Junk DNA: goodbye!: used for therapy (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 29, 2017, 13:12 (2644 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s comment: 'Junk' DNA, as a concept, is important to atheists, who point to so-called junk areas in DNA as a proof that the process of evolution is really at random, and these areas are evidence of discarded useless genes from past attempts at evolution. The less evidence of purpose, the more likely it is all a chance mechanism, no God needed. It appears more and more about 805 of DNA is functional.

dhw: Junk DNA may be important to atheists who wish to debunk the idea that God created every species separately (i.e. why would he specially design something useless?) but (a) it tells us nothing whatsoever about how life and the mechanism for evolution began, and (b) a theist evolutionist can simply argue that God allowed the mechanism to run its own course, and so it was perfectly natural that different species should retain those elements of the mechanism that were no longer of use to them. If there is no junk DNA, the theist can say: “There you are, perfect design”, and the atheist can say that evolution gets rid of any material that is not useful. Both sides can take it or leave it, and it won’t make the slightest difference to their beliefs.

DAVID: But that is not what the atheists say. They are still insisting DNA is 80-90% junk, despite the mounting evidence:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/dan-graur-darwins-reactionary/
In 2013, biologist Dan Graur criticized the “evolution-free gospel of ENCODE” and accused its researchers of “playing fast and loose with the term ‘function,’ by divorcing genomic analysis from its evolutionary context.”81 In a lecture at the University of Houston, Graur argued that “if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long, undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome.” In other words: “If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong.” But for Graur, evolution can’t be wrong. His solution to the problem? “Kill ENCODE.”
Just my point

I’m surprised to hear you agree that if ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong. I thought you believed that your God used evolution as his method and directed it. I myself am in no position to say whether ENCODE is right or wrong. My point is that whether ENCODE is right or wrong won’t make the slightest different to people’s beliefs, as I have explained above.