Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
For many years the notion that non-coding DNA was not functional (“junk”) actually inhibited science. Many scientists didn’t spend their time studying it because of their evolutionary presuppositions that it was worthless DNA.
In contrast to the secularist view that expected “junk” to clutter the genome after eons of time, creationists had predicted that the all-wise Creator had designed amazing, functional complexity into DNA.
“Junk” DNA can be responsible for rendering two otherwise closely related species unable to interbreed. Exactly why the created kinds have fractured into many incompatible species has only been answered indirectly by creationists, who point to the speciating effects of genetics and geography.
A recent study, led by the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, found around 20% of the genes which had been classified as coding genes were not coding.
For decades, evolutionary scientists have ignored “junk” DNA that supposedly littered our genetic sequence.
Bladderwort DNA is 97% junk-free: Are there evolutionary implications?
We have been hearing for years that chimp and human DNA is 98.5% identical, as if that proves our common ancestry.
Prefabricated package of genes prompts placental development.
For years pseudogenes have been used by skeptics to promote evolution. But you can refute this every time you breathe in.PDF Download
How can rats, mice, and humans share so many identical DNA sequences? Look inside!
DNA elements sometimes confer neither benefits nor disadvantages.
Contrary to being “junk” DNA, HERVs are thought to play at least three major roles.
For many years a dogma within evolutionary biology has been that as organisms evolved from mouse to chimp to human their brain size increased (even relative to body weight). Is this valid?
Scientists have found supposedly worthless DNA. What are these pseudogenes and what do they mean?
Recent discoveries of function in certain pseudogenes have led to the recognition, by some evolutionists, of widespread function in pseudogenes.
According to standard evolutionary thinking, pseudogenes are simply disabled copies of genes.
The discovery of a functional nitric oxide synthase (NOS) pseudogene compels us to understand pseudogenes in a new light.
That functions are being found for junk DNAs fits in well with creation science. But evolutionary theory is being adjusted again to accommodate the data.