In 2009, University of Chicago geneticist Jerry A. Coyne compared predictions based on intelligent design with those based on Darwinian evolution. “If organisms were built from scratch by a designer,” he argued, they would not have imperfections.
“Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; inf fact, it’s precisely what we expect from evolution.” According to Coyne, “when a trait is no longer used or becomes reduced, the genes that make it don’t instantly disappear from the genome: Evolution strops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but re no longer intact or expressed. In other words, there should be vestigial genes.”
[ … ]
According to Coyne, “the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled – amply. Virtually ever species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives. This implies that some of those genes were also active in a common ancestor, and were killed off in some descendants but not in others. Out of about thirty thousand genes, for example, we humans carry more than two thousand pseudogenes. Our genome, – and that of other species – are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes.”
Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne here explicitly says that Darwinism beats design because so much DNA is junk. Does that mean that if most of it is not junk … oh, surely it can’t mean that!
Predictions based on Darwinism can’t be wrong; we simply haven’t read our Darwin correctly.
Sources note how Coyne phrases his argument to imply that the finding of any pseudogenes at all would vindicate Darwinism. Of course it wouldn’t, because in any designed system, some parts will not currently have a function.
In any event, that’s not what he says. He says there are lots of pseudogenes and that situation amply proves Darwinism. Which should mean logically that few pseudogenes diminish support for Darwin. Oh wait, Darwinism is beyond discussion now.
Also: “Who believed in the myth of junk DNA? Michael Shermer for one.”