“There is a renewed gaggle of articles in the media now about ‘junk DNA.’ An article was published reporting that a plant species was found that had no ‘extra’ DNA, ergo—no living thing needs it. The hypothesis is that, if one living thing does not have this DNA, then all living things—regardless of the fact that they have it—do not need it. This is a very unlikely proposal.
“’Junk DNA’ is the label given by evolutionists to the 98% of the genetic material in human (and most other species’) cells that does not code for protein and, therefore, has no well-proven known use. (Some uses have been proposed.)
“The ‘junk’ argument is weak, to say the least, but the evolutionists need it to save their overall hypothesis.” Arthur B. Robinson, Access to Energy, October 2012, p. 2.
Editors’ Note: For all interested in the “Junk DNA” argument used by the evolutionists we recommend Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA.
CONJECTURE VS. HUMILITY
Arthur B. Robinson, Access to Energy, October, 2012, p. 2.
There is a renewed gaggle of articles in the media now about “junk DNA.” An article^ was published reporting that a plant species was found that had no “extra” DNA, ergo – no living thing needs it. The hypothesis is that, if one living thing does not have this DNA, then all living things – regardless of the fact that they have it – do not need it. This is a very unlikely proposal.
“Junk DNA” is the label given by evolutionists to the 98% of the genetic material in human (and most other species’) cells that does not code for protein and, therefore, has no well-proven known use. (Some uses have been proposed.)
The “junk” argument is weak, to say the least, but the evolutionists need it to save their overall hypothesis.
There is deliberate confusion about the difference between “adaptation” and “evolution.” An example is available in experiments that were performed on a bacteria colony. Bacteria usually make their own amino acids – all 20. Humans make only 12, and must get the others from their food.
When some bacteria were fed a medium rich in tryptophan (one of the 20), the colony was soon found to be composed of bacteria that could not make tryptophan. If the medium was changed to eliminate tryptophan, the colony reverted to bacteria that could make it.
Advocates like to misrepresent this as bacteria “evolving” back and forth. In fact, the bacteria colony always contained some bacteria that could not make tryptophan. These lived on tryptophan made by the other cells. If, however, tryptophan was present, those who could not make it had a competitive advantage because they did not waste resources and energy doing so. Hence, in a tryptophan-rich environment, they took over most of the colony.
There is no “evolution” here – only optimized survival through diversity in a species. The advantage from not having to produce one amino acid is miniscule compared to the advantage conferred by not having to produce 98% of an entire genome. There is just no rationale for humans and most other species (all, were it not for the recent report) to drag around 50-fold more DNA in their cells than they need. At least, that is a reasonable hypothesis.
The lesson here is in the claims. Given a report that can be represented in such a way. (especially to the public) that it supports the hypothesis of evolution, the interpretation is reported as “fact” and the press runs with it. There is no humility in this -just a dogmatic demand that one’s world view prevail. Actually, this interpretation is just an improbable conjecture.
Were it not for the fact that government has poured so many tens of billions of dollars into almost blank check funding of “evolution” research so that nearly every biological scientist now feels compelled to lace books and articles ad infinitum with the word “evolution,” science would have taken another course.
There would be a small number of scientists, with their ownjour-nals, meetings, and the usual trappings, working happily away on the evolution hypothesis. Since it is beyond experimental proof-unless you have a spare planet and millions of years to wait, few scientists would find this work interesting.
While Moon and Mars probes are widely advertised as projects to search for evolutionary life, the finding of environmental conditions suitable for life or life itself in such places would not validate the hypothesis. These advertisements are merely ,the government and the evolution lobby further advertising their claims.
Now, they have resurrected “junk DNA,” too.
Let’s be clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with scientists (or anyone else) freely doing work mat is guided by any hypothesis of their choice. This is a manifestation of human freedom.
Moreover, valuable discoveries often arise from work that is headed, overall, in a wrong direction. People working on unique ideas usually have unique thoughts, which can prove of value regardless of their mistakes.
It is, however, very wrong for scientists (or anyone else) to represent their hypotheses as absolute truth to the public – when, in fact, they are dabbling in unproven and often unprovable hypotheses.
And, it is further wrong for children to be taught in compulsory schools that they are nothing more than chance, meaningless occurrences, destined to work in some government-created human ant colony – functioning under the dictates of moral relativism.
Nothing could be more debilitating to our young people. And it shows – in the blank faces of our youth, wandering the streets with their text messagers and mutilating and misusing their bodies in pathetic efforts to be noticed.
“Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal,
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Does anyone scientifically understand Longfellow’s statement? No. But, do we understand it? Yes. That’s all OK. But it is not OK to pretend, by misusing the good name of science, that Longfellow is wrong and people of faith are wrong, when the scientific method has provided nothing whatever that disproves their thoughts.