Behes letter to Nature, published 2003<quoted text>
Oops, I responded to the wrong rant. I was rudely awoken and had not had my coffee yet, but in my defense all of Maz's waffle flapping sounds the same after a while. Let's see how wrong she is this time.
No, 20% nonfunctionality in DNA is still enough to sink any creationist claims. And evolutionists never put great stock in the claim of "junk DNA". Why should they?
(BECAUSE EVOS WANKED OVER IT FOR OVER A DECADE SAYING IT WAS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION) SAYS MAZ.
In fact I have never seen anyone make this claim except for creatards claiming that evolutionists have. Perhaps that one lone voice that Maz linked. And she claims of creationist predictions and she has yet to link any.
Even if there was pure 100% functionality, no ERV's no ancient genomes, which are of course not Junk DNA, that would not do any harm to the theory of evolution. As I said, the Junk DNA claim was not even accepted by all evolutionists,especially not genetic evolutionists that understand the subject. This was an idea that sunk and buried, and still does sink and bury cretinism.
No evolutionists are scurrying away in shame. We are merely pointing out how incredibly wrong idiots like Maz are.
Let's see if I can explain this in logic terms that even our creatard "friend" can understand. Let's call evolution E and creationism C. And the latest kerfuffle we will call G for genome.
Now in its original form it was always a case of:
If G then not C.
It was never:
If not G then not E.
Right now it is still in a form of:
If G then Not C
Since there is far too much non-coding DNA for creationists to account for.
And even if that remaining 20% is found to be functional they still need to explain ancient genes in the genome and ERV's. Two topics that we see Maz running from with her nasty blue waffle flapping away.
At best Maz can only hope for is a Not G situation. And of course Not G does not imply C in anyway.
The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.
Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.