Creation Moment 7/16/2015 - Encode underminig evolution

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?

declare, if thou hast understanding.

Job 38:4

"ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) is a years-long research project involving a consortium of hundreds of international scientists studying functionality in noncoding DNA in the human genome.

Graur's infamous quip, "If ENCODE is right, then

Evolution is wrong"? So whether it's 50 percent functionality or 80 percent functionality, that's bad for unguided evolutionary models! Why? Because if those ENCODE people are right that about 50 percent of the genome is functional, that's still a lot higher than Graur et al.'s percentage. It also seems that many are already prepared to reject at least some of Graur's evolution-based arguments.

For example, lead ENCODE researcher John Stamatoyannopoulos admits that "new models of evolutionary conservation are needed" to explain why so much human DNA is functional.
In my view, almost all of the anti-ENCODE evolutionary arguments for junk DNA end up being circular. If unguided evolution is true then the arguments are valid. But if unguided evolution isn't how our species arose, then the arguments fail:

• If species were designed, then we would expect many nucleotide sequences NOT to be the result of mutation and selection. This could explain why large portions of the genomes are NOT conserved but ARE functional.


• If species were designed, then the C-value paradox could be meaningless. Maybe the reason some organisms have large genomes is because a few species have genomes that have ballooned compared to their aboriginal design -- but that doesn't mean their DNA isn't functional, and it doesn't say anything about whether other genomes (including ours) are full of junk.


• If species were intentionally designed with important and diverse functional genetic elements, but weren't intended to go on forever, then investigating the "mutational load" won't reveal how much of the genome is functional.


• If "transposons" -- i.e., repetitive DNA, which we've mistakenly identified as selfish junk DNA -- are actually designed to be important functional control elements in the genome, then viewing them as parasitic elements which auto-proliferate through our DNA is simply a false assumption that's blocking us from understanding what TEs are really doing." CaseyLuskin