On Uncommon Descent, defender of ID against creationist nonsense, Davescot makes the following comment about a posting by Paul Nelson about the fascinating complexity of the genome:
I still fail to see how ID predicts no junk DNA. Random mutation definitely happens and if itâs good at *anything* itâs good at producing unorganized, non-functional crappola. It can produce crap out of nothing and itâs even better at making crap out of stuff that wasnât crap to begin with.
Of course, Davescot has failed to follow the ID game play which includes the fallacious argument that ID predicted Junk DNA to have function. A poster name BFast is quick to remind DaveScot of his technical foul.
Bottom line, significant IDers have said for a long time âthereâs value in that junkâ and the darwinists have said the opposite, that âthere cannot be value in that junk because there would be too many mutations per generation to be managed by RM+NS.â
The IDers said it, it proved to be true, itâs a confirmed prediction.
BFast is Right, Wrong and Wrong. Not too shabby for an ID defender.
Right in that ID proponents have argued that based on theistic considerations, Junk DNA could not possibly be junk. He is wrong that this is a prediction of ID which cannot state more than âdesign is that which we do not fully understandâ and he is wrong as to how Darwinists have seen Junk DNA.
And the myth continuesâ¦
Which shows once again that despite the valiant efforts of DaveScot, ID is still scientifically vacuous.