Tag: repetitive DNA

Glittering dna helix with golden particles in a biotech concept

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
August 11, 2026

Categories
Genetics
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, acetyl tags, biochemical functionality, BioEssays, biological codes, Biological Theory, biology, code, control, convergence, DNA, ENCODE project, evolution, First Things, Forrest Mims, Francis Collins, genes, Genome Biology and Evolution, Human Genome Project, information, information compression, intelligent design, Jonathan Wells, junk DNA, methyl tags, Michael Levin, mind, ontogenetic information, paradigm shift, phylogenetic signal, phylogenomic conflict, Platonism, random mutations, repetitive DNA, Richard Sternberg, Science (journal), science stopper, Simon Conway Morris, Taking Stock at 30 (series), Third Way of Evolution, Tufts University, William Dembski, Winston Ewert}

Thirty Years of Intelligent Design Predicting the Unexpected Genome

_{Casey Luskin
August 11, 2026

Genetics, Intelligent Design

10}

Jonathan Wells’s review was important, but it only scratches the surface of information in biology outside of the DNA. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
June 18, 2026

Categories
Genetics
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __recommended, autoimmune disease, biology, biomarkers, cancer, Cell (journal), disease, dysregulation, evolution, exons, gene enhancers, gene expression, gene regulatory networks, gene silencers, genetics, genome architecture, genome organization, human genome, intelligent design, junk DNA, lncRNAs, mammalian DNA, methylation, Nature (journal), neurodegeneration, non-coding RNAs, promoters, repetitive DNA, RNA, Science (journal), splicing regulators, transposable elements}

Paper in Cell Reports “Paradigm Shift” Against TEs as “Genomic Parasites or Junk DNA”

_{Casey Luskin
June 18, 2026

Genetics, Intelligent Design

4}

This language is remarkable coming from a journal often considered the third most important in the world for biology. Read More ›

A dna structure design with glowing particles.

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
June 11, 2026

Categories
Genetics
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, __recommended, biology, CCCTC-binding factor, DNA, DNA structure, function, G-quadruplex, G4s, gene expression, genome, genome topology, guanine, humans, junk DNA, minisatellite, non-B DNA, pericentromeric repeats, PNAS, repetitive DNA, telomeres, telomeric repeats, topologically associating domains}

More Functions Reported for Repeat “Junk” DNA

_{Casey Luskin
June 11, 2026

Genetics, Intelligent Design

4}

Papers note that repetitive DNA — the type of DNA that our junk-DNA-defending friends assure us must be functionless — is vital for forming G4 structures. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
February 22, 2026

Categories
Genetics
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, biological processes, Bret Weinstein, chromosomes, Discovery Institute, DNA, embryonic development, ERVs, evo-devo, evolution, evolutionary biology, function, gene expression, genes, genome, integer variables, intelligent design, Joe Rogan, Jonathan McLatchie, junk DNA, microsatellites, repetitive DNA, Richard Sternberg, supporters, telomeres, variables}

Fascinating Hypothesis from Weinstein: Repetitive “Junk” DNA Stores Integer Variables

_{Casey Luskin
February 22, 2026

Genetics, Intelligent Design

9}

This opens up a world of potential functions for repetitive DNA that open-minded scientists can consider. Read More ›

Modern DNA structure in microscope with neon color detail

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
February 17, 2026

Categories
Evolution
Genetics
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, Abbie Smith, accident, bioethics, chromosomes, David Klinghoffer, development, DNA, embryos, Endogenous retroviruses, ERVs, function, genome, human development, humanity, life, Long Story Short, mascot, MLT2A1, repetitive DNA, Research, retro-transposable elements, RNA, Science (journal), Secrets of the Human Body, triploid genome, zygotes, zygotic genome activation}

New Study: ERVs, Once Proclaimed as Ultimate Genetic “Junk,” Are Vital for Development

_{Casey Luskin
February 17, 2026

Evolution, Genetics, Intelligent Design

7}

Endogenous retroviruses were at one time iconic for evolution activists. The debate has progressed a lot since then. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
June 26, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Genetics
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), Amazon, chimpanzees, Chimps and Critics (series), common ancestry, DNA, Financial Times, function, genetic difference, genetics, genomes, human exceptionalism, humans, Joel Duff, junk DNA, Nature Communications, Nucleic Acids Research, nucleotides, objections, reactions, repetitive DNA, Science (journal), Smithsonian Institution, University of Chicago Press, Zachary Ardern}

Critics Change the Topic: Do Human-Human Genetic Differences Matter?

_{Casey Luskin
June 26, 2025

Evolution, Genetics, Human Origins and Anthropology

22}

One of the common yet unexpected reactions from critics to the discovery that humans and chimps are 15 percent genetically different is to change the topic. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
June 23, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Genetics
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), ape genomes, biologists, chimpanzees, Chimps and Critics (series), functional information, gap divergence, genetics, humans, Joel Duff, junk DNA, Nature Communications, non-B DNA, Nucleic Acids Research, repetitive DNA, technical failures, theistic evolutionists, University of Akron, Zachary Ardern}

Critics Dismiss Genetic Differences Between Humans and Chimps as “Meaningless” Junk

_{Casey Luskin
June 23, 2025

Evolution, Genetics, Human Origins and Anthropology

11}

What’s most ironic here is that these critics aren’t disputing that the evidence really does show that humans and chimps are 15 percent genetically different. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
June 18, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Exceptionalism
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), chimpanzee genome, chimpanzees, Chimps and Critics (series), Eugenie Scott, evolution, evolutionary genomics, gap divergence, genetics, Haeckel’s embryos, human genome, humans, Icons of Evolution, junk DNA, Nature (journal), non-sex chromosomes, nucleotide, objections, persistent scientific errors, Queen Mary University London, repetitive DNA, Richard Buggs}

Critics Struggle with Evidence Humans and Chimps Are 15 Percent Genetically Different

_{Casey Luskin
June 18, 2025

Evolution, Human Exceptionalism, Human Origins and Anthropology

5}

Before we dive into what critics are saying, I want to note that good authorities have come to similar numerical conclusions as I did. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Casey Luskin

Date
May 22, 2025

Categories
Evolution
Human Exceptionalism
Human Origins and Anthropology
Tagged
, 1 percent myth, 1 percent myth (series), ape genomes, brains, cell division, chimpanzees, DNA, genetic differences, genomes, human genome, humans, Jonathan Wells, misrepresentation, Nature (journal), Nucleic Acids Research, order of magnitude, repetitive DNA, zombies}

Genetic Differences Between Humans and Chimps Represent Functional DNA

_{Casey Luskin
May 22, 2025

Evolution, Human Exceptionalism, Human Origins and Anthropology

7}

I contacted the corresponding authors of the original study and they kindly offered their interpretation of the differences between the human and chimp genomes. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Jonathan McLatchie

Date
May 24, 2024

Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Tagged
, Casey Luskin, Creation Myths, Dan Stern Cardinale, debates, Discovery Institute, DNA, Dr. Dan, ENCODE, ERVs, Evolution News, function, genome, junk DNA, Nature (journal), pseudogenes, repetitive DNA, RNA, Rutgers University, YouTube channels}

Did Dr. Dan Make Us Change Our Position on Junk DNA?

_{Jonathan McLatchie
May 24, 2024

Evolution, Intelligent Design

13}

This claim is totally false and it perhaps reflects Dr. Dan’s wish to find a positive spin on the substance of what happened during the debate. Read More ›