scientific beliefs."

That's very true, but sooner or later it just becomes ridiculous the amount of effort that goes into "covering the trail" of complete missteps that the scientific community have taken based entirely on the assumption that Neo-Darwinist evolution is true. It gets to the point where it's obvious that no matter HOW wrong they are on even MAJOR issues, they simply re-warp the evolutionary system to accommodate it.

This is NOT science, it's desperate blind religion and faith. Science is falsifiable. If a bunch of theories are being overturned then the basis for those bad theories is probably wrong too, otherwise they wouldn't keep getting these big issues wrong in the first place. Intelligent Design didn't get this wrong. So why did evolutionism? But that doesn't matter to evolutionists who are drinking the evolution kool aid. They KNOW in their heart of hearts that evolution must be true so no matter what the evidence says, they believe Neo-Darwinism, even if they have to re-write their core theories every 5 or 10 years in order to still make it work.

Oh No! It's Intelligent Design, Educational, AND FUN!

(http://www.cellcraftgame.com/Home.html)

For the past half year or so I've had some ideas floating around in my head for a fun little educational strategy game based on creating a functional living cell. Well it turns out that someone with actual game design experience and education has beaten me to the punch. 

While reading an article about a small company that recently released a strategy tower defense RPG flash game, I noticed that the writer mentioned another game he had developed and released called CellCraft. I was immediately interested as it sounded EXACTLY like what I had been thinking about doing for a game. I looked it up and sure enough it did a lot of what I'd had in mind. It taught the Player about the parts and workings of a living cell. Good for the developer! I was a little disappointed that someone else had come up with a fun little game based on the same kind of idea, but I was also happy to see that such an idea had been put to good use already.

The underlying meaning of this game concept, however, is what initially poked my interest. The game was going to show the Player just how incredible the biology of a single cell was. How a single cell did all kinds of different things based on all kinds of different parts and chemicals in order to survive and accomplish what it needs to. What does all that marvellous structure and functional detail say about the incredible complexity of life? That it can't have happened by accident! It's SO detailed, SO interconnected and SO full of rich specific information and instructions to build and use all kinds of molecule-sized parts that the only way to describe it is to say that it is an astoundingly sophisticated self-sustaining miniscule biological machine. And where do machines come from? An intelligent designer and manufacturer, a creator.

This underlying theme was not at all lost on evolutionist educators who were at first impressed with the game and how it could teach the Player all about the different parts and functions of a single living cell... And then they realized the horrific truth. Neo-Darwinist evolution was mostly absent from the game and instead, the Player of the game was essentially an Intelligent Designer, an alien biologist (a platypus, in fact) constructing a living cell. Evolutionists and atheists immediately wrote articles attacking the game and stating that it was in no way educational or beneficial to any student who might play it because it promoted “Creationism”. 

Game reviews for CellCraft were very good and a lot of people were raving about the fact that the game was educational AND fun! People were saying how much the game taught them about cell biology and that they had a great time playing it too, a rarity in educational software.

“Where CellCraft excels is in the depth of the scientific material presented throughout the game.” “… a challenging and informative educational game with creative and satisfying gameplay mechanics.”

(http://www.brainsforgames.rachelnponce.com/2011/07/review-cellcraft.html)

“Played Cellcraft this morning, which turned out to be one of the best science education games I’ve seen in a while.”
(http://www.meme-hazard.org/blog/2011/06/12/game-review-cellcraft/)

“Now that I've played this highly educational, yet highly fun, game, I would ask they create more games like this.”

(http://omgn.com/review/2011/01/25/cellcraft-review)

So people without any sort of political bent in the debate between Neo-Darwinist evolution and creationism or Intelligent Design clearly thought the game was an outstanding and fun way to learn basic cell biology. Everyone was raving about its educational merits. Atheists, however, were NOT impressed.

PZ Myers, an atheist evolutionist who quite regularly takes on the issues of intelligent design vs evolution (from the pro-evolution and anti-creation perspective) wrote about the game under a blog post titled, "CellCraft, a subversive little game".

"... as a tool for teaching anyone about biology, it sucks. It is not an educational game, it is a miseducational game. I hope no one is planning on using it in their classroom."

(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/cellcraft_a_subversive_little.php)

 The credits for the game include this damning few lines of text. 

"Also thanks to Dr. Jed Macosko at Wake Forest University and Dr. David Dewitt at Liberty University for providing lots of support and biological guidance."

Evolutionists discovered that two of the science contributors to the game were scientists that support the Intelligent Design belief that all life was Intelligent Designed and planted on earth by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). This belief basically states that life is far too sophisticated, complex and full of detailed specified instruction and information (like a massive computer program and intricate city all contained in a single cell) for it to have simply happened by the accidental chance combination of available chemicals of the universe. The atheists and evolutionists had their smoking gun.

As PZ Myers states, 

"Those two are notorious creationists and advocates for intelligent design creationism. Yep. It's a creationist game."

Yes, it's true, the game does not promote Neo-Darwinist evolution. It instead places the Player as the intelligent director and builder of a living cell and their parts. You, as the Player, simply collect the needed chemicals to build the parts and when you have enough of those chemicals, your part is build and added to the cell, giving it a new important feature. The game is structured and plays like a game should, while also providing a lot of information on cell biology that most people would have no clue about.

The atheists are mad because a couple of the scientists that the game’s science was double checked with believe in Intelligent Design, and the game itself does not contain much (if any) explicit references to evolution. They can’t complain about the actual science in the game, but that doesn’t matter. What irks them is the lack of evolution and the fact that the game does an admirable job of showing just how amazing and complex a single living cell is. That complexity can’t help beg the question, “How could this have ever ‘just happened’ by chance?” though such a question is never implied or asked in the game itself.

One furious atheist commenter online said about the game (slightly censored by myself)…

“motherf***ing insidious b*st*rds.

well, it's obvious not ALL of them are complete morons, though it's still the case that all of them are sleazy, underhanded, b*st*rds.”

Thankfully there are also many level headed and rational people out there (evolutionists and atheists included) that have posted comments in relation to the game in a much more positive light

“I don't care who makes the game, if I find it educationally useful.”

Some angry atheists freaked out because the game doesn’t directly preach evolution. In fact, it doesn’t directly preach ANYTHING! But it shows you just how desperate evolution must become in order to survive. Unless it is constantly pointed at, taught, included or spoken of as absolute truth, the incredible realities of life all around us testify to their magnificent and brilliant Creator, God.