Dear DBlevins,
DB to Sonnike:
Is it me or is the argument from design answer getting old?
PB: It is you.
Concerning your mail:
DB:
This is a good link for those deists out there. If you want to see a good argument against ID then read this
Page not found | Skeptical InquirerRead the whole post if you wish but I'd like to point out this specifically:
DB: This is in reference to Behe's problem with cell functions.
PB: Didn't know Behe had a problem with his cell functions.
DB: "The problem with this statement is that it is contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores (Miller 1996). For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models...
PB: math is like evolutionism: a tautology. [And it is no science, at least, according to the evo's on this board. It is an art, so they say.]
DB (cont): ...show that evolution by natural selection has to produce molecular redundancy because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function..."
Great website to check out. There are quite a few refutations of ID and IC in the site.
PB: Great website full of outdated information, you mean. The most compelling evidence for design ARE genetic (molecular) redundancies (GR). Since you are new here: GR are not associated with gene duplications and are not mutating with an increased rate compared to essential genes. Thus, evolutionary predictions are clearly not true, and GR stand as clearcut evidence for design. If you wanna know more about this topic, I recommend to read my threads and all scientific references therein.
D: "Evolution is a fact: It is the mechanism that is debatable."
PB:
"Genetic variation is a fact: the mechanisms that perform this are present in the genome. Evolution from microbe to man is a fairytale".
The problem with evolutionists is that they only have one term for several unequal phenomena: evolution. Change of a nucleotide: evolution. Deletion of DNA region: evolution. Duplication of a region: evolution. Selection against mutation carriers: evolution. Selection of antibiotic resistant micro-organism during permanent constraint: evolution. Changing gene frequencies in populations: evolution. And then they start to extrapolate. If this than also microbe to man: evolution. The fossil record: evolution.
If evolutionism was a science they would have discriminated between the two mechanisms. They don't since it is convenient to point at the one mechanism as proof for the other.
However, microbe to man evolution is a never observed inference --not even a good one-- from the fossil record, it is not backed up by what we now know about genomes, since all the mechanisms that induce variation are already pre-existent in the genome.
And who are the preformationists you talked about in another thread. All characteristics preexisting in the genome, I assume. But who wrote on the topic?
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-08-2003]
™ Version 4.2