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

by David Turell , Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 17:04 (2643 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You made it plain that Graur was an atheist, and I am perfectly aware that the less junk there is, the more a theist will argue that it supports design. My point is that even if it turned out that there was no junk at all, atheists could say that evolution dispenses with junk. People with fixed beliefs can always find a way to adapt them to new findings. These days many theists, including yourself, have turned their backs on Creationism and believe in evolution. At present, though, atheists are still arguing for junk, and I’m afraid even 20% junk is junk. I can only repeat that “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...” There is no disagreement here between us – I am simply offering a different perspective on the subject.

Fair enough.