“…in some cases we’re faced with a mystery. Some animal genomes seem to be missing certain genes, ones that appear in other similar species and must be present to keep the animals alive. These apparently missing genes have been dubbed “dark DNA”. And its existence could change the way we think about evolution….” Click Meet ‘dark DNA’ – the hidden genes that may change how we think about evolution for the rest of the article.
Note: Evolution is a fiction; micro-evolution (which is both natural and artificial selection and gene manipulation) is real but macro-evolution (what most people think of when they think “evolution”) is junk science. It is unsustainable, unsupportable, unreproducible, and much of the scientific data used to support it can easily fit into other models (namely Creationism and Intelligent Design). When you view data through a forced, clouded lens, you will always distort the image. Scientists are continuously tripping over the data that evidences the fact that atheistic evolution is bunk; they try to make it more mysterious than it needs to be. They will say that it is so strange, so hard to understand, when in fact it is easy — God, indeed, did it. The complexity (irreducible and otherwise) of the various genomes and their make-up evidences design, screams “a Creator did this,” declares on the roof-tops “this wasn’t just by chance, it didn’t ‘just happen;'” however, when the learned ones of scientism ignore this, and try ever harder to enforce the atheistic paradigm that “time + nature” = “everything bringing itself into existence,” we see just how contrived, just how incoherently (and ignorantly) absurd, their overall position is. Evolutionary doctrine is a form of faith, and a false one at that. It is large scale foolishness, even blindness, and appeals to dark DNA, dark matter, and whatever other forms of darkness they conjure up next (to help explain away the multitude of problems with their models) only further evidences the matter.
You see, it’s the spin they put on it. It may not be “dark genes” at all but rather something that doesn’t fit their existing paradigm, so they have to make it dark, or hidden. It may be in plain enough under other models but “hidden” as to how it fits into their current, erroneous, preconceived one. So don’t get me wrong… It isn’t the raw data that I dispute, or object to; rather, it is the false interpretations imposed on it. If the data is clean, if the information is legitimate, it should be considered honestly and deeply — but objectively… and not under the subjective light of a failed and unsubstantiated atheistic evolutionary model.