As Dr Adequate points out the third element in Atomic Number order is Lithium - a white silvery alkali metal that is highly reactive and never found in free atomic form in nature but in compounds instead.
Lithium can be a bit reactive, so perhaps we should show concern when handling Lithium, but hardly scared.
Perhaps our new contributor is referring to Tritium (3H) instead. It does decay and produce high energy photons that could cause harm if Tritium is ingested, but not exactly the spookiest or most energetic of radioactive elements.
Here, I'll let the good folks at the University of Washington tell you what they see...
I want to hear it from you. What makes it a code? For example . . .
"Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids and a regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We used genomic deoxyribonuclease I footprinting to map nucleotide resolution TF occupancy across the human exome in 81 diverse cell types. We found that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (“duons”) that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. "
My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design.
That's an easy one: the nested hierarchy.
The pattern of shared and derived characteristics in complex life screams evolution and blind inheritance. A designer would be free to swap and mix design units as he see fits. Therefore, with design we expect there to be a lack of a nested hierarchy, and this is true for human designs. For example, automobiles and computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Artwork even by the same artist does not fall into a nested hierarchy. The observation of a nested hierarchy is smoking gun evidence of evolution, and contrary to everything we would expect from a intelligent design process.
It started with your opinion that there is sophisticated design.
I think it is much more fruitful to look at the objective morphological and genetic data to see if the pattern of shared and derived features matches what we would expect to see from design and evolution. What do you think?
and you could say "Oh, well, it's not my place to argue why the designer, in his infinite wisdom, chose to do that."
Reminds me of one of my favoritie quotes. I think I saw it first here at EvC, so credit goes to somebody for passing along this gem.
"[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so."— William Of Conches
What you are arguing for is a design argument where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution.
I consider this to be a dishonest argument. You are essentially saying that the best evidence for intelligent design is the complete lack of evidence for intelligent design.
Here are the facts. If evolution is true we would expect to see a nested hierarchy for independent phylogenies. That is exactly what we observe. All of the evidence is consistent with what we would expect from evolution. So how can this be evidence for design?
I do not concede that I am arguing "where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution". Could be, could also not be.
The tell us what the distribution of shared and derived features should look like if ID is true, and why.
However, I could make that argument and it would not be frivolous in my cosmological view. To use an analogy, the Tao (point of "intelligence" discussion on my cosmological view) could very well have metaphorically picked up the little glass ball, shook it, and sat back to observe the curious way the snow falls on the little village inside the glass ball. The Tao must needs have somehow come across the little glass ball to do this in the first place, ergo design. Where is the argument for design being preempted by the lack of intelligent intervention in subsequent events?
Then the designer is irrelevant and superfluous to the actual development of species. So much for ID.
I of course cannot control how you consider it. I can say it is not meant to be dishonest argument. And no, I am not saying all the rest of what you just said. Those are your words not mine.
If that is not what you are saying, then tell us how we can differentiate ID from evolution where it concerns the distribution of shared and derived characteristics. If you can't show us how the two are different, then you have tacitly conceded the point.
I am not claiming the footprint of non-intervened evolution is evidence for design. I am claiming that such evidence is equally not a solid premise for arguing against design. Nothing about evolution precludes the idea of a preexistent design.
Once again, you are given the chance to unmuddy the waters, and you just muddy them further. You still can't separate ID and evolution.