Genome complexity: pseudogenes (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, August 22, 2013, 12:46 (4112 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If junk DNA is not junk, how does that prove evolution is a failed paradigm? The evolutionist can simply argue that natural selection has got rid of all the DNA that WAS junk. And who says that the Theory of Evolution runs contrary to a complex genetic code programmed by a Creator? -DAVID: The argument is more complex than that. Junk has been used to say that natural selection discarded stuff throughout purposeless chance evoluton.
 
I thought the atheist point was that so-called junk DNA (i.e. those existing elements of DNA that are of no use) proved that life was not the product of design, since a designer would not create anything useless (or at least an "omnipotent, all-wise Creator" wouldn't). If now it's proved that some is junk and some isn't, both sides can claim partial support; if none of it is junk, atheist evolutionists can claim natural selection has streamlined DNA, theists can claim that God has streamlined DNA, and theist evolutionists can claim that God designed DNA in such a way that natural selection would streamline it. It doesn't matter what we discover about Nature, the information can always be twisted to fit the theory.