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

by David Turell , Sunday, June 05, 2016, 15:15 (3094 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.-Your sentence is correct:
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.-But the bold is my main point. We emphasize differently. The atheist insists the presence of junk contradicts design. They want all the junk preserved, which is why Moran constantly denigrates ENCODE. Of course random mutations occur. Note when I use the word 'Darwinian' I'm not referring to the great man, but his pigmy followers.