Neo-Darwinist evolutionary biology theory and many leading Darwinists (such as Larry Moran and Dan Graur) clearly predict and insist that due to genetic load factors, the math of population genetics, upwards of 90% of our DNA must be "junk".
On the Darwinian prediction of mostly "junk" DNA, from Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur (in Larry Moran's blog at https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/07/re...-with.html ):
Graur is so convinced that most of our DNA is junk that he is willing to throw out the whole of the ENCODE human genome project results, because these results conflict with this expectation.
There is in fact an awful lot of non-protein-coding DNA, assumed to be "junk" by the Darwinist faithful. Yet more and more research is revealing that, as ID theory predicts, most of this noncoding DNA does have important functions.
Yet another major prediction of Darwinian theory that has been falsified. Like the suddenness and lack of gradualism and many species with the origin of the animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion. Of course the Darwinist faithful (for whom the theory is their religion) refuse to do anything but continue to insist that since evolution is true Darwinism must absolutely be true and is unfalsifiable - they have the blind faith that either the new research is invalid or that the explanations are somehow within the theory. In the minds of Darwinists, Darwinism is simply never allowed to be falsified by empirical observation. Needless to say, this not science.
On some of the new research:
Our Cells Are Filled With ‘Junk DNA’ — Here’s Why We Need It, at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...Vb6l-hKiUn :
(This post was last modified: 2019-08-17, 02:28 PM by nbtruthman.)
On the Darwinian prediction of mostly "junk" DNA, from Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur (in Larry Moran's blog at https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/07/re...-with.html ):
Quote:"I’ve discussed genetic load several times on this blog (e.g. Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA) but a recent paper by Dan Graur provides a good opportunity to explain it once more. The basic idea of Genetic Load is that a population can only tolerate a finite number of deleterious mutations before going extinct. The theory is sound but many of the variables are not known with precision.,,,
Let’s look at the first line in this table. The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That’s the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome.
But that limit is quite unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle).
Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it’s clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that’s mostly junk DNA."
Graur is so convinced that most of our DNA is junk that he is willing to throw out the whole of the ENCODE human genome project results, because these results conflict with this expectation.
There is in fact an awful lot of non-protein-coding DNA, assumed to be "junk" by the Darwinist faithful. Yet more and more research is revealing that, as ID theory predicts, most of this noncoding DNA does have important functions.
Yet another major prediction of Darwinian theory that has been falsified. Like the suddenness and lack of gradualism and many species with the origin of the animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion. Of course the Darwinist faithful (for whom the theory is their religion) refuse to do anything but continue to insist that since evolution is true Darwinism must absolutely be true and is unfalsifiable - they have the blind faith that either the new research is invalid or that the explanations are somehow within the theory. In the minds of Darwinists, Darwinism is simply never allowed to be falsified by empirical observation. Needless to say, this not science.
On some of the new research:
Our Cells Are Filled With ‘Junk DNA’ — Here’s Why We Need It, at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...Vb6l-hKiUn :
Quote:"Other research advances in the last decade also suggest “junk DNA” might just be misunderstood genetic material. Scientists have now linked various non-coding sequences to various biological processes and even human diseases. For instance, researchers believe these sequences are behind the development of the uterus and also of our opposable thumbs. A study published in Annals of Oncology last year showed that a non-coding DNA segment acts like a volume knob for gene expression, ultimately influencing the development of breast and prostate cancer. And a study in Nature Genetics this year found mutations outside of gene-coding regions can cause autism.
Exploring the role of non-coding sequences is now an area of intense research. Increasing evidence suggests these noncoding sequences might help cancer defeat treatment, and experts now see them as promising tools for cancer diagnosis."
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)