Junk DNA goodbye!: the battle with Dan Graur continues (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, May 15, 2020, 15:37 (1654 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Changes in the DNA depends upon who survives and that they pass on their specific code to progeny. Natural selection is an active judge of what is presented to it but is a passive producer of evolution in that strict sense.

dhw: Of course it’s passive in that sense. And of course permanent changes in the genome will depend on who survives – that is the role of natural selection. It doesn’t create the changes, it determines which changes survive. And I am pointing out that if there is no junk, your atheist can argue that whenever there was a change, whatever was not needed did not survive.

DAVID: You seem to imply DNA change is an active cellular process all by itself. There are many reasons for mutations, but cells don't just purposely churn them out. Darwin's' view is chance accidental mutations are the source of evolution and as such the junk proponents are sure the DNA must contain lots of remnants of discarded genes. Why is Graur so distressed if logically he can use your argument?

dhw: We are discussing the theory of cellular intelligence (Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”) elsewhere, and I know what the junk proponents are saying. And if there is no junk, they are wrong. You have not offered a single logical objection to my proposal. You will have to ask Graur why he doesn’t use the argument.

The history of this point is that a key argument by Darwinists was the junk theory. As Encode and its general acceptance shows that it has been pushed into a corner where a few furious proponents are fighting a rear guard action. I've been explaining how their thinking goes, and as it is destroyed, what is happening is more support for the design argument. Your comment is an exhibit of your clear thinking.