Rose and I interviewed Dr. Casey Luskin a while back on the Knight and Rose Show about junk DNA. (We are still making episodes, but Rose is very busy with her D. Min degree, conference speaking, and teaching kids in her church). Casey told us about is how the progress of science is finding new functions for DNA that was thought to be “junk”. And he has a new post about it.

Here’s the new post from Evolution News.

Here’s the topic:

One of the most common functions of non-coding / junk DNA is to regulate gene expression. When a given non-coding / junk element is working properly, it regulates the gene it’s supposed to be regulating; it does its job, and nobody notices it. But what happens when a mutation arises in that junk DNA genetic element? Well, one common result is that it will affect expression of the gene, and the gene will no longer be regulated in the manner that it’s supposed to be regulated. This then leads to a disease. The disease associated with some junk DNA element is evidence of some useful function gone wrong, not no function at all. Let’s consider a few examples.

So, my understanding of junk DNA is that it is parts of the DNA that does not code for proteins. People really think that the only parts of DNA that are useful are the parts that contain instructions for making more proteins. Darwinists dismiss the non-coding parts of DNA as “junk”. Just leftovers from supposed evolution that doesn’t do anything useful.

One of the studies he quotes explains it like this:

While the coding genes provide blueprints for building proteins, which direct most of the body’s functions, some of the noncoding sections of the genome, including regions previously dismissed as “junk,” seem to turn up or down the expression of those genes.

The way I understand this is by thinking of a cookbook. The coding parts of the cookbook talk about what ingredients you need and how much of each you need. For some reason, people thought that this is the best part of the cookbook, the part about the ingredients. In this cookbook analogy, the Darwinists might think that the part about what to do with the ingredients is just “junk”. Stuff like the actual recipe steps, where to cook it, what temperature to use, how long to cook it for, and so on.

So what does the non-coding part of the DNA do that gives it “function” (makes it useful). Well, he has examples, and one of them is some “junk DNA” that regulates gene expression. What happens when that junk DNA gets bad mutations, changing the instructions?

This:

This junk DNA element contains an enhancer that helps regulate the gene ETS2, but mutations in that region deleteriously affect gene regulation, potentially causing various diseases.

You can imagine if your cookbook had a recipe that said “set the oven the 350 degrees Fahrenheit, and put the chicken breasts in for 30 minutes.” But then a mutation happened, and suddenly the so-called junk part of the cookbook said: “set the oven the 350 degrees Fahrenheit, and put the chicken breasts in for 300 minutes.” You would not get a good result from that. That part of the recipe is not junk! It’s important.

He has a bunch more examples, including how mistakes in the non-coding DNA causes increased susceptibility to certain psychiatric disorders.

I thought it was an interesting add-on to our episode, because it explains what a useful non-coding function would look like.

Here is his conclusion:

In other words, once again, the “junk DNA” is functional. That is reflected by the fact that when you mess with the “junk,” the result is problems. That doesn’t sound like junk DNA to me.

If you missed the episode, you can get the MP3 here, and the YouTube episode is here.

I noticed an article about puberty blockers on Daily Caller, that I thought would be really useful in a debate. Normally, transing kids involves 1) social transitioning, 2) puberty blockers, 3) hormone replacement therapy, 4) sex mutilation surgery. Pro-transing doctors often tell parents that puberty blockers are “reversible”. But are they really?

The article says:

Prominent World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) physicians acknowledged that puberty blockers are more invasive than portrayed in the media and can have irreversible effects on minors such as infertility, bone loss and disruption of brain development, according to WPATH educational sessions obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

WPATH is a transgender medical organization that has published influential clinical guidance for the sex reassignment industry, called Standards of Care, which recommend children receive puberty suppression, cross sex hormones and sex reassignment surgery. However, during educational sessions recorded in September 2022 that were part of a transgender medicalization certification program offered to WPATH licensed clinicians, WPATH doctors revealed that the consequences of puberty blockers for minors are often far more disruptive than portrayed in the media.

Calcium stores:

In an educational session titled “Foundations in Gender Affirming Hormone Therapy: Adults and Adolescents,” Dr. Daniel Metzger, a WPATH certified pediatric endocrinologist, explained how puberty blockers impede adolescents from developing the calcium stores needed to prevent osteoporosis later in life.

Brain development:

“Obviously teenagers, their brains are changing. They’re unwiring, they’re rewiring. And if we’ve started one kid unwiring and half rewiring, and then we changed their puberty the other way and we’re unwiring, people have been trying to figure out what this does for kids’ brains,” said Metzger.

“They seem to do reasonably the same as their friends but we’re not looking at their IQ and their learning ability and lots of other things.”

Fertility:

During a question and answer segment, Metzger discussed the impact of puberty blockers on a child’s fertility, explaining how puberty blockers stop males from developing sperm. He said it was unknown if girls placed on puberty blockers during the initial stages of puberty, as recommended by WPATH, would have eggs mature enough for fertility preservation.

“Kids have zero idea about their fertility,” said Metzger.

Reversible?

During a session titled, “Foundations in Clinical Care for Transgender and Gender Diverse Adolescents,” Dr. Scott Leibowitz, a co-lead in the development of the adolescent chapter of the WPATH Standards of Care and member of the WPATH Board of Directors, challenged the reversibility of puberty suppression.

“I think when we just say, ‘Oh puberty blockers are just reversible and it’s a very noninvasive treatment,’ I would say it’s more invasive than often times the media makes it out to be or other people,” he said.

Leibowitz explained how puberty blockers suppress the release of sex hormones (estrogen and testosterone) that cause puberty, stopping puberty and the essential brain and bone maturation that occurs during pubertal development, calling the body’s need for binary sex hormones a challenge.

“There’s challenges with puberty suppression that we have to acknowledge and that’s why it’s ‘reversible asterisks,’” Leibowitz said. “One cannot be on puberty suppression endlessly. You get to a place where physiologically we need hormones.”

So, the take-away lesson from this is that puberty blockers are less reversible and more invasive than is portrayed by the media. And that’s according to the people who know the most about it, and who push for it the most.