Current science; fallacious thinking (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, December 22, 2017, 15:33 (2318 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I hate this point-scoring by both sides. There is no dagger in the heart, complete destruction or losing a game. Whether “junk” DNA is or isn't junk proves nothing about the existence or non-existence of a designer. If it IS, a theistic evolutionist can say his God did not design every organism individually but simply created the mechanisms by which organisms have evolved; harmful elements were jettisoned by natural selection, and harmless elements were not. Or he can say science has not yet discovered the uses of so-called junk. If it is NOT junk, but you do not believe in a designer, you can say natural selection jettisoned anything that was not useful.

DAVID: The quote comes from a very confirmed Darwinist Dan Graur. He means it. Don't slough it off! 'Junk' means a chance undirected process (Darwin evolution) which created all sorts of mistakes which were left behind in our giant DNA. It proves Darwin! The problem is 80% of DNA looks functional. The junk theory to support purposeless Darwin is out the window. Your theistic evolutionist is not my man. His reasoning is not mine, and natural selection did not jettison junk DNA because there isn't much.

dhw: Please explain the 20% of DNA that is considered to be junk.

We didn't know that 80% was functional to some extent until the past few years of research. We don't know that the 20% isn't of some importance. Coding for proteins doesn't explain life. It doesn't explain embryologic development of the fetus. There is a huge blank slate still to be explored. Dan Graur's comment highlights his discomfort at the new discoveries, as they destroy his Darwin theories.