Logic and evolution: Darwin theory is not scientific (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 11, 2019, 15:05 (162 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (under “Junk DNA goodbye"): The article goes on at much length to describe five different types of RNA's with functions. Apparently there is not much junk DNA and Darwinists have said if there is no junk DNA Darwin is wrong.

dhw: And I have pointed out that lack of junk supports the Darwinist argument that natural selection generally ensures that only what is useful will survive. If your Darwinists are too stupid to realize that, then more fool them.

DAVID: In the Darwinist mind 'junk' implies discarded DNA created by a chance mechanism of evolution which builds up over time as chance mutations create dead ends for natural selection. Without junk, chance disappears, and original Darwin becomes difficult to defend, which is Graur's opinion.

dhw: I am in no position to judge what is junk and what is not junk. You claim that if there is no junk, that is an argument against Darwinism. Now please explain what is wrong with the argument that NO junk fits in with the Darwinian principle that natural selection only preserves what is useful.

That is not a Darwin principle as the current supporters view it. "Junk", as they see it, is cast aside material from poorly formed chance mutations that didn't work and weren't expunged. See Sandwalk:


Comment: I'll not quote it as it all slanted defense of the concept.

Dan Graur quote:


"Since the mechanism of evolutionary change is based on genetic mistakes, evolutionists expect the genomes of certain species to be littered with useless DNA—essentially leftovers from the clumsy, unguided evolutionary process. Evolutionist Dan Graur and his colleagues make this clear: “Evolution can only produce a genome devoid of ‘junk’ if and only if the effective population size is huge and the deleterious effects of increasing genome size are considerable….In humans, there seems to be no selection against excess genomic baggage. Our effective population size is pitiful and DNA replication does not correlate with genome size.” Hence, evolutionists predict that the human genome should be filled with junk DNA."

It is Graur who has said, without junk, Darwin is dead.

Comment: Your interpretation is at the adaptation level, theirs is at the genome level.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum