I have not seen any Nature publications where creationists made such predictions. Remember, predictions have to be made BEFORE the event, otherwise they are not predictions but either explanations or rationalizations.Subby..
Indeed I have presented a Nature publication that demonstrates creos claiming junk dna would be found to be functional. I have proven creos made their claims aforetime in 1998 and again in 2003 in the paper submitted to Nature.
I have presented evidence that evos rebuked creos predictions in Miller and that idiot, proffessor Moran, on Sandwalk.
I have presented evidence that the proposed evolutionary claim of 98% non functionality that supported TOE has gone to 80% functionality with credentialled evos suggesting it will likely go to 100%.
Therefore my claim is correct. Creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on like any prediction that has any merit should. Unlike TOE that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
Point 1 is established.
And no, Moran showed why your claims are still wrong.
And lastly the so called claim of 80% functionality is largely due to loosening of the definition. Place keepers are hardly functional and it is more likely a new use for old DNA.
And you have steadfastly ignored the enormous problem of ancestoral DNA and ERV's. When you can answer those huge problems with arguments that are better than mere handwaving you might have something.