Junk DNA: goodbye!: Review article (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 12, 2015, 03:46 (3545 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW:I neither skip nor reject the design argument. I am pointing out that atheists will still find a means of incorporating new discoveries into their scenario, just as theists do. In the days before ENCODE began to unravel the purposes of so-called junk, I don't recall theists getting into a mighty panic over the then prevalent view that DNA was not 100% functional. I repeat: "You can twist any scenario to fit your hypothesis...But I still maintain that “both sides will always find an answer to any discovery”. The very fact that life exists defies all the odds, and that was true even before the discovery of DNA. My point is exemplified by the fact that Francis Crick was an agnostic with a strong inclination towards atheism and James Watson is an atheist.
> 
> Tony: This is not a case of trying to fit anything to a theory. This is a case of either something is possible, or it is not. Saying that it must have happened because we are here is a cop out that ignores the fact that it is, by sciences/maths own definitions, impossible. They don't even stand by their own definitions of what makes something impossible.-Crick and Watson's opinions are just that, individual human opinions, not adding any thing factual. Darwinists twist any finding beyond recognition to fit their agenda. the story of junk DNA is that it fits the idea of uncontrolled chance evolution which results in many discarded elements of DNA because of the chance advance producing junk along the way.