Junk DNA, long used by evolutionists to show that we have left over inactive DNA from previous incarnations of ourselves, has been debunked! What was previously thought of as junk DNA is now being shown to be very crucial as switches to turn other genes on or off. Junk DNA would make perfect sense as a prediction of evolution. Now, what do we call a theory whose predictions fail?
On the other hand, the creationist model would predict all DNA as useful… and modern science has confirmed that prediction. We’ll take it!
It’s also always fun to take a look at what secular scientists have to say about existing evolutionary thinking. The following quote is a fun one discussing the supposed “tree of life” we all come from: I’ve bolded some interesting parts…
“According to Loren Rieseberg, a botanist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, around 14 per cent of living plant species are the product of the fusion of two separate lineages. … As ever more multicellular genomes are sequenced, ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals – the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog – but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer… [Michael] Rose goes even further. “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that,” he says. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. ‘Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,’ Syvanen says. “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely”
From Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, NewScientist, 2009.