Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, November 24, 2014

Evolutionists Clinging to the "Junk DNA" Faith

In discussions about subjects that have more than one definition, it is important to define your terms so you're not explaining one thing and the other party has a different understanding. Changing definitions is a form of special pleading, often called "moving the goalposts".

DNA was somewhat investigated, but since evolutionists didn't understand it, they called large portions of it "junk" —  leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past, and then plopped it on the well-worn trail of scientific incompetence. When DNA was given more thorough investigation, more and more of it was found to be very important.

On a side note, this is similar to so-called "vestigial organs" — they didn't know the purpose of some organs, so they declared them useless leftovers from evolution. Many were removed, and did harm to people because yes, they do have functions after all. After that scientific self-humiliation, the word "vestigial" was redefined. Disingenuous, isn't it?

Relying on their presuppositions of evolution hindered science mightily (and some people say it's the creationists who hold back science!), and some still want to continue to do just that. They reached into their possibles bag and pulled out some fancy redefinitions so that DNA can still have "junk"; God forbid that the biblical creationists (and other scientists) are right after all, gotta keep the faith even when it's wrong.
Having decided there’s nothing there, some defenders of the “junk DNA” concept won’t focus on it.

A press release from the University of Melbourne praises another test that concludes most of the human genome is “useless” material. A University of Oxford study led by Gerton Lunter decided that only 8.2% is functional. Writer Ella Kelly acknowledges that the ENCODE consortium came to a “bit extreme” and “drastically different” conclusions when they concluded 80% is functional, but it’s a matter of definitions, she says:
To alleviate that suspense, you can find out what she says and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Junk-DNA Defenders Refuse to Look at 'Useless' Code". 
 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels