"junk" DNA

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
I am willing to go out on this limb, however, -- all changes involve a loss of function in one way or another.

Just in the examples listed above, what were the functions that were lost? I see a duplication where a new gene was the result of combining pats of two different genes from the duplication, another duplication where one of the copies mutated to digest something new, the co-opting of a retroviral sequence into a new useful protein, and the repeated copying of part of a duplicated gene until a new function evolved. I do not see a loss of function in any of these.

There are quite a few other examples floating around on various threads. See this thread for example.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2807/8.html#000112

Some of them are duplicated on this thread.

 

[jcrawford]

Unless evolutionists are willing to admit that the theory of evolution is intelligently designed and that new species are intelligently designed creatures, insofar as they are able to adapt to an environment, then evolutionist theory is junk science since it follows no intelligently designed system of logic or laws of nature.

 

[UTEOTW]

You have already started a thread for that topic. Could you please not take this thread off topic? Please flesh out your ideas in the appropriate thread. Do you have anyhthing on topic to add?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Do you have anyhthing on topic to add?

Yes. Genetic theories about DNA showing evidence of human evolution out of African ape-like progenitors 6 million years ago may be considered junk DNA theories by all reputable scientists who practice empirical and applied science with demonstrable and tangible results.