'Junk DNA' is bunk! Why the human genome argues for intelligent design



In my quest to learn the ins and outs of the orthodoxy of evolutionary theory (and therefore bring to light its deficiencies), I discovered geologist and lawyer Dr. Casey Luskin, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

A proponent, researcher, and advocate for intelligent design, Dr. Luskin has been defending academic freedom for scientists who face discrimination because of their support for ID for nearly 20 years.

Life is very low entropy, meaning it’s very ordered, and yet it’s also very high energy. How exactly does life maintain this seemingly contradictory state?

I’ve written about it here before, but I shared with Dr. Luskin my personal skepticism concerning the religion of evolution. As a layman (relative to him), it seemed to me as if Evolution™ had an “invisible hand of God” problem that’s never been seriously addressed.

Meet me in the middle

The mythology of Evolution™ seems to have a beginning (the Big Bang), an end (modern Homo sapiens), but no middle. And as I came to understand from my conversation with Dr. Luskin, much of the evidence for evolutionary theory amounts to flimsy, tenuously linked assumptions on the verge of being disproved in various fields.

We began by discussing one of the more popular arguments against intelligent design: the concept of “junk DNA."

The argument goes something like this: If everything is intelligently designed, then why does the vast majority of our DNA seem to serve no purpose?

As Dr. Luskin explained, the idea originated in the early 1960s, when scientists mapped out the molecular protein production process: DNA encodes RNA, which then carries that information to ribosomes, which in turn use it to assemble chains of amino acids into proteins.

Because so much of the DNA that had been studied up to that point did not seem tobe doing that, it was tossed in the proverbial junk bin, hence the name.

Selfish genes

The idea really took off with the publications of Japanese geneticist Susumu Ohno’s “So Much Junk DNA in Our Genome” in 1972 and Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene" in 1976.

Ohno famously asserted that 90% of our DNA was total nonsense. Dawkins piggybacked off that and gave the junk DNA a “purpose,” saying that the only true function of the gene was to replicate itself. Whether or not the gene helps you is of non-substance.

Luskin was one of the first to push back against this idea. As an undergraduate at the University of California, San Diego, he experienced firsthand how the "junk DNA" theory was used to dismiss the burgeoning ID movement.

Luskin would argue with his professors and peers that it was still premature to conclude that most of our DNA could be classified as “junk,” citing the unfinished-at-the-time Human Genome Project as evidence for the lack of evidence.

Luskin seems to have been onto something. In the past few years, the “junk DNA” theory has slowly unraveled.

God don't make no 'junk'

This is in large part thanks to a groundbreaking series of papers entitled the ENCODE Project, published by biologists studying “non-coding” DNA — the goal being to uncover the mysteries of the human genome.

Since the ENCODE Project began in 2010, it has found that at least 80% of the genome has shown evidence of biochemical functionality. In other words — contrary to junk DNA theory — this DNA is transcribing information into the RNA.

And as for the other 20%?

The lead researchers of the ENCODE Project say that many of these non-coding elements of DNA occur within very specific cell types or circumstances, so to catch them in action doing what they’re supposed to be doing is simply very difficult. But they predict that as they study more and more cell types, that that 80% figure will most certainly jump up to 100%.

All this is to say that applying a Darwinian paradigm to discoveries about gene function has led to erroneous conclusions about "junk DNA" — which then, in turn, has been used to justify the same Darwinian theory that spawned it.

Information, please

Meanwhile, Intelligent Design's predictions that we would find function for that junk DNA have been borne out.

As Luskin pointed out, the origin of life is the origin of information. Life, on its face, is a very strange arrangement of matter.

It’s very easy to find things that are high entropy-high energy (think tornadoes or explosions) or low entropy-low energy (snowflakes, crystals). But life is different. Life is very low entropy, meaning it’s very ordered, and yet it’s also very high energy.

How exactly does life maintain this seemingly contradictory state?

Machinery.

Jedi mind trick?

Our cells are full of molecular machines that process and encode information to be used as applicable instructions. That is what our DNA, RNA, and ribosomes are all there for. They’re machines that process information.

Imagine you wanted to watch "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" on DVD. Would you be able to watch it without the DVD player? No.

Imagine if the instructions for building the world’s first ever DVD player were on a DVD. Could you build the DVD player just with the DVD? No.

The information and the information-processing machine are inseparable.

The question then becomes: How did these machines come into being?

Did they build themselves? No, we just showed how that can’t be the case.

The only plausible answer is — intelligence. There needed to be an intelligent designer to create both the machinery and the instructions.

Despite the initial mockery greeting Intelligent Design, the theory is gaining ground as a reliable model and explanation for the origin of life and genes. And that’s simply because the evidence is getting to be a bit undeniable.

Make sure to follow Dr. Casey Luskin’s work here.

Are we ready for designer babies? CRISPR gene editing is about to unleash a new eugenics revolution



What if the technology that holds the promise to cure cancer also heralds an era of “designer babies”? This notion isn’t merely speculative; it’s a pressing bioethical concern that demands our attention.

Traditionally, the medical industry focuses on healing. Antibiotics are doled out for infections, chemotherapy and radiation remain standard cancer treatments, and over-the-counter medications offer temporary relief from ailments like the common cold. This reactive approach implies a system designed to address health issues only after they emerge rather than attempting to cure the human body of what has long been deemed ultimately incurable: mortality.

Can we cautiously explore CRISPR's healing possibilities without encroaching into eugenic-like enhancement?

Yet, a “transhumanist” faction movement of scientists and futurists seeks to change all that. They propose a future in which biomedical technology doesn’t just react to disease but rather actively prevents it by going to the source: the human genome. Imagine viewing the human genome as a piece of software — a system ripe for reprogramming. The role of scientists and doctors can morph into that of an engineer to modify our very DNA, eradicating diseases like cancer before they can take root. Can ending death itself be far behind?

At the heart of this ambition lies CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary gene-editing tool hailed as the “preferred method” for genomic modification by the National Institutes of Health. According to the NIH, it has the ability to “modify the genome ... in any region.” With CRISPR, scientists can target and eliminate genetic “malware” long before it manifests into illness.

vchal/Getty Images

Using CRISPR to alter the human genome is largely banned under international law due to its unknown and potentially species-altering consequences. If you tamper with one part of the genome, there is no way to tell what effects that will have several generations down the line. However, the illegal work of a Chinese scientist, Dr. He Jiankui, gave the world a glimpse into the practical application of CRISPR in the immediate present.

Jiankui made headlines in November 2018 when he announced the birth of twin girls, Lulu and Nana, whose genomes he had edited to become resistant to HIV. His announcement ignited a global firestorm, followed by his three-year jail sentence on charges of engaging in "illegal medical practices.” However, his illegal experiment had already opened Pandora’s box: Did the world just witness the cure for AIDS? Can his experiment be applied to other deadly and terminal diseases?

Despite CRISPR’s seemingly miraculous potential to cure the incurable, it also has a shadowy side. The ability to manipulate human DNA is something that the 20th-century eugenicists could only dream of, and the 21st-century transhumanists appear eager to cloak their predecessors’ ambitions in a more palatable form.

"Dark Aeon: Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity" author and transhumanism analyst Joe Allen explains the dual ambitions of the transhumanist movement — to heal the broken and to “enhance” the human species into becoming stronger, smarter, and more beautiful through technology like CRISPR:

There are two objectives [regarding the transhumanists] — healing and enhancement. The first step is healing. They seek to genetically engineer new therapies, such as mRNA "cures" and CRISPR gene therapies, to overcome suffering. Applications include everything from eliminating HIV and malaria to Tay-Sachs and cancer. The next step is enhancement. The dream is to engineer smarter, stronger, more beautiful human beings, whether after birth, or before birth through targeted germline mutations (sperm, ova, or zygotes). The latter creates a semi-permanent mutated bloodline.

Allen references Nicholas Agar’s term “liberal eugenics” or “soft eugenics” to describe the transhumanist’s aims with CRISPR. He explains, “Rather than a totalitarian state enforcing genetic hygiene on the population, consumers in a free market will increasingly choose to "upgrade" their own biological abilities, and those of their children.”

If this seems like a fringe movement, recent surveys fromPew,Cambridge, andHarvard indicate otherwise: Around a third of Americans are comfortable with the eugenics-like enhancement of tampering with the human genome to optimize for strength, intelligence, and beauty. As Allen poignantly concludes, “The idea is no longer radical.”

Several key bioethical questions will grow both in importance and pertinence as resistance to this technology is broken down. The first concern is socio-economic: Will the current divide between the elites and “the rest of us” take on a genetic dimension? Allen describes this danger as the emergence of “a genetic elite — Humanity 2.0 — that exploits or displaces Humanity 1.0.” In a Huxleyan-like fashion, those who can afford to transform their germline into “alpha-plusses” will be perched on top of the unfortunate “gammas and epsilons.”

Another concern is if the opposite takes shape: if our genetic tampering backfires. If, as Allen describes, “a critical mass of the population is genetically altered, but rather than becoming superhumans, they become a stylized breed of warped, dysgenic mutants,” then we, playing God, very well could become the instrument of our demise.

Technology is always served on a razor’s edge. On one side is the possibility for unbelievable good and progress. On the other hand, there is the possibility of incredible and often unforeseeable damage. Can its good be harnessed without falling into its shadowy side? Can we cautiously explore CRISPR's healing possibilities without encroaching into eugenics-like enhancement? Unfortunately, history has proven that technology’s promise is served hand-in-hand with its dangers. We shouldn’t be too quick to open Pandora’s box, expecting CRISPR’s healing potential only to find the transhumanists’ hand extended to us instead — or irreversible damage to the human genome altogether.