Page 222 - If Darwin Had Known about DNA

Harun Yahya

220

Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, also states
that those parts of DNA referred to as so-called junk are in fact nothing

of the sort:
I have been troubled for a long time about the way in which we dismissed
about 95% of the genome as being junk because we didn't know what its
function was. We did not think it had one because we had not discovered
one yet. I found it quite gratifying to discover that when you have the
whole genome in front of you, it is pretty clear that a lot of the stuff we
call "junk" has the fingerprints of being a DNA sequence that is actually
doing something, at least, judging by the way evolution has treated it. So
I think we should probably remove the term "junk" from the genome. 156
Evolutionist geneticists wished to portray those DNA sections

they described as junk as compelling evidence for their theories. For
years, their way of dismissing these sections as unimportant and their
adherence to dogmatic beliefs in evolution prevented scientists from in-
vestigating those "junk" components, as was described in the journal
Science:
Although catchy, the term "junk DNA" for many years repelled main-
stream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small
number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic gar-
bage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards
who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because
of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to
change in the early 1990s. 157

Dr. Paul Nelson revealed the scientific dilemmas facing the theory
of evolution in several studies. He provides an account of the concept
of junk DNA in an article titled "The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No
More":
In one of his later books, written with his wife Ann Druyan (Shadows of
Forgotten Ancestors, Ballantine, 1992), the late Carl Sagan argued that "ge-
netic junk," the "redundancies, stutters, [and] untranscribable nonsense"