Replies

Evolution called a lot of DNA "junk DNA". Had scientists listened to them, they might have quit investigating.

so who exactly are "evolution" as opposed to "scientists".

|Do you have any idea what percentage of "junk" DNA has a known function?

And which creation scientists are at work decoding the function of the rest Name some of them.

I don't believe that we have only been on Earth 2-3000 years but 4,000,000? Did the guy have an expired dry cleaning receipt in his pocket? Where are the signs that this guy or anybody else existed? Its a little suspicious that we have managed to evolve society so far in the past couple thousand years while we did virtually nothing for nearly 4,000,000? And physically we are virtually unchanged in the past couple thousand years but we were freaking fish only 10,000,000 years ago? Something about all this smells.

I think I prefer the theory that aliens dropped us here a few thousand years ago to avoid shipping charges on the way to another universe. As soon as they get the tariffs reduced, they will come back and pick us up.

"Do you have any idea what percentage of "junk" DNA has a known function?"

My guess is that 100% of it has a known function. It's just not known by human science. But no, I don't know, but I know that scientists keep finding more of it has a function than earlier believed.

And which creation scientists are at work decoding the function of the rest Name some of them.

There's a whole list of creation scientists including several biologists at the ICR website. However, most scientists that believe in creation don't advertise it because of the anti-creation bias and the militant evolutionists.

In fact, I wouldn't tell you of any that weren't openly publishing it, because of the militant attitude of the evolutionists. There are people who make it their life's work to harrass the employers of creationists in science disciplines.

"And which creation scientists are at work decoding the function of the rest? Name some of them."

Listen. You can't get grant money unless you are an evolutionary suck-up. It's like saying "Buddhists can't sing because none of them are in the Baptist Church choir.

Besides, I have a cousin who heads biology research in a very major eastern university and does not believe in "Evolution*." He's somewhat shy about speaking out publicly (though his name has been linked in a few places), because then he would be in violation of the Evolutionary Suck-Up Rule for Tax-Funded Grants (the controlling ESURT-FG) and he and some of his cohorts would find themselves unfunded which means they'd have to work in a pharmaceutical factory or sell furniture.

* "Evolution," which has many, often contradictory definitions, in this case is capitalized to distinguish it as the concept that all living things descend from a common ancestral life form through the processes of genetic variation and natural selection via "survival of the fittest."