Introns against evolution??

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Recently I saw a strange essay on creation vs. evolution, part of it mentioned about introns, it claimed that introns were different between species, thus there was something encoded in order to let "each it's kind".

Although I smell bullshit in this, I'm not quite sure where it is, of course if there was some difference, it wouldn't support creation and refute evolution, but the dishonest creation debaters will just use this to debase evolution, so is there any stronger argument against the claim?

[neoolong]

I don't get the reasoning on that. It's saying that because parts of the DNA code of different species are different, that means it's creation?

[Baron Scarpia]

"Introns
An intron is a section of DNA within a gene that doesn't actually code for anything. Introns and exons are interspersed throughout a gene, although there are some human genes without any introns. When a gene is copied into mRNA, both introns and exons are faithfully copied, but all the introns are cut out before the final mRNA transcript is made. Less complex organisms such as yeast tend not to have introns. The function of introns, if any, is unknown, although geneticists now wonder whether the splicing together of exons required by the presence of introns allows the human genome to generate more complexity than its mere 30,000 genes would suggest."

Yes, it's bullshit. It's the usual Creationist tactic of "find something that is currently not fully explained by science and cling to it desperately as support." Since we don't know exactly what Introns do, if anything, claiming that their being different in different species means evolution is false is absurd. Don't forget that we have abundant evidence that evolution did and does happen, regardless of what Introns do.

[Baron Scarpia]

Oh, and:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

"The debate continues on the issue of whether nuclear introns were present in eukaryotic protein-coding genes from the beginning (introns-early) or invaded them later in evolution (introns-late). Recent studies concerning the location of introns with respect to gene and protein structure have been interpreted as providing strong support for both positions, but the weight of argument is clearly moving in favour of the latter. Consistent with this, there is now good evidence that introns can function as transposable elements, and that nuclear introns derived from self-splicing group II introns, which then evolved in partnership with the spliceosome. This was only made possible by the separation of transcription and translation. If introns did colonize eukaryotic genes after their divergence from prokaryotes, the original question as to the evolutionary forces that have seen these sequences flourish in the higher organisms, and their significance in eukaryotic biology, is again thrown open. I suggest that introns, once established in eukaryotic genomes, might have explored new genetic space and acquired functions which provided a positive pressure for their expansion. I further suggest that there are now two types of information produced by eukaryotic genes--mRNA and iRNA--and that this was a critical step in the development of multicellular organisms."

[SyntaxVorlon]

GAH too much jargon.
Clarify please.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Thanks, Scarpia.

Neoolong: Some creationists use such things like introns and "only microevolution" to "support the creation theory". Their so-called theory consists of the "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind.." of Genesis, thus...

[neoolong]

I think I get what you're saying.