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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 07, 2016, 13:04 (3092 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.-dhw: Fair comment, so long as you now agree that “a major Darwinian theory” has not gone “out the window”!-DAVID: Random mutation is out the window also. What is left of Darwin is common descent and the competition implicit in natural selection as a passive recipient of variation. Darwin does not explain speciation.-Random mutation is “out the window” for you and me because we reject the idea that chance can create the complexities of organic life, and not because of junk versus non-junk. But I agree with you: The Origin of Species does not explain the origin of species!