We will have to read the specific quotes or predictions. My understanding is that the claims were not absolutes, that is everything will have function but there will be considerable function in the non coding regions. That does not mean that every single nucleotide will be part of some functional process. Though it may be.

But take my word for it, junk DNA having function is not an essential part of ID. At least that is my impression and I have been reading about it for over 10 years. Some people jumped on the the ENCODE project that showed a large amount of the junk DNA was transcribed. I do not think ID would have any problem with the wikipedia discussion of junk DNA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

You seem to be looking for absolutes. I am not aware of any.

Junk DNA is not an essential thing to ID.

If you say so. But according to this website’s section “Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design”, which I assume is meant to be widely accepted:

As just one example of a successful ID-based prediction:

Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

I don’t see how on one hand predictions of functionality are important to ID but at the same time non-functionality is unimportant to ID.

Note that the functionality of “junk” is, in fact, one of only two ID predictions listed in the “Frequently raised but weak…” page.

Junk DNA is not an essential thing to ID. Some here are very tied to the DNA in a human being mostly functional. However, it is not essential to ID that it is. It would be interesting to know what % of human DNA is functional but the absolute or percentage amount is not tied to ID being true or not. That you keep on bringing it up is indicative that you do not understand ID.

“For the nth time, being aware of something is not an argument.”

Being aware of something is indicative that we have thought about it. Do you think you are the first one to point out these things.

———-
I have written several long comments about what ID is about. Here are four of them:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-326046

There are three consecutive comments in the previous post.

What ID is interested in.

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-299358

Here is a comment about why ID science is no different that regular science.

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-304029

Here is a comment that every ID debater should make when he debates ID.

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-296129

I am not sure if everyone here agrees with them but I believe that anyone who publishes on ID agrees with them. At least I have not seen anything in writing they have written that disagree with them.

Reference please.

Well, if you go to the FAQ on this website, which I assume is sanctioned by the more scientific of the lot here, the writers claim that:

“But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations”
and
“Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations.”.

Ya see ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution.

Design is a natural process.

Perhaps I should have said naturalistic processes. I assume you are not dismissing a supernatural designer…

And we are well aware of the C value paradox so your continued allusion to Allium is puzzling and irrelevant at best unless I missed something which is always possible.

For the nth time, being aware of something is not an argument.

I am not making a standard point regarding the c-value paradox i.e. this amoeba has more DNA than a human etc etc.

The point is that between very similar species within a genus, there can be substantial variation in the amount of DNA – in the case of Allium one species has 4.5 times the amount of DNA.

While disparate comparisons (e.g. protist to human, plant to human) can be waved away by saying we don’t know what the non-coding DNA does, it is pretty hard to do the same with closely related, superficially differentiated species within a single genus. There is no plausible reason why one species needs 450% of the DNA of its congener to do just the same things.

This is strong evidence for the junk DNA hypothesis – again something that ID claims does not exist.

ID claims that natural processes cannot produce a new functional enzyme.

Reference please.

Ya see ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution.

Design is a natural process.

Incidentally, you have provided no evidence actually supporting the ID proposition.

I offer just a glimpse of support for ID (including a testable hypothesis):

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued

The Design Inference in Peer-Review

The path from microbes to man requires massive changes and would leave a trail, millions of trails if it happened gradually. I said here and said many times that if naturalistic evolution is true for all evolution, it will have to leave trails. Apparently all the trails were lost, most before the Cambrian. So you ask what would convince me, lots of obvious trails. Some like the material subducted under the continents will disappear for ever. But many, many will remain and be obvious if they happened.

I have already laid out twice why the Allium genome is interesting. It’s pretty straightforward, and not related to their being plants.

If you don’t want to dicuss that – it doesn’t appear you’ve so much as read it – I think we’re pretty much done here.

Incidentally, you have provided no evidence actually supporting the ID proposition. You’ve only nitpicked areas you perceive to be lacking in naturalistic evolution, without even being able to provide an unambiguous picture of what one would expect if naturalistic evolution were true. This despite my stated aim to have a debate that considered the balance of evidence.

I have already said that I am going to keep my discussions to animals. I haven’t a clue about Allium genomes. Why don’t you lay out what this genome entails and why you are impressed by it and maybe someone will discuss it with you. But I do not plan to.

If you want to discuss microbes, go ahead and we can see what you think is impressive about the changes you point out.