Skip to comments.Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3
click here to read article
When "Nova" showed up to film the discovery, the producers scrapped the footage because it so plainly disproved any notion of Evolution being credible.
Sounds like creationist nonsense. Please provide a link.
Kind of makes Evolutionists look silly, since it is an unimpeachable geoligical record of humans existing right alongside the same creatures which The Theory of Evolution insists all died out "over 60 million years ago..."
False. Most creationists know that the Paluxy River human footprints are frauds and avoid making any claims about them.
Get a grip. Your religion (Evolution) is built upon lies. The Biblical record is unbroken and accurately goes back to the beginning of all time (between 8,000-10,000 years).
False. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the earth is not just 8,000-10,000 years old, and there is no credible scientific evidence to the contrary.
yes, but teachers too are brainwashed by the master brainwasher.
Back in the day, IDers could also believe in Evolution. I mean ID before it was co-opted by the Creationists. Something like the book "Calculating God", by Robert Sawyer. Full ID, WITH Evolution. Its where I got interested in the IDea. I think the only IDers with a real opposition to Evolution these days are the Creationists.
Interesting about the “secondary products” in plants. The chemists avoided the arrogant belief, “I don’t understand what it does, therefore it can not be important.”
All that boring old science will be gone. But there will be rich debate about exactly which 24-hour period on the calendar 6,000 years ago the earth was created. Out of all the things in the Bible, somehow figuring out this exact date and “proving” it took exactly 24 hours is the most important thing of all.
Statements as vacant of reason and education as that one are the reason I refer to ID-iot as ID-iots. Evolution is how life developed. There are questions of detail but none of basic mechanism.
Of course, it's impossible to prove to the willfully blind that the earth isn't flat but I waste no time with those morons either.
Evolutionists had assumed that "unused" DNA was "junk" DNA, the useless leftover byproduct resulting from a long process of macroevolution.
As it turn out, it wasn't useless at all, it is still being used, and as such, tends to indicate Intelligent Design.
Additionally, because ID predicted this, at lease one of the criticisms that had been levied against ID is now knocked down, for evolutionists had said that ID would not be able to make any testable predictions.
Once more, science tends to confirm theology. Let's get used to it, because we'll be seeing a lot more of it in the future.
This is not the case.
I see. So you think that all life evolved over millions of years through a series of random mutations (some that worked, some that didn't), but yet it is possible that there is no 'Junk' DNA?
How does evolutionary theory rely upon some DNA having no known function?
Strangely, they seem to be most convincing to those without advanced degrees in the sciences. Hmm. . .
Total, non sequitur leap of faith
Don't forget Onyate Man! :-D
==Your post makes little sense. I public opinion polls are not a way to conduct science, then why post them, and why support their use? You contradict yourself.
See my previous post:
It’s called brainwashing. They have been conditioned to believe a lie and therefore continue to ask the wrong questions. In that sense, the general public is far closer to the truth than your average Darwinist.
Creationists are not opposed to change over time within the limits of the biblical “kinds”. What they are opposed to is the notion that one kind can turn into another kind via macro evolution. And the fossil evidence suggest that they are probably right...even top evolutionists in good standing admit that the fossil evidence contradicts Darwinist predictions (and yet still cling to the notion that they will one day find the myriad of transitional species that they all admit are conspicuously absent from the fossil record). Instead, species appear abruptly in the fossil record (”as if from nowhere”), remain largely unchanged during their tenure on earth, and then mysteriously vanish as if wiped out by some sort of catastrophe. So, in so far as the fossil record is concerned, Creationist predictions blow Church of Darwin predictions out of the water.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
Note, even prominent IDers accept an old earth and common descent. That argument is over.
Apparently, Stephen Jay Gould didn’t get the memo:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May