Posted: May 17, 2014 7:09 am
by Rumraket
GenesForLife wrote:
Animavore wrote:Why's this in 'creationism'.


Because it is likely to be more read by people here, firstly, and secondly it debunks creationist canards regarding gain of information and associated bollocks quite nicely.

Yes I've raised a similar point on Larry Moran's blog before. There's a colossal contradiction between the creationists resistance to junk-DNA and their simultaneous insistance that mutations invariably always degrades information and biopolymers into nonfunctionality.

The junk-DNA is evolving at a neutral rate (which is just one piece of evidence among several, that it reall is junk). That means there is no purifying selection weeding out "bad" mutations. The implication should be obvious. If creationists really think the junk regions aren't actually junk, but are all functional, then they will have to concede there is no amount of mutation that can render the genome nonfunctional.

The funny thing, not only are the creationists wrong about both their resistance to junk DNA and their claims that mutations always degrade information. In addition to the massive contradiction between these two claims, the reality actually turns out to be diametrically opposite to their assertions. Mutations in the junk regions routinely creates new functional genes simply through chance (yes, this time truly and actually just chance)*. Inevitably the accumulation of mutations will create promoter and enhancer regions in random places in the junk, resulting in transcripts with sequences that have been evolving neutrally for a long time, meaning the sequences will be random. Some of these will even go on to be translated. Whether they remain as RNA or become fully fledged protein coding genes, if they turn out to have some kind of function selection can hone and improve on the result.

*I can already see creationist heads exploding.