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

by dhw, Sunday, June 05, 2016, 12:35 (2875 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.-DAVID: You are not reading what some of the atheist professors are saying. They are still defending junk as an argument against design. Look up Larry Moran's blog "Sandwalk". He rails against ENCODE's findings.-http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/-You have forgotten the point of this discussion. You wrote that “a major Darwinian theory goes out the window”, and I pointed out that the junk versus non-junk debate has no bearing on Darwin's theory of random mutations, for all the reasons given above (please reread). The fact that an atheist rejects ENCODE is irrelevant, and his “argument against design” confirms what I wrote.