Junk DNA was originally coined by a geneticist and evolutionary biologist named Susumu Ohno in 1972. The phrase has given evolutionists headaches and basically blame creationists for it which I will get into. I believe the phrase has hurt science research.
Stephen Matheson an associate professor and evolutionary biologist at Calvin College in Michigan gets very upset over this controversy as he states in his blog; Falsehood number 1. Evolutionists said that “junk DNA” has no function. But new evidence shows that “junk DNA” has important functions. This kind of obfuscatory crap really annoys me. It’s all over RTB and DI, and it’s rampant in creationism in general right now. Both aspects of this claim are bogus.
Stephen Matheson is wrong, it’s also has been all over the media in certain outlets like the guardian.co.uk
“Of the billions of miles of DNA inside each of us, about 95% is unaccounted for. This non-coding material, the Dark Matter of genetics, was prematurely labelled “junk DNA”, with the implication that, because we didn’t know what it did, it was of no use. This may have been one of the costliest examples of scientific arrogance in recent history.” This is not a creationist publication, but a secular one from a country that has more atheists than the United States.
Stephen Matheson argues no scientist ever thought many non-coding DNA had no function. What? Looking up the definition in a science dictionary one finds; Segments of DNA along a chromosome that are not genes, do not code for anything that we know of, and whose purpose we do not understand. Approximately ninety-five percent of the human genome falls into this category. The term junk may be misleading, however, as this DNA may have other functions, such as regulating genes during development.
–Some scientists speculate that junk DNA may be archaic material left over from an earlier stage of evolutionary development.
The basic definition says otherwise, genomes labeled as “junk DNA” have no function. Stephen Matheson is too emotional and too bias towards creationists. The confusing term as he admits was the result of one of his own sort of speak. Even the militant atheist whom he refers to in his blog about junk DNA, he also defends the label, but strays away from calling it junk. Why wasn’t non-coding DNA selected for the phrase rather than a simple term like junk DNA? If you look how evolutionary scientists speculate, you know why. It’s a shame that Stephen Matheson has taken such a position, who I believe is an atheist at heart even though he’s a professing theist. He really needs the Lord.
And one more question why are “scientists expecting to find functions for some, but not all, of this provisionally classified collection?” Does that mean, they believe a nice size portion of it will always remain junk? Evolutionists get mad and try to correct me when I say in the evolutionary field of science the knowledge is relative. Although not all science is “relative” but this is another example of evolutionists practicing that very concept. Having a belief in a good portion of cells will have no functions (which sounds like great scientific motivation in exploration for studying non-coding DNA) and when they do find a function which is contrary to what was previously believed, they argue, well it wasn’t like we are not lookng for it.
I don’t think any scientist can claim they will know for sure of many things in this field partaining to the cell and it’s functions. But one thing is certain, all aspects must be explored and studied as it shows the handy work of God in which Christians rejoice greatly in Him and to benefit mankind. It is clear today, that scientists are looking at “junk DNA” (which should be called; non-coding DNA) differently than they did in previous decades and one of the reasons is because of Creation Science.