Researchers Making Tremendous Progress, Finding ‘Junk DNA’ Is Anything But Useless

It’s been all but axiomatic for some time that 80 percent of DNA is “junk DNA,” but things are happening at an increasingly rapid pace as researchers are uncovering more and more evidence that that junk is in fact quite purposeful.

Check this out from Evolution News (EN):

“The first publications from the ENCODE project (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) made a big splash at Evolution News in 2013, and around the world, because it undermined the ‘junk DNA’ myth and simultaneously fulfilled an Intelligent Design prediction: that non-coding parts of the genome would prove functional. Junk-DNA proponents like Dan Graur were upset at the time, admitting as Jonathan Wells reported, “If ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong.”

“Well, ModENCODE (ENCODE for model organisms) found ‘unprecedented complexity’ in the fruit fly genome in 2014, then ‘ENCODE 2’ followed up with more discoveries of function. Now, ENCODE 3 has just finished submitting its reports, with record numbers of DNA annotations listed, and ENCODE 4 is gearing up. Nothing like a little overkill to drive the point home: “… then evolution is wrong.” Look at how much constructive science is being done with the assumption that DNA elements are there for a purpose.”

This is exciting stuff, even for those of us who aren’t scientists. Go here for the balance of the EN post. If you work for one of the Senate or House committees that has a voice in the allocation of federal research support, this information could be extremely important.


Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here:

2 thoughts on “Researchers Making Tremendous Progress, Finding ‘Junk DNA’ Is Anything But Useless”

  1. Yeah.
    To put together a functional protein by random processes requires more chances than than there are particles in the universe.
    But the one that gets me is this: you need DNA to make a protein and you need protein to make DNA.
    A what’s the sound of one of Jesus Christ’s hands clapping sort of thing.


Comments are closed.