[gore3000]

Junk DNA has nothing to do with the validity of evolution; you simply grab onto something that sounds good and run with it.

The assumptions of evolution have indeed been proven to be false numerous times. At first they assumed that abiogenesis was possible, but when Pasteur's proof that life did not come from mud, dirt etc. had gained scientific recognition Huxley wrote it off from the theory of evolution. This is perhaps the first important example of evolution being 'modified' because an important assumption of it had been proven false. Next came Mendel's genetics which totally disproved the 'how' of Darwinian evolution by showing that traits did not meld. This set a very big problem for Darwinism which was not really resolved favorably for it because the only way to continue with the theory of descent after that was to admit that new functions were very unlikely to spread throughout a sizable population. This of course they hid from the public by continuing to insist that natural selection would overcome this. The next big problem for evolution was DNA. Clearly with such a complex thing as a gene it would be very hard to gradually change it to a new function. So they proposed the neutral theory of mutation whereby natural selection was thrown out and 'neutral drift' was proposed as the way new species gradually came about. This explanation came into question due to the Cambrian explosion where clearly there were no lines of possible descent in such a short time for the numerous animal phyla which suddenly arose. This led Gould and Eldredge to propose punctuated equilibrium as the answer to the problem as well as to the problem that in all the important places intermediate species could not be found. So that got rid of both gradual evolution and neutral drift.

With all these problems, the 'proofs' of evolution were quickly vanishing and evolutionists needed to find something, anything to present to the public as proof for their theory. They tried to give proof by using DNA to show descent. One choice was using mitochondrial DNA to show the relationships between species were as evolutionists had predicted. Problem was that mtDNA did not show that species had arisen the way evolution predicted. The most flagrant case was that the egg bearing platypus was placed closer in descent to regular mammals than the kangaroo. So there went another assumption and another 'proof' of evolution. Next when it became clear that the largest percentage of DNA (in 95%) did not code for genes, the evolutionists ASSUMED that this was the remnants of previous species still in the genes of the species that succeeded them (an attempt at reviving the 'proof' that species develop their embryos in the way that they had evolved - which was proven to be a FRAUD). Problem with that is as I said that those non-coding for gene regions have proven to be even more important than the genes themselves!

So you see evolution has been disproven numerous times that is why it (like that metal guy in Terminator II) has to keep 'reinventing itself' and putting itself back together. It is for this reason that evolutionists are unwilling to state what exactly the theory of evolution is nowadays. They want to be able to pick and choose the different explanations (including the discredited ones) to explain away a particular problem being discussed.

Aside from the above direct disproofs of evolution, the materialist base on which evolution relies has been disproven also. A good example is the problem of symbolism which Alamo-Girl is discussing. Such symbolism requires an intelligent designer to make it work. So yes, evolution has been refuted, what is left is to dump it in the garbage heap of history where it belongs.

[Junior]

You set junk DNA up to be the breaking point of evolution -- biologists didn't. You're contentions about Pasteur have been shown to be invalid (he simply proved that microbes did not spontaneously generate, not that life from non-life is impossible -- there is a difference, but you're too narrow-minded to actually see it). All your points above fall into "this is what I claim evolution says, and I can therefore prove it's wrong." It's a whole lot easier to take down strawmen than it is to actually tackle the science involved. Of course, this has been shown to you time and again on these threads for the past two years and you still soldier on, immune to reality. You are not the end-all and be all of science -- hell, from your postings it's obvious you've never taken a college-level science course in your life and most of your science comes from Jack Chick pamphlets, otherwise you'd not use terms like "I proved" all the time. Your theology is as narrow as your understanding of science. You insult people who do not agree with you (calling them liars when they obviously haven't uttered a lie). You are a child, and little boy, if you don't start showing that you are actually learning something from these threads (i.e., you don't keep coming back with the same arguments shot down three threads ago) and treating people with some civility (take a page from Alamo-Girl -- I don't agree with thing one she's said, but she's civil about it and we treat her the same way) you are back on my virtual ignore list.

Note please, lurkers, I will not respond to him not because his arguments hold any validity -- they don't and haven't for centuries. I won't respond to him because he is a mentally-limited, thoroughly brutish holy warrior with whom actual conversations are impossible.