Quote:

Yes, the content of junk DNA is probably not random. Even if junk DNA has no function in a certain species, it could have had once a function in some predecessor species it evolved from.



The main problem for evolutionists with 'junk' DNA is that it has been shown to have many purposes.

-Maintenance of the genome structure
-'hidden' genetic variety :: allow different proteins to be made from the same mRNA (along the lines of viral and anti-biotic diversity)
-regulate the speed of translation
-apparently prevent cancer and other diseased (mutations in junk dna caused these problems)

Quote:

Koop and Hood found that the DNA of the T cell receptor complex, a crucial immune system protein, is 71% identical between humans and mice over a stretch of 98-kb of DNA. This was an unexpected finding, as only 6% of the region encodes protein, while the rest consists of introns and non-coding regions around the gene. Does it follow then that we have a recent common ancestor with mice? Since this does not fit in with evolutionary theory, the authors conclude instead that the region must have specific functions that place constraints on the fixation of mutations.



It goes on and on and on, but I don't really have the time, nor do I care right now.

Quote:

Junk DNA is considered a powerful evidence of evolution because many junk parts are identical in different species. They don't code anything, but they indicate the grade of evolutionary relationship between species.



Its great that evolutionists are willing to subject themselves to ignorance, as long as that ignorance is within the 'happy-bounds' of their theory. But like I said, we're finding more and more evidence that non-coding DNA is entirely with purpose. I'm sorry if that makes your gut tighten up, and challenges your long-held beliefs, but you're wrong about this.

Give discovery time.

Quote:

BTW, "panspermia" has earned some place in science fiction stories, but is not a part of evolution theory. Just in case you didn't know.



I know they're seperate camps. That's what makes it so great. Both theories are going to tear each other apart, and in the rubble, anyone who hasn't already put a shield over their eyes will see the inadequacies of both.

Quote:

I wonder how creationists explain the remains found of other humanoids, or hominids, dated as long as three million years ago.



I don't really concern myself with reproductions made from three teeth, and part of a leg bone.

Quote:

I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.



I shed a single tear for ignorance.

Quote:

Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that?



Humanoid and human don't always go hand in hand.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."