Kalamata: "Of course, that is from an old dictionary."
Right, I "got that", noticed it long ago and also that more recent reports on "functional" DNA don't really use that term "constrained" or "restrained" but instead words like "influenced" meaning somewhere in-between "constrained" and "unconstrained".
So, how "influenced" is "influenced"?
How much does evolution seriously weed out such mutations and how much does it allow them to multiply without restrictions?
My guess is there's a sliding scale ranging from "totally restrained" to "minimally restrained", and that "minimally restrained" is the vast, vast majority meaning the word "junk" while inelegant might not be so terribly inaccurate.
But regardless, none of this serves as an argument against evolution.
>>Kalamata: “Collins plainly states that most of the genome is functional, Joey. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the terminology. In evolutionary language, the word “neutral” means unconstrained, or evolvable; the word “functional” means constrained, or not evolvable. More than once I posted a quote that explains the terms, but perhaps it was insufficient. Here it is again:... [quotes]” Of course, that is from an old dictionary.”
>>Joey: “Right, I “got that”, noticed it long ago and also that more recent reports on “functional” DNA don’t really use that term “constrained” or “restrained” but instead words like “influenced” meaning somewhere in-between “constrained” and “unconstrained”. So, how “influenced” is “influenced”?
If it can be influenced, it cannot evolve, Joey. If it can be influenced, it has function.
**************
>>Joey: “How much does evolution seriously weed out such mutations and how much does it allow them to multiply without restrictions?
There is no research that I am aware that mentions “multipy without restrictions.” Do you have a source?
**************
>>Joey: “My guess is there’s a sliding scale ranging from “totally restrained” to “minimally restrained”, and that “minimally restrained” is the vast, vast majority meaning the word “junk” while inelegant might not be so terribly inaccurate.”
There is no Junk DNA, Joey. That was a myth invented by a desperate establishment.
**************
>>Joey: “But regardless, none of this serves as an argument against evolution.”
All of it does, Joey. Evolution is little more than rhetoric.
Mr. Kalamata