Tandem repeats are short stretches of DNA that are repeated head-to-tail. "At first sight," explains evolutionist Marcelo Vinces, "it may seem unlikely that this stutter-DNA has any biological function." This is an example of how evolutionary thinking harms science. Since life is an accident, biology must be straightforward. If we do not immediately perceive how something works, then evolutionists typically think it is non functional junk. Over and over this evolutionary expectation has turned out wrong. And now again with tandem repeats:
unstable junk DNA allows fast shifts in gene activity, which may allow organisms to tune the activity of genes to match changing environments--a vital principle for survival in the endless evolutionary race.
The tandem repeats allow for swift adaptation to environmental demands, so cells with more repeats stand a better chance. As the evolutionists explain, "Their junk DNA saved their lives."
Of course none of this is impossible. But it calls for a healthy dose of serendipity. We are now to believe that evolution created these DNA sequence patterns which were useless for generations. Nonetheless evolution maintained them in the population. That was fortunate because one day, when the environment presented new challenges, they saved the day.
Or there is the preadaptation explanation. It holds that there are some previous functions that the design performed. Like Darwin's gardener we can't observe them anymore, but we can hypothesize.
Either way the result is that evolution created more evolution. Evolutionists now routinely speak of the evolution of evolvability. In other words, we must believe that evolution created the ability to evolve.
Impossible? Certainly not.
The obvious scientific conclusion? You've got to be kidding.
An undeniable fact? I have a bridge to sell you.
But evolutionists do mandate that it is a fact. And therefore they must conclude that what they thought was junk DNA has now saved the day. Evolutionists are flipping between absurdities in what is increasingly looking like a parody. The evolution literature looks more and more like a spoof. As if sensing the problem, the science writer reporting on the new research hastened to add that it is to be published in a reputable journal.
