No, not necessarily. There are facts that will sink one idea and yet are neutral to another. The idea of junk DNA was deadly to creationism, but really made no difference either way for evolution. In fact quite a few evolutionary biologists were bothered by the idea. That is one reason why I keep wondering why you keep getting your panties in a knot over this topic.<quoted text>
In case you chose not to notice Subby, the above has a loud mouth evo, like you, going his hardest and obviously making a fool of himself, in light of more recent research.
TOE said that junk dna was evidence for evolution only a few years ago. I suggest the opposite should now be evidence against evolution unless evos are pretenders in their claims of using credible scientific method.
The many Darwinists who strongly pushed (and many still do) the Junk DNA claim predicted that nearly 99% of the entire human genome, the portion that was non-coding, was mostly just left-over junk DNA. They as good as predicted this based on TOE as they shoved it down creos mouths like the big mouth above.
So what now you evos? Have you got anything better than 'evovacant, woops and who cares', to offer.
All that it would mean if all DNA served a present day purpose, and there is evidence that that will never be the case. Then you could say that that particular aspect of DNA has not ruled out creationism yet. Not a lot to crow about if you ask me.
So before you start to crow in victory you should be more aware of what you are crowing about.
And now on to how "junk DNA" still shows creationism to be bunk. Some of the identified genes, therefore no longer junk, used to code for features of the animals ancestors and reflect its evolutionary path. You are still ducking about genes found in chickens that are currently "turned off" that cause it to grow teeth, scales, a "dinosaur" tale, and "hands". All features of its dinosaur ancestors.
Nor have you answered the question of ERV's that were never considered to be "junk".