Junk DNA goodbye!: Look for short RNA's (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, June 04, 2016, 11:20 (2882 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: Same point. Not much DNA is junk, and a major Darwinian theory goes out the window.-dhw; Atheistic evolutionists have argued that junk DNA contradicts the theory of design. Since Darwin knew nothing about DNA, it is absurd to link their arguments with his theory.-DAVID: Of course Darwin didn't know, but atheists claim that junk DNA supports the basis of his theory.I'm discussing the present. His theory has more than one part. His theory of common descent is intact. His proposed method of evolution is by chance and that is denied by the loss of junk as an argument.-His proposed method of evolution is by random mutation (chance) and natural selection (which decides what changes are beneficial). You and I reject chance because we do not believe that random mutations are capable of producing the complexities of functioning organs. Atheists, however, have the best of both worlds: they can argue that junk is evidence against design, but they can just as easily argue that non-junk is evidence that evolution preserves what is useful (natural selection). Non-junk does not provide evidence against random mutations; it only removes the argument that junk contradicts design. In other words, you can still believe in random mutations whether there is junk or no junk.