dhw: If junk DNA is not junk, how does that prove evolution is a failed paradigm? > DAVID: The argument is more complex than that. Junk has been used to say that natural selection discarded stuff throughout purposeless chance evoluton. > > dhw: I thought the atheist point was that so-called junk DNA (i.e. those existing elements of DNA that are of no use) proved that life was not the product of design, since a designer would not create anything useless (or at least an "omnipotent, all-wise Creator" wouldn't). If now it's proved that some is junk and some isn't, both sides can claim partial support;-You are still missing a major point. Years ago more than 90% of DNA was thought to be junk. Now many scientists support the idea that up to 80% is not junk. As research into DNA becomes more and more refined it seems that junk disappears and more and more DNA appears purposeful. If recognized junk becomes only a tiny percentage of DNA where does the atheist argument devolve to?