Replies

What is unfit about having non-coding dna?

If you read my post you would have had no need to ask that - the genome gets copied in almost every one of the 100 trillion cells in the body. That takes a lot of work to copy what you call garbage, what evolutionists call garbage and what scientists call 'non coding DNA'.

Just what are you claiming? That all noncoding dna is regulatory? that none of it is 'junk'?

Yup, and not just me, real scientists do also, that is why just about all biological research in the last decade is going into discovering the use of that non-coding DNA. As I pointed out already genes are useless unless turned on, and regulated by DNA outside of the gene. Evolutionists, if they were scientists should have been aware that this had to be true even before its discovery - as most scientists were aware of and that is why they looked for such controls - disregarding the statements of the morons of evolution.

So, at least one pseudo gene has a use; therefore they all do? BTW, isn't this an example of a gene being hijacked into an entirely new function?

As I have said, and as real science has proven - and continues to prove, the concept of junk DNA is false, the concept of 'pseudogenes' is also false. It is totally made up, it is an argument from ignorance. The article I posted ( Post# 3118 )shows quite well the contortions of evolutionists at seeing their nonsense scientifically disproven.

This post refers to ALS' designeduniverse.com. I have not pinged him because, well, he's on VI and I'd like to keep it that way.

I clicked one of his links just to check it out. If only to see what the Kansas fundies are up to with web design these days. Anyway, I scrolled through all the borrowed quotes, clips, and nonsense to get to some of ALS' personal writings. Here's a gem from the mind of the master troll... I won't even bother commenting on the ridiculous errors and lies within. Enjoy:

And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival. Obviously, flight is beneficial, and one can certainly see how flying animals might survive better than those who couldn't, and thus natural selection would preserve them.
The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.
Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
And why is man so incredibly different than all other animals? What animal can solve math equations? Write poetry? Laugh at jokes? Design computer software? How can we say that man is merely "one more animal, just more highly evolved"?