Current science; fallacious thinking (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, December 23, 2017, 12:46 (2317 days ago) @ David Turell

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. (dhw's new bold]

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.

DAVID: 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. [dhw's bold]

Your theistic response is exactly as I forecast above in bold. Theists and atheists can always find an answer, and so whether some DNA is junk or not won’t make the slightest difference to their or your beliefs.

DAVID: 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.

Agreed. Anyone, theist or atheist, who claims to know all the answers is to be treated with suspicion!

DAVID: Dan Graur's comment highlights his discomfort at the new discoveries, as they destroy his Darwin theories.

Then he should comfort himself that even if 100% of DNA proves to be functional, it merely proves the efficiency of Darwinian natural selection in discarding unwanted material. But if he feels uncomfortable because of all the complexities of these various processes, I for one would share his scepticism concerning the efficiency of Darwinian random mutations as their originator.