Quote:
Originally Posted by leewong
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"I asked who the conservative historians she quoted were."
And I said I was done spoon feeding you answers that you can easily google yourself.
"but I have answered at least most of them."
I will refer you back to this post which you still have not responded to:
http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...postcount=1781
Also, show me a post where you actually answered a question of mine. You are going to be digging a long time to find it. |
Junk DNA is a term that was used by scientists who were content with ascribing uselessness to a large portion of the code found in DNA. Why is this significant? Well as Dembski put it:"Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA."
Can't be a lot more self explanatory than that.
As to your comment on mutations, what am I supposed to answer? You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it.