Evolutionists stumped again: Junk DNA isn't junk

In a discovery that's sending shock waves though Evolution strongholds, Yale scientists have discovered the function of so-called "Junk" DNA. In so doing, they've dealt a humiliating blow to geneticists worldwide, and thrown the safety and wisdom of genetic manipulation onto doubt.

DNA is the blueprint carried in each cell that dictates how bodies are constructed. Some of it contains the code for how to build various proteins, but because scientists didn't know what the rest of the DNA did, they labeled it, as much as 95% of an organism's DNA, "Junk DNA" indicating they thought it served no functions.

The claim that human DNA differs from, for example, Chimpanzee DNA by only 2% is based on the DNA whose function scientists know, the 5% that codes for known proteins. The other 95%, the "Junk DNA" that scientists have been unable to figure out differs vastly between organisms, some species having twice the volume of "Junk" DNA as others.

What science has learned is that this DNA, 95% of an organism's DNA in some cases, actually dictates HOW the proteins in the other 5% are used. To use a construction analogy, 5% of our DNA tells the contractors how to mix the mortar, the other 95% contains information on the actual blueprint, how to dig the foundation, how to lay wiring and plumbing and all the other details of building the house. Before now, scientists thought only the directions on how to mix mortar were relevant to building the house, and all the plans for the kitchen, the cabinets and the bathrooms were waste paper to be ignored.

Ironically, this comes after decades of speculation about HOW the known 5% managed to build a human being, even though it only contained directions of how to make proteins. They were mystified at the fact that they saw no mechanism for controlling the known DNA, no way to control which proteins were produced and how many were manufactured. It's been more than half a century since Watson discovered DNA, and it wasn't until now that scientists thought to look at the "Junk DNA" for clues.

Researchers are currently doing damage control, claiming that this discovery is a window into how evolution works and saying it only encodes how the thumb is formed, but that the rest of the "Junk DNA" is still junk.

What about the claim there's only a 2% difference between us and a worm?

That claim has been blown to atoms. The claim was already on shaky ground, having been based on the 5% whose function we knew. There's a 2% difference in the proteins used to build a slug and to build a human being, but that's just in one building component. The same blocks can make many things. The wood, mortar and steel that can be used to build a shack on the edge of town can, in larger quantities, better blueprints and more skilled workers, build a mansion or a church.

The other 95% of our DNA is wholly and completely different from that of a worm. We have more chromosomes (strands of DNA) but scientists didn't know what they did so they assumed they did nothing. It would be more accurate to say that we share only about 5% of our DNA with worms, if you count the "Junk DNA" scientists haven't unraveled yet.

What about Genetically Modified (GM) food?

Scientists have spent decades swapping DNA between organisms. Splicing jellyfish DNA into corn for example, in an attempt to make crops that are more productive and, so you HAVE to buy seed again year after year, sterile after the first season. The wisdom of this freakish game of mix and match was based on the assumption that the genetic differences between species were minimal. The discovery that 95% of the DNA, the percentage that varies wildly between species, has a function, throws the very foundation of genetic modification into disarray.

In the past, scientists thought of mixing and matching DNA as a plumbing job. You can swap out a valve here or a sink there to get a small change but it would leave the rest of the building untouched. Now they know that they have NO clue how the proteins are controlled in different species, or what changing one will do to others. To make matters worse, none of their methods of genetic manipulation were designed to leave "Junk DNA", the DNA that controls the rest of the organism, intact.

It would be a bit like replacing the TV in your house, but scrambling up your electrical wiring in the process, under the assumption that the electrical wiring was irrelevant and unnecessary. What's going to happen when you turn on that TV? What if you, in a genetic sense, hooked a 220 line up to a TV designed for 110? Do you REALLY want corn built with such dangers in your food?

In Conclusion

Genetic researchers have been blown a crippling and humiliating blow. Everything they thought they knew has been overturned, and instead of being on the cusp of the biological godhood they fantasized about, they've learned they're only tinkering with some building blocks. The small child with his first set of foam blocks has learned that he isn't an architect designing skyscrapers, and it's a humiliating and humbling revelation.

The next few months will be a trial for the charlatans calling themselves geneticists. If they spin this discovery right, if they sweep the real implications under the rug and fool enough people they can keep milking their dabbling for all it's worth. They want to keep playing God with a rubber band and a toothpick. If the public sees this discovery for what it is, the house of cards, and the entire field of genetic research, may very well crumble.