Vox offers three “unexplainable” mysteries of life on Earth

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 9, 2023

Biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In three podcasts at Vox:

How did life start on Earth? What was the series of events that led to birds, bugs, amoebas, you, and me?
That’s the subject of Origins, a three-episode series from Unexplainable — Vox’s podcast that explores big mysteries, unanswered questions, and all the things we learn by diving into the unknown. – Brian Resnick (March 1, 2023)

The three mysteries they offer are:

Where did Earth’s water come from?
How did life start in that water?
What is life anyway?

About that last: Science writer Carl Zimmer offers “The problem is, for each definition of life, scientists can think of a confounding exception. Take, for instance, NASA’s definition of life: “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” But that definition would exclude viruses, which are not “self-sustaining” and can only survive and replicate by infiltrating a host.”

Comments

JVL bluffs and blusters again and is STILL sorely lacking on any real time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating even a single molecular machine. It should be easy for him, He keeps referencing hundreds and thousands of papers that prove Darwinian evolution can create molecular machines. Where are they?
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." - Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2 “Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!” - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) - 1998 Nobel Prize in physics
JVL, instead of presenting any real-time evidence that Darwinian processes can create even a single molecular machine, disingenuously tries to change the subject and wants me to answer "basic probability questions". Yet, that JVL would try to change the subject from real-time empirical evidence to questions about mathematical probability is an ironic and self-defeating thing for JVL to try to do. (as disingenuous as it was for him to try to change the subject) As Wolfgang Pauli noted, "(Darwinists) Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233554311_Pauli%27s_Ideas_on_Mind_and_Matter_in_the_Context_of_Contemporary_Science
Moreover, besides Darwinists using "the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’” mathematics itself is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence and cannot possibly be reduced to the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution.
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace himself, co-discover of natural selection, held that our ability to do mathematics was proof, in and of itself, for the existence of the human soul. Specifically he stated, "Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910 https://evolutionnews.org/2010/08/alfred_russel_wallace_co-disco/
So thus, JVL may disingenuously try to change the subject from empirical evidence and appeal to questions about mathematical probability, but the fact of the matter is mathematical probability, and even the existence of immaterial mathematics in and of itself, is certainly no friend to his Darwinian materialism.
"There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly,," Sedgwick to Darwin https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Origenes: Projection, thy name is JVL. Can you answer my basic probability questions? Or are you just another poser? Someone who thinks they know science but, actually, hasn't got the ability to figure out what is correct and what isn't?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

A noisy gong? A clanging cymbal?
Projection, thy name is JVL.Origenes_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: I guess you can't answer my extremely basic probability questions. You haven't even tried. What that tells me is that you can't grasp many of the probabilistic arguments made in many of the papers you cite. That means you can't evaluate whether they make sense or not. That means you are accepting or denying the arguments based on their conclusion and how closely it matches with your pre-held beliefs. If you can't actually understand arguments you put forward as being definitive what are you? A noisy gong? A clanging cymbal? You have seen the evidence and arguments and logic for unguided evolutionary theory. It has been presented to you over and over and over and over again. Yet you say you haven't seen it. You are a knave or a fool. Which is it? But, let's start with those probability questions I asked. Questions which are freshman level. Can you answer them: yes or no? At least answer that question. Despite your exalted opinion of yourself, you are shallow and pathetic! Can you answer my basic probability questions: yes or no?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

JVL can you ever present any actual scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution creating even a single molecular machine? Yes or no. Or all we ever going to get from you is bluffing and blustering with a good amount of chest thumping thrown in? :) Despite your exalted opinion of yourself, you are shallow and pathetic!bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Can you answer my very basic probability questions? Yes or no? The evidence he needs to prove his case is sorely missing from his posts, and there is a good reason for that. He never cites any actual scientific evidence because he has none. PERIOD! Despite decades and decades of scientific research: papers, articles, books, research etc to the contrary. Even when some of that work has been spoon-fed to Bornagain77 he has denied it. That is the sign of a denier. It's not about the evidence; it's about coming to a particular conclusion. Let's see if he can answer my extremely basic probability questions.JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Jerry: It gets facial when the universe is considered. I'm not sure this is the forum for discussing facials.JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Origenes: How does the elimination of species A, B, and D assist evolution in finding biological information? Once again, you clearly, after years and years and years of having things explained to you, still don't understand what unguided evolutionary theory is saying. Amazing. I mean, that takes real effort. You'd have to work at that. How do I know you still don't get it? You said: Next, a miracle happens I rest my case.JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Supplementtal notes:
Darwinian 'science' in a nutshell: Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015 Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution: 1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact. 2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution]. 3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory. 4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact. http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/ "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case.” – Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988) Evolution With and Without Multiple Simultaneous Changes William A. Dembski - June 29, 2022 Excerpt: Granted, (James) Shapiro is not a fan of intelligent design. But in personal conversation I’ve found him more anti-Darwinian, if that were possible, than my intelligent design colleagues. Specifically, I (William Dembski) remarked to him that I thought the Darwinian mechanism offered at least some useful insights. (James) Shapiro responded by saying that Darwin’s effect on biology was wholly negative. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/06/evolution-with-and-without-multiple-simultaneous-changes/ Evolutionary Theorist Concedes: Evolution “Largely Avoids” Biggest Questions of Biological Origins. - August 28, 2017 Excerpt: Now the Royal Society’s journal Interface Focus offers a special issue collecting articles based on talks from the conference.,,, ,,, Here are some other gems from the paper (emphasis added throughout): "A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2–14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike." That could have appeared in a work from an intelligent design proponent. But wait, it gets even better: "Indeed, a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific, all rest firmly on evolutionary principles and all are backed by substantial empirical evidence." “Challenges to the classical model” are “widespread” and “none…are unscientific.” Wow — file that one away for future reference. More: "Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous [32], but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology [33]. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them." Orthodox Darwinists of the “All Is Well” school meet challenges with “dogmatic hostility”? Yep. We were aware. Here he obliterates the notion, a truly fatuous extrapolation, that microevolutionary changes can explain macroevolutionary trends: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/ Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting Brian Miller – June 2, 2021 I also attended the conference, but I interpreted the content of the presentations within the broader scope of the history I just described. Within that context, the implications of what was said, and what was not said, reveal a much different story. The True Story Natural selection is the only mechanism that even in principle could mimic the activity of an intelligent agent in creating anything of at least modest complexity and ingenuity. This conclusion is highlighted by the fact that speakers at the conference showcased every conceivable alternative mechanism that could potentially help fill the explanatory deficits of the SEM. But not one shred of evidence was presented that any of the extensions could perform any feat beyond such trivial tasks as increasing a plant’s height, changing the number of digits in an animal’s limb, or performing other slight modifications to preexisting traits. The current state of evolution can be compared to the crisis astronomy would face if physicists discovered that gravity stopped operating beyond 10,000 miles past a celestial body. The loss of the only feasible mechanism that could explain the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies would result in absolute pandemonium and despair. Most materialist biologists will not so easily come to terms with their true predicament since evolution operates not only as a scientific theory but as a sacrosanct creation narrative for secular society. Nevertheless, with natural selection off the table as a designer substitute, the only sensible interpretation that remains for the overwhelming evidence of design in biological systems is that life is the product of an actual designer (here, here). https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darrel-falk-downplays-the-ramifications-of-the-royal-society-meeting/
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

JVL continues his bluffing and blustering. The evidence he needs to prove his case is sorely missing from his posts, and there is a good reason for that. He never cites any actual scientific evidence because he has none. PERIOD! There is ZERO real-time scientific evidence that Darwinian processes can create JUST one molecular machine. For instance, the bacterial flagellum, an ID icon, remains unrefuted
Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. http://www.uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291 Matzke Is Back On The Flagellum Horse - November 11, 2019 Excerpt: I won’t go into a lengthy discussion of this latest article. Suffice it to say that in the 13 years since the ’06 review article, apparently there still are no peer reviewed research studies that provide the Darwinian model of how a bacterial flagellum came to be. There’s really nothing to review in this article because there just isn’t anything new here. Its more a bunch of assertions without evidence. ,,, The real take away here, of course, is that 23 years after Behe’s book was published, it is still the case that there simply are no peer reviewed research studies that provide an evolutionary model to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. If there was, then all Matke et.al. would have to do is reference all those studies. Yet that remains the one thing missing in all of the articles and comments. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/matzke-is-back-on-the-flagellum-horse/
JVL never cites any evidence and he just keeps bluffing and blustering, and keeps claiming that there are "hundreds if not thousands of books, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of research papers and journals articles. If you want to find it you can." Yet none of those hundreds and thousands of papers provide any real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating even a single molecular machine. It is all 'narrative gloss' and 'just-so story telling'. As the late Philip Skell observed, evolution functions more as a 'narrative gloss' in peer-reviewed literature rather than as a fruitful heuristic.
“A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000 “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005?
In fact, as the late Dr. Skell alluded to, you can readily jettison the 'narrative gloss' of evolutionary language from peer-reviewed papers and not negatively effect the actual science of the papers:
No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? – December 4, 2019 If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,, So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful. https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/
Whereas, on the other hand, teleological language cannot be sacrificed from research papers without negatively effecting the research of the papers. J.B.S. Haldane himself admitted as much, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”
“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” J. B. S. Haldane
In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness(i.e. teleology)”
The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm
Denis Noble also notes that “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.
“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/
This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s assessment and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”
Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161
And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”
Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/
In short, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial 'narrative gloss' that can be readily stripped away from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers. In summary, the very words that Darwinists themselves are forced to use when they are describing their biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Ba77 has done a fine job of refuting unguided evolution. Other opinions are available. Seeing you deny it so many times confirms what I believe to be the primary use of unguided evolution today: to promote atheism. Amazing logic! All those books, all those journals which you say support unguided evolution are part of the reaction against a society that has long recognized God, not unguided evolution, as the Creator. I guess that means you didn't understand the scientific arguments either. The sheer amount of “upending” and “unexpected” and “earlier than thought” indicates a lack of correct thinking. I guess you don't think views and opinions should be updated when new evidence or data is found. Guesswork about what it all means. That’s not science, as Ba77 has pointed out on numerous occasions. What it all means? Really? Knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun . . . what does that mean? Knowing that objects on Earth accelerate towards the centre of the Earth at (about) 9.8m/sec^2 . . . what does that mean? What's wrong with knowing the truth? In conclusion, what unguided evolution amounts to is a worldview promoted by those who want God out of the picture. Out of their lives and out of society in general. So, you're going to continue to deny scientific 'truth' because you think it's atheistic? Wow. Might I suggest that there is a possibility that you don't really understand God or the actual message? I mean, if theism isn't tied to what is true then what's the point? If you have to deny reality in order to believe in God then . . . When Bornagain77 can answer my very basic probability questions I'll talk to him again. Can you answer them?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

I have been going back on comments from 15-18 years ago to look at what was said. Recently I found one referring to someone named Elliot Sober who is a philosopher of science. So I decided to look him up in UD and Evolutionary News. Here is one quote about him by Casey Luskin
Evolution fails to explain how even a single gene could evolve, let alone the entire olfactory system. In fact the presence of supposedly useless structures, such as pseudogenes, is hardly a plus for evolution. As Elliott Sober has pointed out, there is nothing about this story that provides a positivistic argument for evolution. The argument, with all its strength, hinges entirely on the refutation of the alternative. This is a proof by the process of elimination. Hence it becomes utterly crucial that the alternatives be carefully and exhaustively considered. In particular, all possible alternatives must be known, understood, evaluated, and disproved
By the way Sober tries to disprove ID by appealing to the necessity of disproving the alternatives. It gets facial when the universe is considered. Sober wrote a short book in 2017 trying to disprove ID.jerry_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

JVL at 143, Ba77 has done a fine job of refuting unguided evolution. Seeing you deny it so many times confirms what I believe to be the primary use of unguided evolution today: to promote atheism. To promote a world that was not designed but which stumbled into something called human beings. All those books, all those journals which you say support unguided evolution are part of the reaction against a society that has long recognized God, not unguided evolution, as the Creator. The sheer amount of "upending" and "unexpected" and "earlier than thought" indicates a lack of correct thinking. Guesswork about what it all means. That's not science, as Ba77 has pointed out on numerous occasions. In conclusion, what unguided evolution amounts to is a worldview promoted by those who want God out of the picture. Out of their lives and out of society in general.relatd_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

~ Question about Natural Elimination ~ Suppose a start with species A in niche 1. Next, a miracle happens: after a few rounds of successful random mutations, we have species A, B, C, and D in niche 1. *Enter natural elimination*: a struggle for life ensues and only species C survives and fills niche 1. IOW "natural selection" favors species C and the others go extinct. Now here is my question to Darwinians: How does the elimination of species A, B, and D assist evolution in finding biological information?Origenes_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: instead of presenting any scientific evidence to counter the scientific evidence that I presented to you, you want to lecture me on being scientific? The evidence for unguided evolution is present in hundreds if not thousands of books, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of research papers and journals articles. If you want to find it you can. You can pretend that nothing exists if it's not dolled out here to you personally (and, to be fair, a lot of that has been done) but that doesn't mean it's not out there. JVL, I have news for you, you wouldn’t know real science if it bit you on the rear end! Really? Based on what? What academic or publication criteria are you using? What experimental experience are you drawing upon? How many papers have your authored or published? Shall we test your mathematical ability? Shall we see if you understand even a basic probability argument? Surely someone who 'knows science' would be able to answer some simple probability questions . . . Try this: if you flip a fair coin and toss a fair 6-sided die what is the probability you'll end up with a head AND a prime number? Likewise, what is the probability you'll end up with a head OR a prime number? And then: what is the probability you'll end up with a prime number given a head? Take your time. Five minutes should be enough.JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

So JVL, instead of presenting any scientific evidence to counter the scientific evidence that I presented to you, you want to lecture me on being scientific? JVL, I have news for you, you wouldn't know real science if it bit you on the rear end! Unbridled Hubris, thy name is JVL.
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry: That is the question I am posing. And you haven't bothered to read up on the many, many, many publications and books and research which discuss such things? Really? For someone who portrays themself as being very smart you don't seem to get a lot of things. Maybe you should do some homework and then ask some questions. to become superior Superior by what definition? You clearly haven't bothered to do any work whatsoever to learn what is already known in the field. You want me or Alan Fox to summarise books and books of information and mathematical models because you can't be bothered to go find out yourself? Do some work. Do some reading. Spend some time actually trying to find out.JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Yeah we do know what we are going to get, we are going to get more bacteria. And the burden is on you to “scientifically’ prove that is not the case, not just blow hot air and claim otherwise as you are currently doing. Once again you have shown your inability to reason scientifically. Nothing in science is 'proven'. You've been told this over and over and over again but you just can't get that through your head. And, as most of the planet knows, the case for unguided evolution has been made over and over and over and over again in paper after paper, journal after journal, book after book. Why don't you actually try and address the actual claims being made instead of saying the case hasn't even been argued? AND then we get your usual Gish-gallop of links to things, some are YouTube videos, some are to articles not research papers, some are to evolution-denying websites. AND some are misinterpretations of actual work that has been done because you (or someone else) has fixated on a word or phrase which you think 'disproves' unguided evolution. But, again, you haven't got the academic background to evaluate the work you cite. You don't actually understand the research or its implications. You've made that clear over and over and over again over years and years and years. IF you really cared about ID as a valid scientific field of endeavour then why aren't you arguing for there to be a research institute, a journal, some paid researchers working on ID. Don't tell me there isn't any money, the church has a lot more money than academia. There's plenty of money. Why aren't you pushing for some of it to be spent on ID research?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

A - a niche, whatever that is. B - a collection of entities that compose niche A. These could be life forms sometimes thousands, various substrates such as minerals and other compounds, various environmental entities such as climate and geochemical formations. Maybe other variables. B is stable though the alleles of the life forms in A vary somewhat over time. Some of the resources, minerals composition change or get converted to other compounds over time but not dramatically. The climate changes somewhat back and forth but remains essentially the same. This is normal for most of out planet. Now B changes dramatically. Maybe a new life form enters A. Or the climate changes or a compound becomes scarce or a new compound becomes more abundant. There will be two outcomes, one possibility is a new equilibrium. The end point will be a new distribution of the percentage of everything, alleles, mineral etc.. This end point will be called the natural selection of each entity since each survived the change. We call B an ecology and over time it changes. We tend to use natural selection to refer to just one species but in fact thousands of species’ allele distributions could change. It could even refer to resource changes due to the new range of stability of all the entities. I could even imagine environmental changes happening due to the distribution changes. For example, there was a story of river changes due to new wildlife patterns caused by the introduction of a new species. So natural selection is just what happens, the gene/allele distribution for each species, the chemical compounds distribution and the geographical environment. Or the change in one species, say X1, could eliminate one of the others variables, say Y1, because X1 is too successful due to a change. And this variable, Y1, which is eliminated is necessary for X1 to exist. Thus X1 then becomes eliminated because it is too successful. So both X1 is eliminated as well as Y1. So which is more likely, X1 to get fitter and fitter and developing new characteristics and leaving more and more offspring without any problem finding enough Y1 or equivalent things to Y1 in the ecology. Or eventually X1 will run out of Y1 or equivalents and become extinct. This natural process is happening to every X and Y in the ecology. How is there a possibility for any entity to develop, superior characteristics through change and not become extinct? That is the question I am posing. Maybe the wording could be better. I have read dozens of books by those who espouse natural Evolution and nowhere in these books is the answer to the question I am posing. Nor has anyone on this site done so and we have had evolutionary biologists here in the past.jerry_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Jerry: is this projection? No, Jerry, it's not. Alan Fox is responding based on known and accepted and widely held views and results. You sound like you're just making up stuff that you think sound reasonable but isn't actually supported. Everything I said is logical and based on evidence. Sadly, that is not the case. I suggest that you explain how biological evolution works. Since you've been commenting here for a long time you have heard that explanation over and over and over and over and over again. If you still don't 'get it' then why should we bother to repeat it again? You will be the first one ever to do so. No links or references for this because we are just dealing with how. It's really simple. And clear. Maybe you just don't get it? By the way why don’t you define words like “niche” and “fitter” as part of this. Because those are well understood in the biological sciences. Which you should know IF you had actually spent time reading the supporting papers and publications and books. It's not hard to find such things. Have you even tried? Are you a fool or a knave Jerry? You say you're really intelligent (a maths genius) but you seem incapable of understanding some basic biological reasoning which has been made for a century and a half. I'm not saying agree with it but just to understand the argument. Not that you're alone on this site: many, many people can't seem to actually address the real points.JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Origenes: "starting with a bacterium, you claim that it easy to make e.g. a bat…." JVL: "Not easy, it takes many, many, many, many, many generations. AND you don’t know ahead of time what you’re going to get." Yeah we do know what we are going to get, we are going to get more bacteria. And the burden is on you to "scientifically' prove that is not the case, not just blow hot air and claim otherwise as you are currently doing.
"We go from single cell protozoa. Which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they're still individual cells that aggregate together. They don't seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don't really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don't have anything like that." - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this following video Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ Natural Selection: The Evolution of a Mirage - Neil Thomas - March 7, 2023 Excerpt: As Professor Nick Lane has recently explained, "It is generally assumed that once simple life has emerged, it gradually evolves into more complex forms, given the right conditions. But that’s not what happens on Earth (…) If simple cells had evolved slowly into more complex ones over billions of years, all kinds of intermediate forms would have existed and some still should. But there are none (…) This means that there is no inevitable trajectory from simple to complex life. Never-ending natural selection, operating on infinite populations of bacteria over millions of years, may never give rise to complexity. Bacteria simply do not have the right architecture."16 https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/natural-selection-the-evolution-of-a-mirage/ 16. Nick Lane, “Lucky to Be There,” in Michael Brooks, ed., Chance: The Science and Secrets of Luck, Randomness and Probability (London: Profile/New Scientist, 2015), pp. 22-33, citations pp. 28, 32. "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - Scant search for the Maker - 2001 - Emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. - Minnich - Feb. 2016 The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,, Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,, E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416 “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.” – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146 The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; - 2002 “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Scientists find signs of life in Australia dating back 3.48 billion years - Thu November 14, 2013 Excerpt: “We conclude that the MISS in the Dresser Formation record a complex microbial ecosystem, hitherto unknown, and represent one of the most ancient signs of life on Earth.”... “this MISS displays the same associations that are known from modern as well as fossil” finds. The MISS also shows microbes that act like “modern cyanobacteria,” - per cnn Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old - 11/11/13 Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages. http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-publications/insideodu/2013/11/11/topstory1
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Sandy: If you think there were other species that were extinct [a belief based on a theory based on beliefs of Darwin] the burden is on you to prove that . If you actually cared about that you would have spent a lot of time reading the research arguing for such things. But you didn't. And you won't. Why is that? Is ignoring decades of research being scientific? Is asking for everything to be presented to you on a plate being sincere? Have you, yourself, got no responsibility to attempt to understand the work that has already been done? Are you happy just listening to those whose opinion you already agree with and ignoring the thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of published works that disagree with you? Are you being scientific? Are you looking at all the data and research? Or are you picking and choosing depending on your bias?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Relatd: The words JVL writes are random. Somehow, through unknown means, they self-assemble into a precise order that anyone can read. The same with living things. So remember: out of disorder, order. As usual, when you run out of arguments you resort to insults and showing off your misunderstanding of what unguided evolution actually says.JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Asauber: You have clear history of NOT answering queries that have been put to your regarding your stance. You strategically avoid dealing with issues. It seems to me that when you haven't got a good response you fall back on insult and bluff. To make it simple, JVL, the EVIDENCE of design is all around us, right here, right now, for you to observe. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? Where are the academic journals? Where are the textbooks? Where is the ongoing research? Please don't resort to the frequently used conspiracy theory response. The churches in America had a lot more money than the research institutes; it would be a simple thing to find the cash to set up a lab or a journal in support of ID. But, it doesn't happen. Why is that?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: bluff and bluster is NOT evidence! I agree. But when we ask you to scientifically justify your stance you frequently site YouTube videos or articles (not research papers) from anti-evolutionary sites or blogs. I can point to hundreds, thousands of research papers. I can point to many, many textbooks and other books explaining and clarifying the evidence in favour of unguided evolution. How many ID textbooks are there? How many ID journals are there? How many peer-reviewed ID research papers are there? You've got a lot of catching up to do. And since you, yourself, can't do that catching up . . . who can? Who is doing that work? Where is the research? Where are the papers?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Origenes: Well, I agree with you that you have to say this in order to defend natural elimination. So, starting with a bacterium, you claim that it easy to make e.g. a bat…. Not easy, it takes many, many, many, many, many generations. AND you don't know ahead of time what you're going to get. If you think the fossil record is complete . . . can you: Find the stuff that any given species ate? They had to eat some other species after all. Find the stuff the survivors of the asteroid impact ate? Also: how many species do you think there have been then?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Just to be clear, what Jerry has written, that I quote in this comment is complete balderdash, utter rubbish, strawman nonsense.
is this projection? Everything I said is logical and based on evidence.
Let me be blunt. It is you who who have no idea how biological evolution works. It is your comments that make no sense.
I suggest that you explain how biological evolution works. You will be the first one ever to do so. No links or references for this because we are just dealing with how. This would then require several examples that are well documented. You can use links for this. By the way why don’t you define words like “niche” and “fitter” as part of this. Both are rather nebulous words. Anything could be a niche and fitter could mean lots of things.jerry_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

JVL Let’s focus on you answering the questions I asked: Are you saying that NO species existed in the past except what is represented in the fossil record? If yes then what justification do you have for thinking so?
Yes there are no species other than fossil record or living one. If you think there were other species that were extinct [a belief based on a theory based on beliefs of Darwin] the burden is on you to prove that . ;)Sandy_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Andrew, No, no. The words JVL writes are random. Somehow, through unknown means, they self-assemble into a precise order that anyone can read. The same with living things. So remember: out of disorder, order. :) :)relatd_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

JVL, To make it simple, JVL, the EVIDENCE of design is all around us, right here, right now, for you to observe. Andrewasauber_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply