McClintock & Encode challenges Collins HGP and NeoDarwinism's "Junk DNA"


The term "junk DNA" was first used in the 1970s by the Japanese geneticist Susumu Ohno, who was a proponent of Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. It states that evolution occurs through natural selection acting on genetic variation.

Ohno argued that the vast amount of noncoding DNA in the human genome could not be explained by natural selection. He proposed that this DNA was "junk" or "selfish DNA" that had no function and was simply accumulating in the genome over time.

This is because noncoding "Junk DNA" did not code for proteins. NeoDarwinism relys on coded proteins and the DNA that codes for them. It's by mutations to the DNA a new protein arises for Natural Selection to act on. No proteins no Natural Selection ergo no NeoDarwinism.

The concept of junk DNA was a Neo-Darwinian concept because it was based on the assumption that natural selection is the only force that drives evolution. 

Barbara McClintock was initially dismissed by the scientific community for her theory of transposable elements, or jumping genes aka Junk DNA. Her peers thought that her ideas were crazy and that she was wasting her time. This led her to give up research.

McClintock was a cytogeneticist who studied the inheritance of traits in maize (corn). In the 1940s, she discovered that some genes could move around the genome, which was a radical idea at the time. She called these mobile genes "jumping genes" or transposons.

McClintock's work was not accepted by the scientific community until other scientists began to find evidence to support her findings. In 1983, she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her discovery of transposons. Forty years after her discoveries. Even in 1983 neo darwinists controlled the science and awards.


McClintock's story is a reminder that even the most revolutionary ideas (Junk DNA) can be met with NeoDarwinian resistance. However, it is important to persevere in the face of adversity, as McClintock did. Her work has had a profound impact on our understanding of genetics, and she is considered one of the most important scientists of the 20th century.

When the human genome was first sequenced in the early 2000s, it was estimated that about 98% of the genome was "junk DNA". This was because F Collins was a strong proponent of NeoDarwinism. This meant that he felt that only about 2% of the genome was thought to be functional, coding for proteins. Collins did not get the memo on McClintock's work.

Francis Collins the HGP director later admitted,

"In terms of junk DNA, we don’t use that term anymore because I think it was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome, as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional. … Most of the genome that we used to think was there for spacer turns out to be doing stuff.”


In 2012 the ENCODE Project, found that up to 98% of noncoding DNA is within 1000 base pairs of a protein-coding gene. This means that noncoding DNA is often located in close proximity to genes, and it is thought to play a role in regulating gene expression.


The Encode Project is an international research effort to map and characterize all functional elements of the human genome. One of the main goals of the Encode Project is to challenge the prevailing NeoDarwinian view that most of the human genome is "junk DNA".

Junk DNA is a term used to describe regions of the genome that do not appear to encode proteins or RNA molecules. For many years, it was thought that junk DNA was mostly non-functional and did not play any important role in the cell. However, recent research has shown that junk DNA is actually much more active and functional than previously thought.

The Encode Project has identified many previously unknown functional elements in junk DNA, including regulatory regions that control the expression of genes, and non-coding RNA molecules that have a variety of functions. These findings have challenged the traditional NeoDarwinian  view of junk DNA and have led to a new appreciation for its importance.

Here are some specific examples of how the Encode Project has challenged the junk DNA concept:

  • The Encode Project has shown that regulatory regions, which control the expression of genes, are often found in junk DNA.

  • The Encode Project has identified thousands of non-coding RNA molecules, many of which are active in the cell.

  • The Encode Project has shown that junk DNA is involved in a variety of cellular processes, including DNA repair, gene regulation, and immunity.

The findings of the Encode Project have had a major impact on our understanding of the human genome. They have shown that junk DNA is not as non-functional as previously thought, and that it plays a variety of important roles in the cell. This has led to a new appreciation for the importance of junk DNA and has opened up new avenues for research into its function. 

As well it highlights what is the greatest failure of NeoDarwinism to date mainly to ignore 98% of our DNA. Any other theory with only 2% predictive capacity would be ignored. Unless there was a quasi religious commitment blinding their eyes. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more