I see, we are down to insults - that means you lost. In post#695 I carefully explained why junk DNA is not junk, I gave a citation from a Noble Prize Winner, and in addition I gave more links supporting that junk DNA is not junk. What I gave you is not blather, it is called IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE and here it is again in case you wish to refute it instead of indulging in lame insults:
If you had read post#659 you would know that 'junk DNA' is just one more evolutionist assumption which has been proven false. From the article by Baltimore on post#659:
The most discussed are coding regions that specify the sequence of proteins. Proteins are the actual machines that do the work of the body. The protein-coding regions are all that is captured by most metaphors for DNA. DNA as a book implies that all DNA has are letters that transform into words, the meaningful units of language, and that words are like proteins. But the regions of human DNA that encode proteins are only a few percent of the 3 billion-long string of letters. Most of it does other things. What are these other things?
The DNA code can specify the sites and nature of many different events. While we don’t know them all, there are easily 10’s of others aside from the sequence of proteins. For instance, DNA does not encode proteins directly, it uses an intermediary chemical string called RNA. Each RNA encodes one protein so an RNA is a form of packaging of the DNA string into meaningful, bite size pieces. But then the DNA must have a code for where to start an RNA, and where to end an RNA. The RNA is not used as a direct copy of DNA but rather is processed by destroying parts of it, modifying other parts and putting special structures at each end. There is code for each of these events.
I already explained why the fruit fly's new wings were useless - because you need much more than a single mutation, a single gene to provide something useful. Read the 2nd paragraph on the quote above - the protein production needs more than the gene, much more. You are still following the discredited evolutionist assumption that the non-coding DNA is useless. Also check out the links in the article above on 'junk DNA' if you need more evidence.
Funny, I thought we were arguing about an objective truth which predated our postings.
In post#695 I carefully explained why junk DNA is not junk
And I merely wrote that such DNA was "sometimes called 'junk'" but that that was an oversimplification.
I gave a citation from a Noble Prize Winner, and in addition I gave more links supporting that junk DNA is not junk. What I gave you is not blather, it is called IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE
Amazing that a Nobel Prize winner is authoritative enough to provide the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE with which you disprove evolution, but that same Nobel Prize winner isn't smart enough to see that he has disproven evolution. Obviously he should give his Nobel Prize and accompanying cash to you.