Page 519 - Atlas of Creation Volume 3

Harun Yahya

Now, let's examine how the myth of junk DNA was born and how it was discred-
ited.

The Misconception that Non-Coding

DNA is Useless

To better understand this evolutionist error, we must know something

about the structure of the DNA molecule.
This giant molecular chain within the cells of living creatures is often re-
ferred to as a data bank, because of the genetic information it contains. At
the same time, this molecule contains a genetic code that directs how this

data is employed in the body's activities. As detailed in the previous
chapters, every evolutionist's attempt to explain the origin of the DNA
molecule has been unsuccessful, and it's been established that the data it
contains could not have come into existence at random. The DNA mole-

cule is clearly an example of a superior Creation.
The special parts of DNA encoding our physical characteristics and
physiological activities are called genes, which play a role in the synthe-
sis of various proteins and ensure that we survive. But the totality of our

genes makes up only about 10% of our DNA. The remaining 90% is known
as "non-coding DNA" because it does not direct the production of any
proteins.
Non-coding DNA can be categorized into some sub-groups.

Sometimes, it's found squeezed between genes and is called an intron.
Another kind, called repetitive DNA, is formed by repeated nucleotide se-
quences extending the length of the chain. If the nucleotides on non-cod-
ing DNA were arranged in a way similar to the complex series in a gene,

instead of in a repetitive series, they would be called a pseudogene.
Evolutionists have lumped these non-protein-coding segments of
DNA under the general heading of "junk DNA" and asserted that they are
unnecessary leftovers in the so-called process of evolution. However, this

endeavor has clearly been illogical: Just because these DNA segments do
not code for proteins does not imply that they have no function. In order
to determine these functions, we have to await the results of scientific
experiments to be done on them. But evolutionist prejudice, with its

longstanding misleading claims about junk DNA, has kept this logic from
becoming disseminated in the public domain. In the past 10 years espe-
cially, research has shown that evolutionists are wrong and their claims
imaginary. The non-coding part of DNA is not "junk" as the evolution-

ists claim, but on the contrary, is now accepted as a "genomic treasure."
82
Paul Nelson, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, is
one of the leading exponents of the anti-evolutionist movement. In an ar-

ticle titled "The Junk Dealer Ain't Selling That No More," he describes
the collapse of the evolutionists' theory of junk DNA:

Carl Sagan [one of the proponents of atheism] argued that "genetic junk," the "re-
dundancies, stutters, [and] untranscribable nonsense" in DNA, proved that there
are "deep imperfections at the heart of life". Such comments are commonplace in the bio-

logical literature—although perhaps less common than they were a few years ago. The

Adnan Oktar 517