To: ndt
Not really, the evo answer to the following question is: JUNK
The question: What is this apparently useless chain of DNA?
Evolutionary theory relied on this being true for 50 years now
Creationism never did.
It is another example of genuine science once again proving evolutionary science is JUNK.
8 posted on
06/16/2007 3:21:30 AM PDT by
RaceBannon
(Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 3..GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
To: RaceBannon
More desperate babbling by the ID-iot crowd. “Junk DNA” is a journalists term.
9 posted on
06/16/2007 4:04:24 AM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: RaceBannon
"The question: What is this apparently useless chain of DNA? Evolutionary theory relied on this being true for 50 years now"
You are saying that science relied on "what is X" being true. That makes no sense by he rules of English grammar much less science.
Are yo sure you wrote that correctly?
22 posted on
06/16/2007 8:24:09 AM PDT by
ndt
To: RaceBannon
Evolutionary theory relied on this being true for 50 years nowHow does evolutionary theory rely upon some DNA having no known function?
112 posted on
06/17/2007 12:05:02 PM PDT by
ahayes
("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson