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

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 29, 2017, 16:36 (2644 days ago) @ dhw

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.”

David Just my point

dhw: 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.

I'm sorry if I've confused you. Graur is a confirmed atheist evolutionist. Note the bold. He is defending undirected evolution. ENCODE implies evolution is designed (directed) if 80% of DNA is functional and I present evidence to that effect all the time. Concept: more junk means more undirection to the athiests. Read the link I presented above.