Summations Only

To be more accurate, evolutionists have known that some parts of non-coding DNA have a function for a long time. And we can find these through an understanding of evolution. ID has just been dogmatically declaring that all DNA has a function, and refusing to accept the evidence that a lot of it doesn't (the huge variations in the length of DNA, that don't seem to correlate with anything else, for one - see "the onion test" for an example).

quote:

---

that's the problem. ID's , using the biblical concept of creation ~6000 years ago, assumed that most of the genome was created like that.

---

Most IDists are Old Earth Creationists, so they wouldn't assume a creation 6000 years ago.

quote:

---

So when the term "junk DNA" was introduced 40 years ago, the predictive quality of the ID assumption is that these areas of the genome would be found to be useful. And they (I say that because I have only recently become involved) were right.

---

Well no. They predicted that ALL of it would be useful. Some evolutionists ALSO felt that all or almost all of the genome would be useful, because of the cost of useless DNA. And on the evidence in most species a very large proportion does NOT seem to have any use. So it is WAY too soon to say that the IDists were right, and in fact it is far more likely that they were badly wrong.

quote:

---

Without looking at the alternative ID explanations for anything seen in the genome, the entire science of molecular biology is being unnecessarily slowed down and it is very frustrating to observe.

---

WHAT "alternative ID explanations" are being ignored ? Isn't the ID movement just claiming that it's all useful ? Despite the evidence ? How is molecular biology being held up by looking at the most promising areas for function instead of just assuming that it all has a function because the IDists say so ?

quote:

---

True science should now interpret each genome sequenced under both ID and evolutionist assumptions and see which one fits reality of current observed genomes better. There just are not enough scientists who take ID as a serious possibility this is why the evidence is slow to establish.

---

The reason why ID is not taken seriously is because the evidence is against it. That's true science for you.

quote:

---

Do we have to wait another 40 years before science discovers that genetic entropy is more observed than evolution? With evolutionists kicking against it every step of the way? (rhetorical question)

---

I hope that the day when ID is established as a tyrannical dogma well never happen.Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote.

quote:

---

ID with a recent creation would predict:

---

I nite that your predictions are mainly based on a "recent creation", and since most of the leaders of the ID movement seem to reject that it seems more than a little misleading to say "ID predicts" when ID isn't even committed to the most important assumption underlying your predictions.

quote:

---

1) ID predicts that there will be more extinctions than new species. (a reducing number of species over time).

---

That may be what is happening now, although the obvious effects of humanity - such as habitat loss - make it questionable how far it can be extrapolated into the past.Moreover, the fossil record does not support it in anyway, indeed without the assumption of a Young Earth is would seem completely untenable.

quote:

---

2) Genomes will show fixity with no increasing length of functional DNA except when damaging. (devolution)

---

This seems to be false due to gene duplication and polyploidy alone.

quote:

---

3) Most so-called mutations will be found to have always been in the genome.

---

This appears to be false, and arguably contradicts your Flood beliefs. It would require a maximum of 14 alleles in any species. Bacterial experiments also show antibiotic resistance being acquired by mutation,

quote:

---

4) Many ancient fossils will be found to also have signs of recent life (DNA survives, carbon dated, found in human habitats)

---

Seems to be false.

quote:

---

5) there will be an increasing number of modern animals found fossilized in ancient layers.

---

Seems to be false.

quote:

---

6) devolution will become the more observed process, the ability of disabled genes and deletions to contribute towards fitness.(this last point is not common to all ID's but those who believe in ID followed by devolution.)

---

Seems to be false. For instance, while the acquisition of antibiotic resistance often incurs a loss of fitness in other respectis it seems to be common for further mutations to recover at least some of that fitness while retaining the resistance.It's really not looking good for ID

quote:

---

If the Y chromosome had been collecting mutations for millions of years, you would have literally millions of SNP's since the Y chromosome evolved, but we only observe thousands.

---

Well, no. You can only measure the number of mutations since the "Y-chromosome Adam", (who, in your view would probably be Noah, since in the Flood story the only male survivors are Noah and his sons). That isn't millions of years even in the mainstream scientific view.And if mutations are really, really rare as you claim it seems a bit unlikely that thousands have accumulated in only about 5000 years in a small area of the genome...

quote:

---

Now to apply this to evolution, you don't go back just to when man was seperately defined from the common ancestor with the ape. This common ancestor had the y-chromosome too. There is no mechanism that would have cleaned up the male Y chromosome just before the first human evolved.

---

Obviously you don't understand what is being measured here. From a study involving only human Y-chromosomes we can only see variations introduced to the chromosome since the "Y-chromosome Adam", since all human Y-chromosomes are descended from his. There's no need for any "cleaning up". The only way to detect mutations is to look for differences, and so long as you only look at the human Y-chromosome you can only detect differences that got into the genome since the Y-chromosome Adam. According to Wikipedia, that gives us 142,000 years on the best estimates. Or, as I have said, in your view about 5,000 years.Oh, and by the way, transitional fossills are not just assumptions, they are real, physical objects. As Kurt Wise admitted, even if many other creationists would rather deny reality, rather than accept the truth.