You are making a mistake. You can not argue with a religious person. Religion is a mental illness. The religious deal with anxiety by believing in a giant all powerful father in the sky who protects them. They obsess over behaviors like having to wear special hats, or say certain words in order to appease this ever-watchful disciplinarian. That is simply a cross between OCD, delusion and paranoia. For example try defining delusion, now try and distinguish between that and the belief in God.
@zazen108 The biggest mistake of all is to be complacent and allow the religious leaders to continue to bilk their followers out of money or even their life savings for a promise that will never happen after they die for the exaggeration that the religious fundamentalist is insane, because they'll just go away. The rational explanation is a cognitive dissonance. They compartmentalize their irrational beliefs when they decide to be skeptical about other topics. Confront them where it counts!
@jessydaytime Confront them with their own scripture. Confront them with their own games. They run like hell, but don't let them. Make them turn around and keep going with it. Expose them. Show how circular their arguments are for the silent reader who can finally see the lying liars that lie. For these fundamentalist fanatics are the best representatives for atheism we've got. They make fence sitters steer clear of religion.
ANYONE: Whenever I meet someone who talks about a subject that is way over my head, I'm going to post an ANYONE post claiming that I'm being insulted but in reality I'm bailing out, because I can't argue about something I know nothing about. Signed... Lorica.
ANYONE: If you see 0 replies to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like virulent personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, sometimes flat out lying & sometimes worse. Some of them follow me & other around YT with such tactics, guard dogging evo vids. If you feel they make a valid point & wish to restate it I will be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
*Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
@fashklash How does "debunking" the irreducible complexity of the human blood clotting relate to puffer fish & dolphins? Some people are falling hook, line & sinker for those kinds of arguments just the same.
@LoricaLady They have illustrative value but they certainly don't make the spurious claim of "proving" or "disproving" anything in and of themselves. Not any more than drawing a picture of someone staring down from the top of the Eiffel tower with a horrified look on their face proves the person represented in the drawing is scared of heights. All this video does is make skeptics of naturalistic stochastic explanations more skeptical.
@Genomiques I did see that on the net. I am not going to take the time to research it right now. If it was in error, so what? As I said, of course we see inward similarities between chimps & people & of course there will be some similarities inwardly also. Again, Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, i.e. "simiilarities" are not evidence of descent, especially when the logical fallacy of Incomplete Comparison is also being used via ignoring the thousands of genetic differences...
@Genomiques We both can look up the definition on Wiki. I know what it means and it means the same thing to you as it does to me. You believe that the inference for I.D. is sound to follow and I believe that it is not, because it is nothing more than an observation without any credible evidence to support it.
Well, I'm talking about biological intelligent design, then, 'cause according to Wiki's definition it also states that certain features of the universe are also better explained by intelligence. Instead, I'm arguing for biological design, the non-living universe aside. The front-loading hypothesis is an ID hypothesis in that teleology (goal-oriented mechanisms) is involved. It's testable, too.
@Genomiques ""certain features of the universe and of living things..." - Wiki.
I I read your posts and am very familiar with what you are arguing about. You are using the "teleological argument" and the fact that I studied this argument, I can understand why it has such a strong grip on your thinking.
Wrong. I'm not using the "teleological argument" in any way whatsoever. From Wiki:
"A teleological or design argument is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe."
That's not my use of the term "teleology." By teleology I simply mean goal-oriented, purposeful mechanisms, having nothing to do with gods or deities. Nor am I arguing for ID on the grounds of appearance of design.
Then you should realize that nothing in my hypothesis is there anything relating to deities. Further, your use of the term "teleological argument" does raise suspicions in my mind that you think I'm using the teleological argument (that is, appealing to the appearance of design), when I am not.
"You believe that the inference for ID is sound to follow..."
Not exactly. Simply because there's no evolutionary explanation for a given biological features doesn't mean it's the product of intelligent, let alone direct intelligent intervention. We need positive evidence to strengthen that claim, otherwise it's just attacking gaps in our knowledge.
@Genomiques My understanding is that you are an I.D. proponent. Your reasons must be, because you think there is something sound in your mind to go after it as one explanation.
"My understanding is that you are an ID proponent."
I am a proponent of the view that teleology, that is, goal-oriented, purposeful mechanisms have played a role in the history of life on earth. ID would seem to fit that definition, so yes, under that definition, I am an ID proponent - insofar as biological organisms go. I.e., I'm not taking any position on the universe as a whole.
@Genomiques "It is testable, too." I disagree and can demonstrate this, but first, I must state at the outset that I am not trying to argue against the existence of any god, nor that belief in a god is somehow irrational. No one truly knows if a god or a designer exists or not. That is not the point here. All we are concerned with is the question, "should Intelligent Design be included in science?" And I say NO and can explain it rationally and politely.
"I must state at the outset that I am not trying to argue against the existence of any god..."
I am curious what ever gave you the idea that I believe in gods. Teleology, in its standard philosophical context, does NOT entail the supernatural. I am not using the teleological argument for the existence of gods in any way whatsoever.
@Genomiques I only want to argue on the basis of what YOU think the teleological argument means to you. I've made it clear that the criteria is based on your criteria in order to be focused. Please don't go circular like I have this idea to entrap you or play games with you. I don't do that. I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong. Are you?
By all means. I just don't like the term "teleological argument" 'cause it comes with a lot of baggage, but here's what I'm arguing: that there are chunks of evidence in the biological world that teleology - that is purposeful, goal-oriented mechanisms - have played a role in the history of life on earth, and coupled with the front-loading hypothesis, this thesis is testable.
@Genomiques I don't see it as baggage, because it has a history and understanding the history of such an argument defines where we are at present. Yes, I know your argument well. If the Designer is not omniscient, then it is an inductive inference to use the front-loading hypothesis, by working from what is known to what is not and yes... this has to be tested! But, its not tested, it is inferred, and ignoring the fact that this hypothesis is still evolution with a different label.
I didn't say it has been tested. I said it was testable. There's a difference.
"...it is inferred..."
Inasmuch as common descent is inferred through the molecular record. FLH is evolution, but it's also ID. Darwinian evolution does not posit that intelligence was behind the course of evolution. FLH does. That's the difference, and it's quite a significant one at that.
Okay, I've stated what my position is, but, just so that we're being consistent, are you using the phrase "teleological argument" in the same way that I'm using the term teleology? I am indeed saying that there are clues in biology that there was some goal behind evolution.
@Genomiques Yes, I am using it as narrowly and as focused as you are. With the front-loading hypothesis, in order for Intelligence to foresee what the functions of various biochemical processes would be, and set them up at the beginning in order to have them become used by later organisms and then saying that evolutionary time of such non randomness is testable proof of a design is not good science, because it is still an inference.
Again, I'm not arguing that what you just said it testable proof of ID/FLH. I said that the FLH is testable, not that it has been tested. There are clues that FLH may be the correct view of evolutionary history, and there are ways we can test FLH predictions. Thus, the FLH qualifies as a scientific hypothesis because it is testable (that's not to say it has been tested).
You will note that I have NOT claimed that ID is a scientific theory, so your comment is just a bit irrelevant. I am not saying that ID or FLH is a scientific theory, because it's not. Why would I claim something is a scientific theory when it's not?
"ID advocates often claim that theirs is not a religious approach, and even more that it is not creationism."
Yes, I am quite certain that you can prove that many ID proponents are religiously motivated and hold creationists belief. But that's not relevant to our own discussion unless you're asserting that that specific charge applies to me, specifically. Also, the FLH is an extension of Crick and Orgel's directed panspermia, so how can it be creationist? o.o
@Genomiques "Crick and Orgel" - We agree that the history of I.D. is important to understand why it surfaces as a topic to this day. However ID Design must be done by something so close to a god that there is no real difference. Hence, claims of not being religious are at best misleading.
"However ID Design must be done by something so close to a god..."
Indeed? Whatever gave you that idea? In their peer-reviewed paper, Crick and Orgel conclude that an intelligent civilization need not be significantly more advanced than ours to carry out directed panspermia. Front-loading, of course, is more than just directed panspermia, but no super-high-tech intelligence is needed. We're coming close to the day when we can do it, ourselves.
@Genomiques you labeled it data. The cosmological soup from exploding stars has and is being studied with evidence and so far, everything we unravel and discover is a natural process with no need to infer an intelligence that guided it. Again, whether an alien or a human duplicates life in a lab, it does not prove a designer.
@Genomiques There is no evidence to support Intelligent Design. The front loading hypothesis is bad science and I've illustrated why. It is based on inferences and predictions based on inferences with no supporting evidence. That is the truth.
"The front-loading hypothesis is bad science...it is based on inferences and predictions based on inferences with no supporting evidence..."
Do you even know what the front-loading hypothesis is? You're *assuming* that the front-loading hypothesis hasn't got a scrap of support evidence, when it does in fact. It does NOT make predictions based on inferences anymore than Darwinian theory does.
@Genomiques The bottom line, is that when you read the front loading hypothesis, it is merely saying that a designer could foresee what the functions of various biochemical processes would be, and set them up at the beginning in order to have them become used by later organisms. Anyone can read between the lines and see this to be so.
"...it is merely saying that a designer could foresee what the functions..."
Nope, that's a strawman of front-loading. The front-loading hypothesis proposes that life was seeded with life forms that contained the necessary genomic information to shape and constrain future evolution. It is "using evolution to carry out design objectives." It's "stacking the deck" such that it'd be very probable for certain biotic features to arise.
@Genomiques Seeded is another label to slap over foreseen. It means the same thing and we are talking about the same thing. It is still a claim and inferring a designer with no evidence to support it.
Indeed? Then please explain why all life forms primarily use mid-information proteins (that is, proteins that are not extremely constrained in sequence identity, nor proteins that are loosely constrained), exactly what we would expect from the front-loading hypothesis? I mean, c'mon, I hope you do know what front-loading is?
@Genomiques Why life uses specific proteins out of all possible combinations does not lead me to believe that there is a force behind it or an Intelligence that seeded it. The best way to explain it is to test the hypothesis and if the hypothesis cannot be tested, then it must be abandoned for a hypothesis that can be tested.
And front-loading can be tested. BTW, your answer to my evidence from protein sequence conservation really doesn't answer my specific line of inquiry (although, I completely understand that we're delving into some pretty heavy mol bio stuff, so I understand if you're not quite following me).
@Genomiques Protein sequence conservation is a result of billions of years of probabilities that appear to only spring forth that which requires less effort for duplication. In other words, conservation of energy for the fastest out-come. So many hypothesis, so many to be tested. But, intelligence? Not necessary.
c. That the first cells on earth were far more complex than envisioned by the non-telic hypotheses, as they contained the necessary genomic information to shape subsequent evolution.
d. Cytosine deamination has played an important role in the origin of metazoan genes.
@Genomiques c. and d. are still questions to add to the hypothesis of Intelligent Design that have not been supported by evidence, thus it is a waist of time to infer Intelligence. It can remain a hypothesis, but to teach it as truth is not good science.
I'm not saying front-loading is true. I'm saying it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis. From the look of things, you don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to what front-loading is. Seeded means the same thing as "foreseen"? O.O
@Genomiques The analogy of foreseen as to seeded as creation is to intelligent design. I'm saying that seeded is a claim based on a observation based on no evidence.
Have you read Crick and Orgel's paper? Have you considered that perhaps, there IS evidence for the hypothesis that life came from outer space? Curiously enough, very soon after a massive meteorite bombardment on our planet billions of years ago, life as we know it arose. Just what we would expect if panspermia is correct.
@Genomiques Doing it ourselves does not prove a designer. It just means we cracked the code on natural processes to duplicate our own out of the chemicals that have existed in the model of our cosmos.
You do, I suppose, realize that that was not the POINT of my comment that we will soon be able to do it ourselves? You objected that FLH is basically inherently religious because in the end we're dealing with an intelligence that is almost supernatural. My comment was a response to that charge.
@Genomiques I guess I wasn't clear. I'm arguing that ID/FLH is not proven necessary, should not be included in the educaion system, and distracts one from using the scientific method to explain biological processes.
The question of a hypothesis's necessity is different from its utility and ability to produce accurate biological predictions. I agree that ID should not be included in our education until it reaches the status of scientific theory. Further, where does the FLH NOT use the scientific method?
@Genomiques FLH is still a hypothesis and is inferring an intelligent design. That is not good science. Evolution by natural selection WAS a hypothesis and has been falsified and tested to accurately explain the data which make accurate predictions that have come true and this why evolutionary theory explains all the data and phenomenon we have so far observed.
@Genomiques I call it evolution with a different label slapped onto it. By inferring a designer with the front-loading hypothesis, you then have to keep going with many designers and where does it end? The the combinatorial complexity is huge. Life can "appear" to have Intelligent Design, but it does not make it so.
"By inferring a designer with the front-loading hypothesis, you then have to keep going with many designers and where does it end."
Nope. Crick and Orgel answer this objection in their paper "Directed Panspermia," Icarus, 1973. Why don't you take a look at their response to this argument? (They answer this argument in the introduction to their paper, for the record)
And so is the origin of life on our planet still speculation. Nevertheless, the cool thing about front-loading is that it does offer testable predictions, and if such predictions were largely confirmed, that would strengthen the hypothesis.
@Genomiques The origin of all life. Abiogenenes is being unraveled and we are getting close to explaining this natural process with evolution. Not I.D.
"Again, whether an alien or human duplicates life in a lab..."
Similarly, showing how life could arise without the input of intelligence doesn't mean that's how it arose. But we might just be going off on a tangent. The fact remains that the front-loading hypothesis is testable, so it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis.
@Genomiques You and I both agree that the front loading hypothesis has not been tested and the reason why it has not been tested is because it is not testable. It is based on inferring Intelligence by stating that it was designed by observation. it is a projection of the mind seeing something that simply is not there. Seeing data that came together by a directed force before it came to be. It is not good science.
Well, actually, here are some testable predictions of the FLH:
a. Important genes in metazoan life forms will share deep homology with genes in prokaryotes, but furthermore, these prokaryotic homologs will be well conserved in sequence identity, more so than the average prokaryotic protein.
b. The genetic code, its transcription, translation, and proof-reading machinery were simultaneously present at the dawn of life.
@Genomiques Those are not tests. They are claims. Those two points are saying that in order to front load, it was foreseen by Intelligence. This intelligence had to do this not only for a small volume of chemicals, but over the surface of the earth for 3.5 billion years. If that isn't an omniscient supernatural being we're talking about, then I'm an alien. These are NOT tested they are claims from what the person is observing with no evidence to back it up.
You really don't know what front-loading is, do you? These are not claims; these are testable predictions that logically flow from the front-loading hypothesis, just like the prediction of a molecular nested hierarchical pattern logically flows from common descent.
@Genomiques Claiming something is testable does not mean that it is valid no matter how logical it sounds. You admitted that it hasn't been tested. Why? Because, its implied that its testable. That's not good science.
Because, at the moment, I haven't got the time to make an extensive test of the front-loading predictions based on sequence analysis. However, I have made a test on a small data set of protein sequences, and the results nicely fit in with one of the predictions of front-loading. Of course, a large data set is needed to significantly strengthen the hypothesis. But the point is that it's testable, just like common descent is.
No, such a small test isn't statistically significant. It does however, highlight the possibility that I'm on to something, which is why, if we focus on a larger data set, and find that it confirms the front-loading hypothesis, then that hypothesis will be strengthened. That's when the results would be submitted for peer-review.
@Genomiques Yes. I agree on that context. I also know that its all possible that with all of the exploding stars, the result of which are seething elements of space soup in all far reaching parts of our known universe, that elements have a potential for life, whether meteorites or no meteorites, it will be revealed to be a natural process and not intelligent in design.
You KNOW that it will be revealed that teleology has not played a role in the history of life on earth? Don't you think that's just a bit pompous? BTW, your comment on protein sequence conservation has left me baffled. What on earth are you talking about? How did probabilities get into the discussion? o.O
The question of a hypothesis's necessity is different than its utility. What will you say, after all, if the front-loading predictions are confirmed? I have a strange feeling that you are overwhelmingly prejudiced against any hypothesis in biology that involves teleology, when it has in fact gone through peer-review in Crick and Orgel's paper on directed panspermia.
@Genomiques As far as protein sequence and conservation. It is based on what is successful at duplication, whether proteins bombarding our terrestrial planet through meteorites or assembling in clay or ancient ocean vents. This process took billions of years, a mere cosmic blink of an eye for what inevitably will be explained as a natural process with no intelligence necessary.
Do you know what the term "protein sequence conservation" implies? Yes or no? You're going off on a tangent. I didn't say intelligence is necessary, and nor did Crick and Orgel. However, if the front-loading hypothesis proves to be fruitful in biology, then that's a good reason to consider it scientific. It is testable, you know, and I have provided ways to test using real molecular data.
@Genomiques Yes I do. What I'm trying to say is that the laws of the universe are not deterministic and that there haven't been enough opportunities for the necessary and sufficient conditions of life to arise in this universe, given non-determinism.
@Genomiques Yes and its not fully understood. What I'm not being clear about is my view that the laws of the universe are not deterministic and there haven't been enough opportunities for the necessary and sufficient conditions of life to arise in this universe (given non-determinism).
@Genomiques We're talking about the so called "great grandparent of all living things" although we understand a lot about protein sequencing across taxa and identifying genes in bacteria that carry genes that don't seem to be in use but are used in embryonic production is still not fully understood. It can appear to be a front loading gene to those who are speculating the hypothesis of Intelligence. However, there is no reason to prefer front-loaded evolution over another mechanism.
No we're not. We're (or at least I am) talking about various degrees of protein sequence conservation across taxa. "...in bacteria that carry genes that don't seem to be in use...is still not fully understood."
Yea but what does that have anything to do with *protein sequence conservation*? O.o
@Genomiques I'll get to the point. I don’t think ID can work here as science (if in fact it can work any where as science). Using ID, then what process are we going to describe? Obviously an intervention by an intelligence by definition cannot be a natural process. That is why I think its a waist of time to sign on with “ID is science” as a realistic view.
"Using ID, then what process are we going to describe?"
Patterns of protein sequence conservation across different lineages, for one. Then there's cytosine deamination which is starting to look interesting from a teleological point of view. "Obviously an intervention by an intelligence...cannot be a natural process." Artificial selection is not a natural process, but a supernatural one?
@Genomiques I read your blog and I have no problem with you proposing a testable hypothesis on front loading, but ID has yet to be tested. Until that time, I think its a waist of time. But, good luck with it. Let me know when you have been able to have your tests go through the peer review.
You're getting a bit too broad. We're not just talking about panspermia, we're specifically talking about front-loading. Predictions aren't inferred in front-loading; rather, from the front-loading hypothesis, we can make several hypotheses, and if confirmed, this would strengthen the hypothesis.
@Genomiques ...fossil evidence going in the exact opposite direction evo says it should go in, 0 evidence the 2 so-called methods of evo - natural selection & mutations - can or ever did lead to any changes higher than speciation, etc. etc. etc. Then there is the Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "We see a similarity - ignore the thousands of differences - and only evolution can explain it!" I notice you don't dispute that there is 0 baseline, there are 0 precursors, 0 evidence cyto C...
@Genomiques ...was any different in the unobservable "ancient" ages ago. Yet they are telling you what happened back then with 0 evidence and they are telling you it IS evidence. As I said, it is pseudo science. If you are indeed a scientist (who knows on YT) that should be bothering the heck out of you. When logical fallacies waltz in the door, science flies out the window. Evo is built on logical fallacies. That should bother the heck out of you too.
@Genomiques Had a minute & checked my source. The 1 amino difference is between rhesus monkeys & people. You are right. There is no amino difference with cyto-C between people and chimps. Even evolutionists aren't saying we descended from chimps - so what is the point? Oh, I guess by magical thinking we assuuuume that our evidenceless invisible descendants' invisible descendants"mutual" ancestors somehow passed on that characteristics to us & missed the rhesus monkies? That ain't science.
The point is that you're comment that a specialist could tell the difference between our proteins and chimp proteins is false. If our sequences are identical, there's no way a specialist could tell them apart.
@Genomiques Cont. Since you acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design with the flagellum here is another part of it to ponder. (Though I think the evidence is clear that all of life is irreducibly complex, built of co dependent, interdependent parts from the cell on up.) Look at at the flagellum and its rotary motor. How & why would evo drive those 2 parts to perfection while they are incomplete and useless. What possible "co option" or dual purpose" as the evolutionists say, could..
@Genomiques ...they have for aeons while "evolving" in evo limbo? Think about the egg & sperm. Why & how would evo drive the sperm to perfection, with its flagellum, motor, liquid transport system - well the list just goes on & on - while perfecting an egg to get ready for it over useless aeons in a totally other body? When you see the "debunks" of i.d., check for those logical fallacies & all the speculation presented as evidence. They will always, be there for evo is 100% pseudo science.
@Proteus01...when someone believes that we have only been on earth for 6,000 years no evidence is going to convince them that we had time to evolve. Unless you have personally seen a fossil of a fish turned mammal overnight LoricaLady will keep saying there is no evidence for evolution. Even if evolution worked in that impossible way, LoricaLady would say "god must have done it". Some of these people are so unimaginative and insipid, they are unable to envisage that anything apart from human de
What a stupid ass analogy, take apart the mouse trap completely, put the parts on the table, and wait for evolution to put the mouse trap together.... it will not happen because eve tho you have all that you need to make the trap ,someone has to put it together ..
@Aztecabrn Lol. Good one. Not to mention that the trap holding his tie was made by high tech factories with, uh, intelligent design! Have you seen the rest of this presentation where a mangled mouse trap is shown & we are told it will still catch"really stupid mice"? Of course 0 flattened mice are ever seen. In one YT clip I even saw just the cheese & the coil being presented as capable of killing mice. So an imbecilic mouse will impale itself on the pointy end of the coil to get cheese?
@LoricaLady hahaha yup,even that little piece of wood and the spring and hammer are already been touch by intelligent design, they are not raw materials.I have not seen the full presentation of this video,but i will, i imagine is really stupid.
Cheese & coil capable of killing a mouse hahaha so the mouse is so dumb he will some how kill itself, looks like evolution is going backwards lol
@Aztecabrn Have you seen the "debunk" Miller does of Behe's ex. of intelligent design in the human blood clotting system? Now w/countless tomes of medical cases on people with problems in their b.c. system, do you suppose we are given evidence against i.c. based on huuumans? Nope. A few quick words about Behe's example & then what is flashed on the screen? Pictures of a puffer fish & a dolphn! I have seen people here on YT actually keep defending this mousetrap & use of those marine animals.
@Aztecabrn The only vids I remember referrencing - quite some time back - were the anti evo vids on my home channel. They are easy to spot IF that's what you mean.
@Genomiques..Snowflakes are not arbitrary- they are part of a natural process. Their formation is a dynamic process. Snowflakes are a particular form of water ice. Snowflakes form in clouds, which consist of water vapor. When the temperature is 32° F (0° C) or colder, water changes from its liquid form into ice. Snowflakes may encounter many different environmental conditions, sometimes melting it, sometimes causing growth, always changing its structure. However, without the natural formation
Yea, and I never said their formation is arbitrary - that would be utterly ridiculous. Why don't you read what I say, instead of assuming what I'm saying? Just saying. You spent your time replying to a claim I didn't make.
@Genomiques .. Define your description of 'intelligence'? I want to make a correction of my last point - It is not a result of imagination at all. It seems that a lack of understanding leads to a closed mind and a therefore, a dumbing down of real processes.
Oh but there is evidence for ID because the almighty elf in my shed told me we were designed. You can't prove the elf and purple unicorns are a result of my lack of knowledge and a figment of my vivid imagination, so I am right. :o)
This is no different than some ancient person saying "IWow that lightning is amazing and I have no idea how it works, so it must be flying from the tips of god's fingers."
The more we know about Biology, and Biochemistry, and etc, and etc, the more we see that it is indeed natural.
Really? That's really not true. The field of systems biology heavily relies on engineering concepts. The genomics revolution brought molecular evidence in favor of common descent; but the era of genomics also revealed that the cell displays properties of teleology beyond anything anyone would have imagined.
Tell my which non-teleological framework predicts that the genetic code will be extremely optimal without leaving any trace of the gradual origin of this optimality; or what non-telic framework predicts that the cell will contain molecular machines that have the property of rational design.
You're totally ignoring my points odinata. I'm not saying we need intelligence to explain the origin of the genetic code. I am saying that under the ID hypothesis of front-loading, we would *expect the genetic code to be optimal.* This is not *expected* under the non-teleological framework.
Under the hypothesis that the initial life forms on earth were the product of a rational nanotechnologist(s), would we not expect such cells to display rational design?
Where in the non-telic hypothesis is it predicted that rational design will be displayed?
Since partial evidence for ID consist of any proposed natural explanation failing to deliver, then something with partial evidece is a reason for invoking it (at least as a stop gap UNTIL some scientifically verifiable alternative is found - or - we meet the designer and ave ID verified that way.
Saying there's no reason to inoke ID when you don't yet have a working model, is just you being a silly-billy. That's entertaining for the readers I suppose (but you could do better! :-)
George Knorry? Please, please stop assuming. I'm not a UFOologist. I don't believe in all that paranormal pseudo-science nonsense, either. I'm not saying the intelligent is colored green or grey. The intelligence need not be biological. If life is the product of a mind or minds, we do not KNOW where in the universe they are, etc. Try to think about this logically, okay?
claiming "god dunnit", or "aliens dunnit", or "intelligence dunnit" simply because we don't know how something works is NOT reasonable.
Do you actually believe that?
SETI research is all about testing the signals from the cosmos to decide upon whether "aliens dunnit" or not. Are you really going to try and say that SETI research isn't science?
You've now realized that SETI and ID are pretty much the same thing. SETI analyses space signals. ID analyses biology.
ANYONE: If you see 0 response to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, leaving long strings of monolgue - sometimes pages & pages of it, evidently to hide dissent -, and sometimes worse. Such folk follow me & others around YT guard dogging evo vids. If you feel a valid point was made & want to restate it I will be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I debate only with the civil & objective.
"Is there any evidence that indicates that Eagles share no blood relation with ducks?"
That's not the correct question to ask to get at the heart of the issue.
A better question would be: Do the similarities between ducks and eagles allow us to accept evolutionary common descent, while simultaneously ruling out the possibility that these similarities are due to both types of creature having been designed by the same designer (or group of designers)?
Are there feasible evolutionary pathways that can be constructed from both ducks and eagles, back to some hypothetical ancestral creature, that takes advantage of the available processes within neodarwinism, while not being allowed to take advantage of any processes available to an intelligent designer that aren't available to the mindless natural processes of neodarwinism?
(Your first question assumed: similarities = common descent.)
One cannot take the simplistic view that since parents have children (ie. heredity exists), then all of life can be assumed to track back to one or a small number of single celled ancestral lifeforms. We also need to be able to find common decent mechanisms that can feasibly explain how we can make all the required transitions (and invent all of the required machinery) in the time available, given the resources available (using the appropriate evolutionary model).
For that matter, even though abiogenesis is a different field of study to evolution, if you're going to reject ID, then you're going to have to accept abiogenesis as an axiom. But is it a feasible axiom to base your later evolutionary hypothesis on? That's an additional hurdle to be jumped (which at the moment is looking to be a rather high hurdle indeed).
The point is, there's no sound basis for ruling out ID, since known mindless mechanisms aren't able to explain the data.
We can show that ducks are related to geese without invoking a designer which is undetectable and has left ZERO evidence in having dabbled in the branching of ducks and eagles from common avian ancestor.
"We can show that ducks are related to geese without invoking a designer"
Really? Because unless you actually can, then you ought to at least consider invoking a designer. A better example is the origin of whales. Using population genetics, Sternberg (that guy in "Expelled") shows it takes far too long to be able to fix even a few of the thousands of required changes that must have taken place (assuming each of these changes were fairly simple mutations (which they were not)).
If your model doesn't produce feasible results, then you can't insist that we rule out the ID alternative while a new model that will (hopefully) work is being scrabbled together.
You don't HAVE to believe in ID of course, but you certainly cannot insist that it must be ruled out either.
What would be evidence of ID? That we meet the designer and confirm results - or - that we find that natural explanations do not work.
What would be the evidence for magic purple unicorns?
Put it this way, for an idea to be considered scientific, it must be able to be falsified. Neodarwinism is scientific (because among other things, it has successfully managed to falsify itself). But is your belief about ID having to be ruled out, actually falsifiable?
Say ID is true (but the designer ain't talking!) Apart from an "interview" what might you expect would be the case? We'd expect that natural explanations (the explanations that can falsify ID) wouldn't work. No?
Yes, the fact that hawks and chickens are related is yet more falsifiable evidence, and probably the reason evolution is the foundation of modern Biology.
But remember, even though for a hypothesis to be falsifiable, means it's scientific (which we kind of imagine is a good thing - and it kind of is) we also need to remmber that if the hypothesis gets falsified, then it isn't true. It seems that many hypothesized pathways between species that seem to be related by common descent will likely turn out to have been falsified (at least in the neodarwinian framework).
Why exactly is it that we supposedly MUST rule out ID as a potential explanation? Why must we rule out ID when we have still not been able to find much in the way of feasible mindless natural alternatives to replace it with?
Are we interested in the genuine pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads? Or are we only interested in pursuing explanations involving mindless material process, but which exclude any processes involving intelligent planning and design (engineering)?
ANYONE: If you see 0 reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities & sometimes worse. Such folk follow me & others around YT, guard dogging evo vids with such tactics. If you feel a valid point has been made & wish to restate it I will be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
a. I'm not misunderstanding the argument. Miller's central argument is that the TTSS proves that flagellar proteins can carry out non-flagellar functions. I agree with this. I was simply pointing out that the TTSS isn't a precursor system to the flagellum.
b. Sorry, but I don't misunderstand Darwin and evolutionary theory et al.
@Genomiques..I haven't got much time to discuss now but I am trying to work out why you would think that I was saying the Type III Secretory System provided evidence of a precursor state?? I said it's existence proved the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
@tubewatch59???..intelligent design is not an explanation at all. All the arguments have been rejected as non scientific and there is no credible evidence for it. The idea appears to have been invented by people who do not understand science or evolution but want to believe that we are all unchanging machines in an unchanging world.
You are making a mistake. You can not argue with a religious person. Religion is a mental illness. The religious deal with anxiety by believing in a giant all powerful father in the sky who protects them. They obsess over behaviors like having to wear special hats, or say certain words in order to appease this ever-watchful disciplinarian. That is simply a cross between OCD, delusion and paranoia. For example try defining delusion, now try and distinguish between that and the belief in God.
zazen108 5 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@zazen108 The biggest mistake of all is to be complacent and allow the religious leaders to continue to bilk their followers out of money or even their life savings for a promise that will never happen after they die for the exaggeration that the religious fundamentalist is insane, because they'll just go away. The rational explanation is a cognitive dissonance. They compartmentalize their irrational beliefs when they decide to be skeptical about other topics. Confront them where it counts!
jessydaytime 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jessydaytime Confront them with their own scripture. Confront them with their own games. They run like hell, but don't let them. Make them turn around and keep going with it. Expose them. Show how circular their arguments are for the silent reader who can finally see the lying liars that lie. For these fundamentalist fanatics are the best representatives for atheism we've got. They make fence sitters steer clear of religion.
jessydaytime 4 days ago
ANYONE: Whenever I meet someone who talks about a subject that is way over my head, I'm going to post an ANYONE post claiming that I'm being insulted but in reality I'm bailing out, because I can't argue about something I know nothing about. Signed... Lorica.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
ANYONE: If you see 0 replies to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like virulent personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, sometimes flat out lying & sometimes worse. Some of them follow me & other around YT with such tactics, guard dogging evo vids. If you feel they make a valid point & wish to restate it I will be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 6 days ago
@LoricaLady
Who cares, you dried up old cunt?
odinata 6 days ago
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
*Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
truvelocity 1 week ago
@fashklash..you need to ask Dr Beatty who first used it to promote his discredited idea of 'intelligent' design.
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
Is this a joke? How does this defunct mousetrap relate to a biochemical phenomenon?
fashklash 1 week ago
@fashklash How does "debunking" the irreducible complexity of the human blood clotting relate to puffer fish & dolphins? Some people are falling hook, line & sinker for those kinds of arguments just the same.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@LoricaLady They have illustrative value but they certainly don't make the spurious claim of "proving" or "disproving" anything in and of themselves. Not any more than drawing a picture of someone staring down from the top of the Eiffel tower with a horrified look on their face proves the person represented in the drawing is scared of heights. All this video does is make skeptics of naturalistic stochastic explanations more skeptical.
fashklash 1 week ago
@LoricaLady
"There is one amino acid that is different."
Nope, there isn't. Cite your source, cause I know for a fact there's isn't an amino acid different in the cytochrome c of human and chimp.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques I did see that on the net. I am not going to take the time to research it right now. If it was in error, so what? As I said, of course we see inward similarities between chimps & people & of course there will be some similarities inwardly also. Again, Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, i.e. "simiilarities" are not evidence of descent, especially when the logical fallacy of Incomplete Comparison is also being used via ignoring the thousands of genetic differences...
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@LoricaLady False.
* Scientists focus on the genetic differences to explain why we are different.
* Every fossil found is exactly the missing links that are predicted.
* Evolution has been observed cited sources for peer review is a very long list.
* There is no evidence for our species before we existed. The evidence shows that we evolved.
* Behe admitted there is no evidence for Intelligent Design
* See Malaria, it reproduces with the sperm and egg. It evolved.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
That's more or less correct, jessydaytime, however, what do you understand intelligent design to mean, out of curiosity?
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques We both can look up the definition on Wiki. I know what it means and it means the same thing to you as it does to me. You believe that the inference for I.D. is sound to follow and I believe that it is not, because it is nothing more than an observation without any credible evidence to support it.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"We both can look up the definition on Wiki."
Well, I'm talking about biological intelligent design, then, 'cause according to Wiki's definition it also states that certain features of the universe are also better explained by intelligence. Instead, I'm arguing for biological design, the non-living universe aside. The front-loading hypothesis is an ID hypothesis in that teleology (goal-oriented mechanisms) is involved. It's testable, too.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques ""certain features of the universe and of living things..." - Wiki.
I I read your posts and am very familiar with what you are arguing about. You are using the "teleological argument" and the fact that I studied this argument, I can understand why it has such a strong grip on your thinking.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
Wrong. I'm not using the "teleological argument" in any way whatsoever. From Wiki:
"A teleological or design argument is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe."
That's not my use of the term "teleology." By teleology I simply mean goal-oriented, purposeful mechanisms, having nothing to do with gods or deities. Nor am I arguing for ID on the grounds of appearance of design.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques I am well aware of your side of the argument. I studied it beyond Wiki.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"I am well aware of your side of the argument."
Then you should realize that nothing in my hypothesis is there anything relating to deities. Further, your use of the term "teleological argument" does raise suspicions in my mind that you think I'm using the teleological argument (that is, appealing to the appearance of design), when I am not.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"You believe that the inference for ID is sound to follow..."
Not exactly. Simply because there's no evolutionary explanation for a given biological features doesn't mean it's the product of intelligent, let alone direct intelligent intervention. We need positive evidence to strengthen that claim, otherwise it's just attacking gaps in our knowledge.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques My understanding is that you are an I.D. proponent. Your reasons must be, because you think there is something sound in your mind to go after it as one explanation.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"My understanding is that you are an ID proponent."
I am a proponent of the view that teleology, that is, goal-oriented, purposeful mechanisms have played a role in the history of life on earth. ID would seem to fit that definition, so yes, under that definition, I am an ID proponent - insofar as biological organisms go. I.e., I'm not taking any position on the universe as a whole.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques "It is testable, too." I disagree and can demonstrate this, but first, I must state at the outset that I am not trying to argue against the existence of any god, nor that belief in a god is somehow irrational. No one truly knows if a god or a designer exists or not. That is not the point here. All we are concerned with is the question, "should Intelligent Design be included in science?" And I say NO and can explain it rationally and politely.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"I must state at the outset that I am not trying to argue against the existence of any god..."
I am curious what ever gave you the idea that I believe in gods. Teleology, in its standard philosophical context, does NOT entail the supernatural. I am not using the teleological argument for the existence of gods in any way whatsoever.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques Ahem. I realize that.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
Then I take it that you understand what my position exactly is?
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques Yes, and to my knowledge, the teleological argument has not advanced biological thinking at all.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
Ummmm, what do you mean by "the teleological argument"?
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques I only want to argue on the basis of what YOU think the teleological argument means to you. I've made it clear that the criteria is based on your criteria in order to be focused. Please don't go circular like I have this idea to entrap you or play games with you. I don't do that. I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong. Are you?
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"Are you?"
By all means. I just don't like the term "teleological argument" 'cause it comes with a lot of baggage, but here's what I'm arguing: that there are chunks of evidence in the biological world that teleology - that is purposeful, goal-oriented mechanisms - have played a role in the history of life on earth, and coupled with the front-loading hypothesis, this thesis is testable.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques I don't see it as baggage, because it has a history and understanding the history of such an argument defines where we are at present. Yes, I know your argument well. If the Designer is not omniscient, then it is an inductive inference to use the front-loading hypothesis, by working from what is known to what is not and yes... this has to be tested! But, its not tested, it is inferred, and ignoring the fact that this hypothesis is still evolution with a different label.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"But, it's not tested..."
I didn't say it has been tested. I said it was testable. There's a difference.
"...it is inferred..."
Inasmuch as common descent is inferred through the molecular record. FLH is evolution, but it's also ID. Darwinian evolution does not posit that intelligence was behind the course of evolution. FLH does. That's the difference, and it's quite a significant one at that.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques What I mean is, are you inferring a design or a design goal in biology? If so, it does dove tail into the teleological argument.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
Okay, I've stated what my position is, but, just so that we're being consistent, are you using the phrase "teleological argument" in the same way that I'm using the term teleology? I am indeed saying that there are clues in biology that there was some goal behind evolution.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques Yes, I am using it as narrowly and as focused as you are. With the front-loading hypothesis, in order for Intelligence to foresee what the functions of various biochemical processes would be, and set them up at the beginning in order to have them become used by later organisms and then saying that evolutionary time of such non randomness is testable proof of a design is not good science, because it is still an inference.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
Again, I'm not arguing that what you just said it testable proof of ID/FLH. I said that the FLH is testable, not that it has been tested. There are clues that FLH may be the correct view of evolutionary history, and there are ways we can test FLH predictions. Thus, the FLH qualifies as a scientific hypothesis because it is testable (that's not to say it has been tested).
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques A hypothesis does do not qualify as a scientific theory.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
You will note that I have NOT claimed that ID is a scientific theory, so your comment is just a bit irrelevant. I am not saying that ID or FLH is a scientific theory, because it's not. Why would I claim something is a scientific theory when it's not?
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques ID advocates often claim that theirs is not a religious approach, and even more that it is not creationism. But, I can prove it is.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
"ID advocates often claim that theirs is not a religious approach, and even more that it is not creationism."
Yes, I am quite certain that you can prove that many ID proponents are religiously motivated and hold creationists belief. But that's not relevant to our own discussion unless you're asserting that that specific charge applies to me, specifically. Also, the FLH is an extension of Crick and Orgel's directed panspermia, so how can it be creationist? o.o
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques "Crick and Orgel" - We agree that the history of I.D. is important to understand why it surfaces as a topic to this day. However ID Design must be done by something so close to a god that there is no real difference. Hence, claims of not being religious are at best misleading.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"However ID Design must be done by something so close to a god..."
Indeed? Whatever gave you that idea? In their peer-reviewed paper, Crick and Orgel conclude that an intelligent civilization need not be significantly more advanced than ours to carry out directed panspermia. Front-loading, of course, is more than just directed panspermia, but no super-high-tech intelligence is needed. We're coming close to the day when we can do it, ourselves.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Intelligent Design then is inferred by an unknown intelligence. This is still inferring a designer.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"This is still inferring a designer."
And why is there a problem with inferring an intelligent designer when there is not a problem with inferring common descent from molecular data?
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques you labeled it data. The cosmological soup from exploding stars has and is being studied with evidence and so far, everything we unravel and discover is a natural process with no need to infer an intelligence that guided it. Again, whether an alien or a human duplicates life in a lab, it does not prove a designer.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
Oh, so there's nothing wrong with inferring intelligent design IF there is good evidence to support that inference? True?
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques There is no evidence to support Intelligent Design. The front loading hypothesis is bad science and I've illustrated why. It is based on inferences and predictions based on inferences with no supporting evidence. That is the truth.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"The front-loading hypothesis is bad science...it is based on inferences and predictions based on inferences with no supporting evidence..."
Do you even know what the front-loading hypothesis is? You're *assuming* that the front-loading hypothesis hasn't got a scrap of support evidence, when it does in fact. It does NOT make predictions based on inferences anymore than Darwinian theory does.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques The bottom line, is that when you read the front loading hypothesis, it is merely saying that a designer could foresee what the functions of various biochemical processes would be, and set them up at the beginning in order to have them become used by later organisms. Anyone can read between the lines and see this to be so.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"...it is merely saying that a designer could foresee what the functions..."
Nope, that's a strawman of front-loading. The front-loading hypothesis proposes that life was seeded with life forms that contained the necessary genomic information to shape and constrain future evolution. It is "using evolution to carry out design objectives." It's "stacking the deck" such that it'd be very probable for certain biotic features to arise.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Seeded is another label to slap over foreseen. It means the same thing and we are talking about the same thing. It is still a claim and inferring a designer with no evidence to support it.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"..with no evidence to support it."
Indeed? Then please explain why all life forms primarily use mid-information proteins (that is, proteins that are not extremely constrained in sequence identity, nor proteins that are loosely constrained), exactly what we would expect from the front-loading hypothesis? I mean, c'mon, I hope you do know what front-loading is?
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Why life uses specific proteins out of all possible combinations does not lead me to believe that there is a force behind it or an Intelligence that seeded it. The best way to explain it is to test the hypothesis and if the hypothesis cannot be tested, then it must be abandoned for a hypothesis that can be tested.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
And front-loading can be tested. BTW, your answer to my evidence from protein sequence conservation really doesn't answer my specific line of inquiry (although, I completely understand that we're delving into some pretty heavy mol bio stuff, so I understand if you're not quite following me).
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Protein sequence conservation is a result of billions of years of probabilities that appear to only spring forth that which requires less effort for duplication. In other words, conservation of energy for the fastest out-come. So many hypothesis, so many to be tested. But, intelligence? Not necessary.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
c. That the first cells on earth were far more complex than envisioned by the non-telic hypotheses, as they contained the necessary genomic information to shape subsequent evolution.
d. Cytosine deamination has played an important role in the origin of metazoan genes.
Etc.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques c. and d. are still questions to add to the hypothesis of Intelligent Design that have not been supported by evidence, thus it is a waist of time to infer Intelligence. It can remain a hypothesis, but to teach it as truth is not good science.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
I'm not saying front-loading is true. I'm saying it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis. From the look of things, you don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to what front-loading is. Seeded means the same thing as "foreseen"? O.O
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques The analogy of foreseen as to seeded as creation is to intelligent design. I'm saying that seeded is a claim based on a observation based on no evidence.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
Have you read Crick and Orgel's paper? Have you considered that perhaps, there IS evidence for the hypothesis that life came from outer space? Curiously enough, very soon after a massive meteorite bombardment on our planet billions of years ago, life as we know it arose. Just what we would expect if panspermia is correct.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Doing it ourselves does not prove a designer. It just means we cracked the code on natural processes to duplicate our own out of the chemicals that have existed in the model of our cosmos.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"Doing it ourselves does not prove a designer."
You do, I suppose, realize that that was not the POINT of my comment that we will soon be able to do it ourselves? You objected that FLH is basically inherently religious because in the end we're dealing with an intelligence that is almost supernatural. My comment was a response to that charge.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques I guess I wasn't clear. I'm arguing that ID/FLH is not proven necessary, should not be included in the educaion system, and distracts one from using the scientific method to explain biological processes.
jessydaytime 1 week ago
@jessydaytime
The question of a hypothesis's necessity is different from its utility and ability to produce accurate biological predictions. I agree that ID should not be included in our education until it reaches the status of scientific theory. Further, where does the FLH NOT use the scientific method?
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques FLH is still a hypothesis and is inferring an intelligent design. That is not good science. Evolution by natural selection WAS a hypothesis and has been falsified and tested to accurately explain the data which make accurate predictions that have come true and this why evolutionary theory explains all the data and phenomenon we have so far observed.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"FLH is still a hypothesis."
Absolutely. From the molecular data, we infer common descent. Do you call that bad science?
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques I call it evolution with a different label slapped onto it. By inferring a designer with the front-loading hypothesis, you then have to keep going with many designers and where does it end? The the combinatorial complexity is huge. Life can "appear" to have Intelligent Design, but it does not make it so.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"By inferring a designer with the front-loading hypothesis, you then have to keep going with many designers and where does it end."
Nope. Crick and Orgel answer this objection in their paper "Directed Panspermia," Icarus, 1973. Why don't you take a look at their response to this argument? (They answer this argument in the introduction to their paper, for the record)
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Panspermia is still speculation.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"Panspermia is still speculation."
And so is the origin of life on our planet still speculation. Nevertheless, the cool thing about front-loading is that it does offer testable predictions, and if such predictions were largely confirmed, that would strengthen the hypothesis.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques The origin of all life. Abiogenenes is being unraveled and we are getting close to explaining this natural process with evolution. Not I.D.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"Again, whether an alien or human duplicates life in a lab..."
Similarly, showing how life could arise without the input of intelligence doesn't mean that's how it arose. But we might just be going off on a tangent. The fact remains that the front-loading hypothesis is testable, so it qualifies as a scientific hypothesis.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques You and I both agree that the front loading hypothesis has not been tested and the reason why it has not been tested is because it is not testable. It is based on inferring Intelligence by stating that it was designed by observation. it is a projection of the mind seeing something that simply is not there. Seeing data that came together by a directed force before it came to be. It is not good science.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"...is because it is not testable."
Well, actually, here are some testable predictions of the FLH:
a. Important genes in metazoan life forms will share deep homology with genes in prokaryotes, but furthermore, these prokaryotic homologs will be well conserved in sequence identity, more so than the average prokaryotic protein.
b. The genetic code, its transcription, translation, and proof-reading machinery were simultaneously present at the dawn of life.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Those are not tests. They are claims. Those two points are saying that in order to front load, it was foreseen by Intelligence. This intelligence had to do this not only for a small volume of chemicals, but over the surface of the earth for 3.5 billion years. If that isn't an omniscient supernatural being we're talking about, then I'm an alien. These are NOT tested they are claims from what the person is observing with no evidence to back it up.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"They are claims."
You really don't know what front-loading is, do you? These are not claims; these are testable predictions that logically flow from the front-loading hypothesis, just like the prediction of a molecular nested hierarchical pattern logically flows from common descent.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Claiming something is testable does not mean that it is valid no matter how logical it sounds. You admitted that it hasn't been tested. Why? Because, its implied that its testable. That's not good science.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"Why?"
Because, at the moment, I haven't got the time to make an extensive test of the front-loading predictions based on sequence analysis. However, I have made a test on a small data set of protein sequences, and the results nicely fit in with one of the predictions of front-loading. Of course, a large data set is needed to significantly strengthen the hypothesis. But the point is that it's testable, just like common descent is.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Then, put your small test through the peer review.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
No, such a small test isn't statistically significant. It does however, highlight the possibility that I'm on to something, which is why, if we focus on a larger data set, and find that it confirms the front-loading hypothesis, then that hypothesis will be strengthened. That's when the results would be submitted for peer-review.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Yes. I agree on that context. I also know that its all possible that with all of the exploding stars, the result of which are seething elements of space soup in all far reaching parts of our known universe, that elements have a potential for life, whether meteorites or no meteorites, it will be revealed to be a natural process and not intelligent in design.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
You KNOW that it will be revealed that teleology has not played a role in the history of life on earth? Don't you think that's just a bit pompous? BTW, your comment on protein sequence conservation has left me baffled. What on earth are you talking about? How did probabilities get into the discussion? o.O
Genomiques 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"Intelligence, not necessary."
The question of a hypothesis's necessity is different than its utility. What will you say, after all, if the front-loading predictions are confirmed? I have a strange feeling that you are overwhelmingly prejudiced against any hypothesis in biology that involves teleology, when it has in fact gone through peer-review in Crick and Orgel's paper on directed panspermia.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques As far as protein sequence and conservation. It is based on what is successful at duplication, whether proteins bombarding our terrestrial planet through meteorites or assembling in clay or ancient ocean vents. This process took billions of years, a mere cosmic blink of an eye for what inevitably will be explained as a natural process with no intelligence necessary.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
Do you know what the term "protein sequence conservation" implies? Yes or no? You're going off on a tangent. I didn't say intelligence is necessary, and nor did Crick and Orgel. However, if the front-loading hypothesis proves to be fruitful in biology, then that's a good reason to consider it scientific. It is testable, you know, and I have provided ways to test using real molecular data.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques Yes I do. What I'm trying to say is that the laws of the universe are not deterministic and that there haven't been enough opportunities for the necessary and sufficient conditions of life to arise in this universe, given non-determinism.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@Genomiques Yes and its not fully understood. What I'm not being clear about is my view that the laws of the universe are not deterministic and there haven't been enough opportunities for the necessary and sufficient conditions of life to arise in this universe (given non-determinism).
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"Yes and its not fully understood."
Indeed? What's not understood about protein sequence conservation across taxa?
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques We're talking about the so called "great grandparent of all living things" although we understand a lot about protein sequencing across taxa and identifying genes in bacteria that carry genes that don't seem to be in use but are used in embryonic production is still not fully understood. It can appear to be a front loading gene to those who are speculating the hypothesis of Intelligence. However, there is no reason to prefer front-loaded evolution over another mechanism.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"We're talking about..."
No we're not. We're (or at least I am) talking about various degrees of protein sequence conservation across taxa. "...in bacteria that carry genes that don't seem to be in use...is still not fully understood."
Yea but what does that have anything to do with *protein sequence conservation*? O.o
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques I'll get to the point. I don’t think ID can work here as science (if in fact it can work any where as science). Using ID, then what process are we going to describe? Obviously an intervention by an intelligence by definition cannot be a natural process. That is why I think its a waist of time to sign on with “ID is science” as a realistic view.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
"Using ID, then what process are we going to describe?"
Patterns of protein sequence conservation across different lineages, for one. Then there's cytosine deamination which is starting to look interesting from a teleological point of view. "Obviously an intervention by an intelligence...cannot be a natural process." Artificial selection is not a natural process, but a supernatural one?
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques I read your blog and I have no problem with you proposing a testable hypothesis on front loading, but ID has yet to be tested. Until that time, I think its a waist of time. But, good luck with it. Let me know when you have been able to have your tests go through the peer review.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Genomiques
"protein sequence conservation across taxa"
is not evidence for PU.
Sorry bud.
odinata 6 days ago
@Genomiques Predictions are not confirmed in Panspermia. They are inferred.
jessydaytime 6 days ago
@jessydaytime
You're getting a bit too broad. We're not just talking about panspermia, we're specifically talking about front-loading. Predictions aren't inferred in front-loading; rather, from the front-loading hypothesis, we can make several hypotheses, and if confirmed, this would strengthen the hypothesis.
Genomiques 6 days ago
@Genomiques ...fossil evidence going in the exact opposite direction evo says it should go in, 0 evidence the 2 so-called methods of evo - natural selection & mutations - can or ever did lead to any changes higher than speciation, etc. etc. etc. Then there is the Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "We see a similarity - ignore the thousands of differences - and only evolution can explain it!" I notice you don't dispute that there is 0 baseline, there are 0 precursors, 0 evidence cyto C...
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@Genomiques ...was any different in the unobservable "ancient" ages ago. Yet they are telling you what happened back then with 0 evidence and they are telling you it IS evidence. As I said, it is pseudo science. If you are indeed a scientist (who knows on YT) that should be bothering the heck out of you. When logical fallacies waltz in the door, science flies out the window. Evo is built on logical fallacies. That should bother the heck out of you too.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@Genomiques Had a minute & checked my source. The 1 amino difference is between rhesus monkeys & people. You are right. There is no amino difference with cyto-C between people and chimps. Even evolutionists aren't saying we descended from chimps - so what is the point? Oh, I guess by magical thinking we assuuuume that our evidenceless invisible descendants' invisible descendants"mutual" ancestors somehow passed on that characteristics to us & missed the rhesus monkies? That ain't science.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@LoricaLady
"...so what is the point?"
The point is that you're comment that a specialist could tell the difference between our proteins and chimp proteins is false. If our sequences are identical, there's no way a specialist could tell them apart.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques Cont. Since you acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design with the flagellum here is another part of it to ponder. (Though I think the evidence is clear that all of life is irreducibly complex, built of co dependent, interdependent parts from the cell on up.) Look at at the flagellum and its rotary motor. How & why would evo drive those 2 parts to perfection while they are incomplete and useless. What possible "co option" or dual purpose" as the evolutionists say, could..
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@Genomiques ...they have for aeons while "evolving" in evo limbo? Think about the egg & sperm. Why & how would evo drive the sperm to perfection, with its flagellum, motor, liquid transport system - well the list just goes on & on - while perfecting an egg to get ready for it over useless aeons in a totally other body? When you see the "debunks" of i.d., check for those logical fallacies & all the speculation presented as evidence. They will always, be there for evo is 100% pseudo science.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
Comment removed
fashklash 1 week ago
@Proteus01.. (correction to my grammar before some grammar egotist corrects it for me):-
.....are unable to envisage anything apart from human design by all powerful, magic, despots.
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
@Proteus01...(cont)...human design by all powerful, magic, despots.
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
@Proteus01...when someone believes that we have only been on earth for 6,000 years no evidence is going to convince them that we had time to evolve. Unless you have personally seen a fossil of a fish turned mammal overnight LoricaLady will keep saying there is no evidence for evolution. Even if evolution worked in that impossible way, LoricaLady would say "god must have done it". Some of these people are so unimaginative and insipid, they are unable to envisage that anything apart from human de
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
BUT YOU ARE THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAT DESIGNED OR CREATED THE MOUSE TRAP!!!!!!!
amyntazoe 1 week ago 2
What a stupid ass analogy, take apart the mouse trap completely, put the parts on the table, and wait for evolution to put the mouse trap together.... it will not happen because eve tho you have all that you need to make the trap ,someone has to put it together ..
Aztecabrn 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aztecabrn
No.
Recognize that the components can have other purposes.
Are you claiming that a spring doesn't have other uses?
The proteins in flagella can hove other uses to.
Use your head.
odinata 1 week ago
@Aztecabrn Lol. Good one. Not to mention that the trap holding his tie was made by high tech factories with, uh, intelligent design! Have you seen the rest of this presentation where a mangled mouse trap is shown & we are told it will still catch"really stupid mice"? Of course 0 flattened mice are ever seen. In one YT clip I even saw just the cheese & the coil being presented as capable of killing mice. So an imbecilic mouse will impale itself on the pointy end of the coil to get cheese?
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@LoricaLady hahaha yup,even that little piece of wood and the spring and hammer are already been touch by intelligent design, they are not raw materials.I have not seen the full presentation of this video,but i will, i imagine is really stupid.
Cheese & coil capable of killing a mouse hahaha so the mouse is so dumb he will some how kill itself, looks like evolution is going backwards lol
Aztecabrn 1 week ago
@Aztecabrn Have you seen the "debunk" Miller does of Behe's ex. of intelligent design in the human blood clotting system? Now w/countless tomes of medical cases on people with problems in their b.c. system, do you suppose we are given evidence against i.c. based on huuumans? Nope. A few quick words about Behe's example & then what is flashed on the screen? Pictures of a puffer fish & a dolphn! I have seen people here on YT actually keep defending this mousetrap & use of those marine animals.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@LoricaLady please give me the link to that video you are talking about
Aztecabrn 1 week ago
@Aztecabrn The only vids I remember referrencing - quite some time back - were the anti evo vids on my home channel. They are easy to spot IF that's what you mean.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
LOL! This is so crack up funny. Good to see you guys still waving the flag of stupidity and Ignorance. More power to you...
CROBN 1 week ago
@Genomiques ..(cont) without the natural formation of water, we could not exist.
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
@Genomiques..Snowflakes are not arbitrary- they are part of a natural process. Their formation is a dynamic process. Snowflakes are a particular form of water ice. Snowflakes form in clouds, which consist of water vapor. When the temperature is 32° F (0° C) or colder, water changes from its liquid form into ice. Snowflakes may encounter many different environmental conditions, sometimes melting it, sometimes causing growth, always changing its structure. However, without the natural formation
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
@queenofshebalala
"Snowflakes are not arbitrary..."
Yea, and I never said their formation is arbitrary - that would be utterly ridiculous. Why don't you read what I say, instead of assuming what I'm saying? Just saying. You spent your time replying to a claim I didn't make.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques .. Define your description of 'intelligence'? I want to make a correction of my last point - It is not a result of imagination at all. It seems that a lack of understanding leads to a closed mind and a therefore, a dumbing down of real processes.
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
Oh but there is evidence for ID because the almighty elf in my shed told me we were designed. You can't prove the elf and purple unicorns are a result of my lack of knowledge and a figment of my vivid imagination, so I am right. :o)
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
This is no different than some ancient person saying "IWow that lightning is amazing and I have no idea how it works, so it must be flying from the tips of god's fingers."
The more we know about Biology, and Biochemistry, and etc, and etc, the more we see that it is indeed natural.
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
"The more we know about..."
Really? That's really not true. The field of systems biology heavily relies on engineering concepts. The genomics revolution brought molecular evidence in favor of common descent; but the era of genomics also revealed that the cell displays properties of teleology beyond anything anyone would have imagined.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques
YEs, its really true.
Supreme beings are being implicated in less phenomne with every passing millenia.
Are snowflakes *rational*?
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
Already answered your question.
Genomiques 1 week ago
And yes, we would expect cells that exist to display all the properties that they are seen to display, without invoking any Purple Unicorn.
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
"And yes, we would expect..."
Tell my which non-teleological framework predicts that the genetic code will be extremely optimal without leaving any trace of the gradual origin of this optimality; or what non-telic framework predicts that the cell will contain molecular machines that have the property of rational design.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques
We don't need to invoke PU to explain genetic code.
Are snowflakes *rational*?
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
You're totally ignoring my points odinata. I'm not saying we need intelligence to explain the origin of the genetic code. I am saying that under the ID hypothesis of front-loading, we would *expect the genetic code to be optimal.* This is not *expected* under the non-teleological framework.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques
I'm hitting every single one of your points, Gee.
But don't ignore this one one more time.
Are snowflakes *rational*?
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
No, you're not.
True/false:
Under the hypothesis that the initial life forms on earth were the product of a rational nanotechnologist(s), would we not expect such cells to display rational design?
Where in the non-telic hypothesis is it predicted that rational design will be displayed?
Genomiques 1 week ago
@odinata...do you have to be such a hardcore skeptic about the possibility of purple unicorns designing us? tee hee!
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
Logical thinking eliminates "Intelligent Design" for just this reason....
odinata 1 week ago
Yes, there is a VERY sound reason for ruling out ID:
There is no evidence for it.
There is absolutely no reason to invoke ID.
Simply not being able to rule it out makes it no more appealing than the magic purple Unicorns we can't rule out either.
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
Since partial evidence for ID consist of any proposed natural explanation failing to deliver, then something with partial evidece is a reason for invoking it (at least as a stop gap UNTIL some scientifically verifiable alternative is found - or - we meet the designer and ave ID verified that way.
Saying there's no reason to inoke ID when you don't yet have a working model, is just you being a silly-billy. That's entertaining for the readers I suppose (but you could do better! :-)
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59
NO, claiming "god dunnit", or "aliens dunnit", or "intelligence dunnit" simply because we don't know how something works is NOT reasonable.
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
George Knorry? Please, please stop assuming. I'm not a UFOologist. I don't believe in all that paranormal pseudo-science nonsense, either. I'm not saying the intelligent is colored green or grey. The intelligence need not be biological. If life is the product of a mind or minds, we do not KNOW where in the universe they are, etc. Try to think about this logically, okay?
Genomiques 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata
claiming "god dunnit", or "aliens dunnit", or "intelligence dunnit" simply because we don't know how something works is NOT reasonable.
Do you actually believe that?
SETI research is all about testing the signals from the cosmos to decide upon whether "aliens dunnit" or not. Are you really going to try and say that SETI research isn't science?
You've now realized that SETI and ID are pretty much the same thing. SETI analyses space signals. ID analyses biology.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
*least* = list
odinata 1 week ago
ANYONE: If you see 0 response to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, leaving long strings of monolgue - sometimes pages & pages of it, evidently to hide dissent -, and sometimes worse. Such folk follow me & others around YT guard dogging evo vids. If you feel a valid point was made & want to restate it I will be happy to tell what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I debate only with the civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@LoricaLady
I appreciate that you are ignoring the facts that show Creationism is intellectually banrupt--but you really must stop spamming the board.
I prefer if you wouldn't respond at all.
You can't refute what I say--by your own admission.
This garbage is really just trolling because you are too afraid to post your garbage rebuttals.
You are done here.
odinata 1 week ago
@LoricaLady
Notice there are no "obscenities", no "name calling," no "personal insults".
Lorica Lady simply despises the volumes of evidence that refute her personal religious opinions.
odinata 1 week ago
Is there any evidence that indicates that Eagles share no blood relation with ducks?
odinata 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata
"Is there any evidence that indicates that Eagles share no blood relation with ducks?"
That's not the correct question to ask to get at the heart of the issue.
A better question would be: Do the similarities between ducks and eagles allow us to accept evolutionary common descent, while simultaneously ruling out the possibility that these similarities are due to both types of creature having been designed by the same designer (or group of designers)?
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@odinata
Another relevant question to ask would be:
Are there feasible evolutionary pathways that can be constructed from both ducks and eagles, back to some hypothetical ancestral creature, that takes advantage of the available processes within neodarwinism, while not being allowed to take advantage of any processes available to an intelligent designer that aren't available to the mindless natural processes of neodarwinism?
(Your first question assumed: similarities = common descent.)
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59
Yes.
I
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
One cannot take the simplistic view that since parents have children (ie. heredity exists), then all of life can be assumed to track back to one or a small number of single celled ancestral lifeforms. We also need to be able to find common decent mechanisms that can feasibly explain how we can make all the required transitions (and invent all of the required machinery) in the time available, given the resources available (using the appropriate evolutionary model).
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59
If you would like to posit a replacement for Biology, go right ahead.
There seems to be a dearth of evidence that indicates the organisms aren't related.
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
For that matter, even though abiogenesis is a different field of study to evolution, if you're going to reject ID, then you're going to have to accept abiogenesis as an axiom. But is it a feasible axiom to base your later evolutionary hypothesis on? That's an additional hurdle to be jumped (which at the moment is looking to be a rather high hurdle indeed).
The point is, there's no sound basis for ruling out ID, since known mindless mechanisms aren't able to explain the data.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59
We can show that ducks are related to geese without invoking a designer which is undetectable and has left ZERO evidence in having dabbled in the branching of ducks and eagles from common avian ancestor.
Sorry.
odinata 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata
"We can show that ducks are related to geese without invoking a designer"
Really? Because unless you actually can, then you ought to at least consider invoking a designer. A better example is the origin of whales. Using population genetics, Sternberg (that guy in "Expelled") shows it takes far too long to be able to fix even a few of the thousands of required changes that must have taken place (assuming each of these changes were fairly simple mutations (which they were not)).
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@odinata
If your model doesn't produce feasible results, then you can't insist that we rule out the ID alternative while a new model that will (hopefully) work is being scrabbled together.
You don't HAVE to believe in ID of course, but you certainly cannot insist that it must be ruled out either.
What would be evidence of ID? That we meet the designer and confirm results - or - that we find that natural explanations do not work.
What would be the evidence for magic purple unicorns?
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59
What is MY model?
Science produces perfectly feasible results--and your religion doesn't.
Sorry bud.
Whatever the evidence for ID would be, you haven't presented any.
odinata 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata
"Science produces perfectly feasible results--and your religion doesn't."
You mean that science feasibly demonstrates that neodarwinist assumptions are infeasible? Yes bud, I'll agree with you on that! :-)
"Whatever the evidence for ID would be, you haven't presented any"
As long as evolutionary models that depend on mindless natural processes
are shown to be infeasible (by their own internally maintained assumptions) then that's indirect evidence for ID.
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@odinata
Put it this way, for an idea to be considered scientific, it must be able to be falsified. Neodarwinism is scientific (because among other things, it has successfully managed to falsify itself). But is your belief about ID having to be ruled out, actually falsifiable?
Say ID is true (but the designer ain't talking!) Apart from an "interview" what might you expect would be the case? We'd expect that natural explanations (the explanations that can falsify ID) wouldn't work. No?
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59
Yes, the fact that hawks and chickens are related is yet more falsifiable evidence, and probably the reason evolution is the foundation of modern Biology.
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
But remember, even though for a hypothesis to be falsifiable, means it's scientific (which we kind of imagine is a good thing - and it kind of is) we also need to remmber that if the hypothesis gets falsified, then it isn't true. It seems that many hypothesized pathways between species that seem to be related by common descent will likely turn out to have been falsified (at least in the neodarwinian framework).
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@odinata
Why exactly is it that we supposedly MUST rule out ID as a potential explanation? Why must we rule out ID when we have still not been able to find much in the way of feasible mindless natural alternatives to replace it with?
Are we interested in the genuine pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads? Or are we only interested in pursuing explanations involving mindless material process, but which exclude any processes involving intelligent planning and design (engineering)?
tubewatch59 1 week ago
@tubewatch59
Why must we rule out purple unicorns?
Starting with your preconcieved notions isn't a genuine search for truth.
Its the rationalization of your religion.
odinata 1 week ago
This is true, but it doesn't prove very much. :|
ChineseEngineer 1 week ago
ANYONE: If you see 0 reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities & sometimes worse. Such folk follow me & others around YT, guard dogging evo vids with such tactics. If you feel a valid point has been made & wish to restate it I will be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 week ago
@Genomiques ..maybe you misunderstand the argument in the same way you misunderstand Darwin and evolution?
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
@queenofshebalala
Interesting, but:
a. I'm not misunderstanding the argument. Miller's central argument is that the TTSS proves that flagellar proteins can carry out non-flagellar functions. I agree with this. I was simply pointing out that the TTSS isn't a precursor system to the flagellum.
b. Sorry, but I don't misunderstand Darwin and evolutionary theory et al.
Genomiques 1 week ago
@Genomiques..I haven't got much time to discuss now but I am trying to work out why you would think that I was saying the Type III Secretory System provided evidence of a precursor state?? I said it's existence proved the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
@tubewatch59???..intelligent design is not an explanation at all. All the arguments have been rejected as non scientific and there is no credible evidence for it. The idea appears to have been invented by people who do not understand science or evolution but want to believe that we are all unchanging machines in an unchanging world.
queenofshebalala 1 week ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 week ago