Junk DNA is not really junk

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Further Reading 7 Related claims 8 See Also 9 Acknowledgments

Claim

So-called "junk DNA" is not really junk. Functions have been found for non-coding DNA which was previously thought to be junk, and we can't be sure that the rest of the junk DNA isn't functional as well.

Source

• Behe, Michael J., 2003. A functional pseudogene?: An open letter to Nature. [1]

Responses

1. Some DNA previously viewed as junk has been shown to have a biological function. This does not mean that a function will necessarily be found for all junk DNA. In 2004, researchers reported the creation of mice lacking approximately 3% of their genome (Abstract at PubMed). The deleted sequences included over 1000 that were highly conserved with equivalent sequences in humans for stretches of over 100 bases. The resulting mice were healthy in every way assayed by the researchers, including longevity and reproduction. Thus, a substantial amount of junk DNA, including sequences that have been retained during mammalian evolution, are either dispensable or redundant with other regions of junk.
2. The function of junk DNA or lack thereof does not tell us anything about whether evolution or creation is true.
3. The pufferfishes of the family Tetraodontidae have the shortest genomes of all vertebrates. This is because evolutionary pressures have led to the removal of almost all of introns and extragenetic DNA, and those that remain are incredibly short in comparison to the introns and extragenetic DNA of other fish and other vertebrates. If "junk" DNA is so important as claimed, then why have pufferfishes flourished with so little?
4. If all "junk DNA" have functions, then how come no creationist or intelligent design proponent has been able to predict what these functions are?
5. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Unwarranted Generalization(uses have been found for only few junk DNA)
• Suppressed Evidence (of the non-necessity of junk DNA)
• Denying the Antecedent (the necessity of junk DNA would not disprove evolution)

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [2]
• Comments on Short Pufferfish Genomes on Wikipedia [3]

Further Reading

• Knight, J., 2002. Evolutionary genetics: All genomes great and small. Nature 417: 374-376, [4]
• CHI, 2003. DNA glossary. [5] (registration required)

Related claims

• Mutations are rare
• Most mutations are harmful
• Mutations don't add information
• Microevolution selects only existing variation
• Mutations increase genetic load
• Cost of natural selection is prohibitive (Haldane's dilemma)
• DNA is the result of intelligence because it contains readable information

See Also

Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments