evidence that intelligent design can't explain

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
If we assume 1% variation per million years (in primates this is reasonable), this implicates that the common ancestor for both human and chimp lived around 10 million years ago.

---

Isn't this about right? It on the high end of the range, but still just barely in there.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[b]Remember that there was a considerable amount of sailors who survived the long 16th century overseas voyages.[/QUOTE][/b]Wasn't scurvey a huge problem though?

quote:

---

In some human populations, for instance the desert nomads of the Sahara the non-synthesisers are completely removed from the gene pool.

---

I'm curious. Do you mean that there are nomads with no non-synthesisers? Or that the nomadic populations are cut off from the gene pool?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear john,
Indeed scurvy was a huge problem, but not everyone died during these voyages. It is reasonable to assume that the vit c synthesizer (via sponteneous oxydation) were the survivers. Thus, there was selection during these voyages for the intact galactonase enzyme. Similarly, desertnomads all have this intact gene. Do a search on internet and you will find the answer to your questions.
best wishes
Peter

---

Actually a web search isn't helping, and I am good at finding things online.Can you provide some links or other info?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Ultimately, we are not able to make judgements. The only thing we can do is to have faith in a paradigm. Whether it should include design and/or a creator or not is up to you.

---

Interesting Peter B. how deep does this idea run in your thoughts. Are you contending that we can't come to any knowledge at all?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by monkenstick:
if you are going to allow for "unimportant imperfections" what use is ID as a scientific theory?

---

That's a good point. It makes determining designed from not-designed much more difficult. And casts some question on the 'intelligence' part of the equation.

quote:

---

if it only describes part of the genome, how are we to distinguish between sequences which are designed and which have evolved?

---

I really wish someone would answer this question. I have asked several people here to do so, and so far without result.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com