How Scientific Evidence is Changing the Tide of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

http://www.geocities.com/wade_schauer/Changing_Tide.pdf ^ | 1/7/2007 | Wade Schauer

[Sopater]

INTRODUCTION:

For the past few years there has been a relatively public battle between Evolution (Darwinism) and Intelligent Design (ID). In courtrooms, classrooms and even at the polls, ID has been mostly losing this battle. Meanwhile, with the completion of the human genome project and the sequencing of many other species, scientific discoveries are upending many long-held assumptions of the pro-evolution community, but they don’t seem to realize it yet. The purpose of this article is to illuminate some of these discoveries and give hope to the ID community that steady, patient defense of our position will eventually win the war.

[SNIP]

CONCLUSION:

What can we conclude from the evidence presented in this essay:

• Every type of “Junk DNA” presented by pro-evolution websites has been found to have functional roles in organisms, which severely undermines the “shared errors” argument;
• A large percentage of the human genome previously assumed to be non-functional is now believed to be functional (from 2% to 60% or more);
• Extra DNA that may not provide direct function still likely serves other structural/protective roles (C-value enigma);
• Many DNA regions are identical across species (highly conserved), undermining the notion that they evolved slowly over time;
• Human DNA contains unique regions that are fundamentally different from chimps or any other species, and this is also seen in the unique structure of the human brain.
  
  I hope this essay shows that Intelligent Design supporters shouldn’t be discouraged by the losses in the courts, or the arguments contained on the pro-evolution websites that seem convincing at face value. The mounting genetic evidence since the sequencing of the human genome is about to upend the scientific world, and Intelligent Design supporters won’t have to work very hard for it to happen.

[Sopater]

Junk DNA Ping...

[timberlandko]

Junk Science Ping.

[Coyoteman]

I took a look at your article (I note that it is prominently linked over at www.antievolution.org, under the "Anti-Science News" section.

I see nothing in these DNA results which either supports creationism, or which disproves evolution. Perhaps you could clarify these findings for me?

[Sopater]

I see nothing in these DNA results which either supports creationism, or which disproves evolution. Perhaps you could clarify these findings for me?

Non-coding DNA having a useful purpose, rather than being evolutional byproducts, supports Creationism.

Since Evolution does not have a well established and rooted "goal-post", I'm skeptical that it possible to "disprove".

Thanks for the link to "antievolution.org". I'll check it out.

[muir_redwoods]

"Non-coding DNA having a useful purpose, rather than being evolutional byproducts, supports Creationism."

Says whom? And by the way, how?

Creationism being merely an unsupported conjecture no more benefits from such a finding than does the FSM

[NonValueAdded]

Hmmmm confusing a data segment with a code segment? Could "junk segments" be the pattern loads for what we call "instinct?"

[gobucks]

bump

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Unnecessary rudeness ping.

If any Christian freeper here is also a Wikipedian, would you look at this Operation Auca Discussion page, and help the primary author? Two apparent atheists/unChristians have extreme views, including a German who is attempting to explain nuances in the English language to the (apparently) American author.

Not a Wikipedian, only a Wookieepedian (and other Wikia), and they take the IP address.

[Rudder]

...patient defense of our position (ID) will eventually win the war.

And what is that position? In a nutshell: "We ID people are too dumb to understand the complexities of life, so, therefore, some ill-defined creature created life.

[Elsie]

I looked...


I'm baffled!

[Tribune7]

I was just thinking about this subject along similar lines. Science no longer supports that all could have happened by known natural causes.

[GourmetDan]

"Science no longer supports that all could have happened by known natural causes."

Actually, science *requires* that all has happened by natural causes.

You simply assume that the 'natural' cause is unknown and you are back in business.

No problemo.

[Tribune7]

Actually, science *requires* that all has happened by natural causes.

Actually, it doesn't. It requires the assumption that the subject of a methodological investigation be of natural origin. But if no answer is found, the assumption ends and the supernatural remains possible.

IOW, one can be a scientist and believe in God.

[GourmetDan]

"Actually, it doesn't. It requires the assumption that the subject of a methodological investigation be of natural origin. But if no answer is found, the assumption ends and the supernatural remains possible."

Name one area where no answer has been found that is attributed to God.

What actually happens is an appeal to undiscovered natural effects, not God.

[Tribune7]

You are not reading what I wrote correctly.

[GourmetDan]

"You are not reading what I wrote correctly."

And you are misrepresenting the issue.

[editor-surveyor]

"Junk Science Ping."

While I attach no particular importance to the genome project, neither do I see one such as yourself, posessing no knowledge whatsoever on the subject, having the authority to declare it junk science.

Wishful thinking from an empty evolutionism rider?

[RobRoy]

>>Non-coding DNA having a useful purpose, rather than being evolutional byproducts, supports Creationism.<<

It also supports the concept that we don't know everything yet. Something darwinists ignore. They forget that, as Rumsfeld said, "we don't know what we don't know".

Lastly, it supports the concept that whoever designed it know what He was doing.