Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Animal DNA modifier captured from bacteria 60 million years ago

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

By the bdelloid rotifer:

Epigenetic marks are modifications to DNA bases that don’t change the underlying genetic code, but “write” extra information on top of it that can be inherited along with your genome. Epigenetic marks usually regulate gene expression — turn genes on or off — particularly during early development or when your body is under stress. They can also suppress “jumping genes” — transposable elements that threaten the integrity of your genome.

In humans and other eukaryotes, two principal epigenetic marks are known. A team from the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) has discovered a third, novel epigenetic mark — one formerly known only in bacteria — in bdelloid rotifers, small freshwater animals. This fundamental and surprising discovery is reported this week in Nature Communications.

“We discovered back in 2008 that bdelloid rotifers are very good at capturing foreign genes,” said senior author Irina Arkhipova, senior scientist in the MBL’s Josephine Bay Paul Center. “What we’ve found here is that rotifers, about 60 million years ago, accidentally captured a bacterial gene that allowed them to introduce a new epigenetic mark that was not there before.” This is the first time that a horizontally transferred gene has been shown to reshape the gene regulatory system in a eukaryote.

“This is very unusual and has not been previously reported,” Arkhipova said. “Horizontally transferred genes are thought to preferentially be operational genes, not regulatory genes. It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system, because the existing regulatory systems are already very complicated.”

“It’s almost unbelievable,” said co-first author Irina Yushenova, a research scientist in Arkhipova’s lab. “Just try to picture, somewhere back in time, a piece of bacterial DNA happened to be fused to a piece of eukaryotic DNA. Both of them became joined in the rotifer’s genome and they formed a functional enzyme. That’s not so easy to do, even in the lab, and it happened naturally. And then this composite enzyme created this amazing regulatory system, and bdelloid rotifers were able to start using it to control all these jumping transposons. It’s like magic.”

Marine Biological Laboratory, “New DNA modification system discovered in animals, captured from bacteria more than 60 MYA” at ScienceDaily (February 28, 2022)

The obvious question this raises is, what about all the detailed Darwinian narratives that a horizontal gene transfer could obviate?

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more.

Comments
JVL
You, and others, keep waving around arguments for why ID is a valid argument but you’ve provided NOTHING about how it works.
You're right, I was missing your question here. You're looking for something that ID does not attempt to show. The theory does not propose a solution to that problem. It has a limited focus - only that certain aspects of nature are best described as the product of intelligent design. In other words, we have evidence that intelligence was involved. How, when, where and who was the intelligence - those are not part of the theory. Scientific theories work that way. They attempt to show one thing, not every possible thing.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
JVL
I am not asking for a mathematical justification for the existence of ID; I am asking for a mathematical model for how ID plays out in the development of life on Earth.
Ok, fair enough. However, you're asking for something that ID does not claim to show. What ID is attempting is to show that it exists. So, the first part of your statement - yes. If ID exists, then the theory is validated. How life played out on earth is not something ID theory has proposed an answer for. So, it's unreasonable to ask that.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You claimed: “ID has no variables and no mathematical models.” I have not seen a mathematical model (including variables) regarding how ID works regarding the development of life on Earth. You, and others, keep waving around arguments for why ID is a valid argument but you've provided NOTHING about how it works. But you keep trying and trying to get me to accept something which you have not provided. What is the problem? Why do you keep trying to answer a question I'm not asking???? What do you think Lenski was trying to prove with his 30 year experiment with bacteria? What are you saying? Please be clear: what kind of evidence would you accept? Not what don't you accept, what kind of evidence would you accept? Is that so hard to understand?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
JVL 52: HUH? Do you, besides being desperately unreasonable, also have a reading comprehension issue?
JVL “Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind (about Darwinian evolution)?” Sure, and you can pocket 10 million dollars in the process, (not to mention a Nobel prize). Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748377
bornagain77
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
JVL
Give me an example of some kind of evidence that you would accept as having established the case.
What do you think Lenski was trying to prove with his 30 year experiment with bacteria?Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
JVL
I haven’t learned anything.
You claimed: "ID has no variables and no mathematical models."Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information. And what kind of proof would you accept? Give me an example of some kind of evidence that you would accept as having established the case.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Asauber: I’ll ask someone else. Gosh, I guess you don't know or won't say what kind of evidence would change your mind. Which brings up another question: is it possible that any evidence would change your mind? Shall we work on that? If no evidence would change your mind then are you being scientific?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
JVL "Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind (about Darwinian evolution)?" Sure, and you can pocket 10 million dollars in the process, (not to mention a Nobel prize). Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information.
Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution - Jan, 2020 An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt. This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at www.evo2.org. ,,, "A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days," said Marshall. "One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they'd set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity." https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html
Seeing that there are multiple overlapping codes in the cell, and you believe that unguided material processes created them all, then proving that unguided material processes can create coded information ought to be a piece of cake for you. Or not :)
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - published online May 2013 Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43]. 38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142. 39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432. 40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654. 41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997. 42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816. 43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious - multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations? http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
bornagain77
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
JVL, I’ll ask someone else. Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Asauber: Why would you think I know about mathematical models? I don't want to assume anything about you and your background or abilities. But you've admitted you don't know of any mathematical model for how ID works and I think you for that admission. I guess I am mistaken that you know anything about the “unguided” evolution of the human hand. I didn't say that. I just wanted to finish the first point first. Which we have done: you do not know of a way to mathematically model ID regarding biological development. I’ll ask someone else. I'll ask you again: what kind of evidence would you accept? Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: We can create irreducibly complex structures through the use of intelligent design. So, now it needs to be shown that blind, unintelligent forces can produce the same. Mathematical simulations were studied and the claim falsified. So the ID inference stands. Again and again and again you miss the point. I am not asking for a mathematical justification for the existence of ID; I am asking for a mathematical model for how ID plays out in the development of life on Earth. IF you don't get the question then stop trying to answer. Bibliographic and Annotated List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design Stop answering a question I am not asking!! In the three words you added above to adjust that, can you see how we helped you change your mind? It’s good, JVL – you’re learning something. I haven't learned anything. You haven't explain how ID actually works during the development of life, you haven't provided a mathematical model for how ID works, you keep answering a different question which I haven't asked. If you don't know something then just say so. You are looking increasingly foolish trying to answer questions that were not asked.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
"And I thought you could do a simple thing and provide a mathematical model" JVL, Why would you think I know about mathematical models? I guess I am mistaken that you know anything about the "unguided" evolution of the human hand. I'll ask someone else. Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Asauber: Since you are representative of the Evolutionist Community’s Finest, I thought for sure you could and would present your community’s finest science on the development of the human hand. Alas… And I thought you could do a simple thing and provide a mathematical model for how ID works in the development of life on Earth. But you can't. By the way, if you are really interested in the mathematical models for unguided evolution they are not that hard to find: Mathematical modeling of evolution. Solved and open problems https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20809365/ Mathematical Modeling of Evolution: Volume 1: One-Locus and Multi-Locus Theory and Recombination https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110615456/html This article develops a general mathematical stochastic model of lineage evolution and provides a method for testing its adequacy as an explanation of the number of lineages or clans found in a particular social unit. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249732189_A_mathematical_model_of_lineage_evolution A mathematical model of marine bacteriophage evolution https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171661 Oh, sorry, I'm making you look foolish. My apologies.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
JVL
Why don’t you just admit that there is no clear and objective mathematical model for how ID works?
You said "But ID has no variables and no mathematical models. Go figure." In the three words you added above to adjust that, can you see how we helped you change your mind? It's good, JVL - you're learning something.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Bibliographic and Annotated List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007). This article devises a method of measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, which in turn permits “distinguishing between order, randomness, and biological function.” The authors suggest that “If genes can be thought of as information processing subroutines, then proteins can be analyzed in terms of the products of information interacting with laws of physics.” The metric of functional sequence complexity advanced by these authors is highly similar to the notion of complex and specified information.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
JVL We can create irreducibly complex structures through the use of intelligent design. So, now it needs to be shown that blind, unintelligent forces can produce the same. Mathematical simulations were studied and the claim falsified. So the ID inference stands. Winston Ewert, “Complexity in Computer Simulations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2014 (1). Computer scientist Winston Ewert reviews the literature claiming to evolve irreducible complexity through evolutionary computer simulations and finds that “Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity has not been falsified by computer models.” After reviewing the models, including Avida, Ev, Steiner trees, geometric model, digital ears, and Tierra, Ewert finds that in many cases, the “parts” that compose the irreducibly complex systems are “too simple,” in that the programs are designed such that systems which the programs deem “functional” are very likely to evolve. “Almost all of the cases of proposed irreducible complexity consist of parts simple enough that a system of several components could be produced by chance, acting without selection. As such, they fail to demonstrate that their models can evolve irreducibly complex systems, especially on the scale of biological complexity,” he writes. This leads to a conundrum for evolutionary theorists. Since “Darwinian evolution is an ateleological process,” this means that “If a model is designed to assist the evolution of an irreducibly complex system, it is not a model of Darwinian evolution” and “Any decision in the construction of a model made with an eye towards enabling the evolution of irreducible complexity invalidates the model.” Ewert finds that this is precisely where many of these models fail. In the one case that a truly irreducibly complex system was found in a program, he found it was “designed as part of the ancestor used to seed the ... simulation,” and thus did not actually evolve. According to Ewert’s analysis, computational attempts to explain the evolution of irreducible complexity have “failed on a number of fronts”Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
JVL, Since you are representative of the Evolutionist Community's Finest, I thought for sure you could and would present your community's finest science on the development of the human hand. Alas... Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: What’s good to see here is that you’re saying: “Yes, you’re right. Unguided science does not have a mathematical model to support it.” — you then turn that around and attack ID. No, I did not say unguided evolution does not have some mathematical models to support it. You are deflecting your inability to provide mathematical models for how ID works. But we can see what you are doing. You may say, “you’re attacking evolution because ID theory is weak and cannot be defended” – but no. We attack evolution because if that worldview falls, then there’s a level playing field so we can match the claims of ID vs evolution against each other. As it stands, the evolutionary world claims the higher scientific value. hahahahahahhaahh You still haven't provided a mathematical model for how ID works in the development of life on Earth. You are trying really hard to dance away from that but it's pretty clear that there is a gaping hole in your 'better' explanation. Why don't you just admit that there is no clear and objective mathematical model for how ID works? Isn't that the honest and mature thing to do?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Asauber: I’m shocked and dismayed that you are evading presenting what I asked for. ? I asked my question first and you haven't been able to answer it. Funny that. Not so funny that you can't even admit it.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Bornagain77 Good lord, you just don't get it do you? I'm not asking for a mathematical justification for ID existing, I'm asking for a mathematical model for how ID works regarding the development of life on Earth!! I do not understand why you keep on arguing about something you clearly do not understand. Here is their website and papers. Read through them at your leisure. I am sure one or more of the authors will be willing to explain any mathematical details to you that you don’t understand No, you pick one that mathematically models how ID works. Give it your best shot.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
JVL, I'm shocked and dismayed that you are evading presenting what I asked for. ;) Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
JVL
Over and over and over again I hear: unguided evolution is not a science, you don’t have a mathematical model for it. I am asking: do you have a mathematical model for ID?
What's good to see here is that you're saying: "Yes, you're right. Unguided science does not have a mathematical model to support it." -- you then turn that around and attack ID. That's ok. You're illustrating the poverty of evolutionary theory but trying to defend it by attacking ID instead. You may say, "you're attacking evolution because ID theory is weak and cannot be defended" - but no. We attack evolution because if that worldview falls, then there's a level playing field so we can match the claims of ID vs evolution against each other. As it stands, the evolutionary world claims the higher scientific value. Thankfully, you're pointing out that it's not the case.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Asauber: This is not a thought project for me to answer a series of hypotheticals. If you have what you consider robust evidence, let’s have it. If you can't answer my queries then so be it. Okay, so Asauber cannot provide a mathematical model for how ID works. AND he cannot specify what kind of evidence he would find convincing that unguided evolutionary processes are adequate. Noted.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
JVL at 22: "Ah but right now the topic is: what mathematical models are there for ID? Let’s decide on that first shall we?" Well actually the topic is that the way that Darwinists mathematically use the word 'chance' is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with the word miracle. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748314 JVL's subsequent claim that, “when they (Darwinists) say something happened ‘by chance’ they mean it was unpredicted or unpredictable", did nothing whatsoever to mitigate the devastating criticism against Darwin's theory in that the way in which Darwinists mathematically use the word 'chance 'is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with the word miracle. (Pauli) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748325 JVL, realizing that he could not refute the "chance' equals miracle' criticism, shifted from trying to defend Darwinism to denying that ID had a mathematical basis. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748333 JVL was then shown to be wrong in his claim that ID had no mathematical basis. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748336 Now, after being shown to be wrong in his claim about ID, JVL refuses to accept the mathematical models for ID as being valid. And refuses to tell us why he doesn't believe them to be valid, and demand that we personally explain the math of 'conservation of information 'to him in our own words. To spell it all out for you JVL, this is 'desperation' on your part, not a reasoned debate. Well whatever. You can't force someone to be reasonable if they don't want to be reasonable. Anyways JVL, if you ever want to be reasonable, and even dive into the math of 'conservation of information' yourself, here is their website and papers. Read through them at your leisure. I am sure one or more of the authors will be more than willing to explain any mathematical details to you that you don't understand
Evoinfo https://www.evoinfo.org/index.html The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II Bernoulli's Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II Biological Information - New Perspectives, Cornell University (World Scientific, Singapore, 2013) R.J. Marks II, M.J. Behe, W.A. Dembski, B.L. Gordon, J.C. Sanford, Editors Climbing the Steiner Tree—Sources of Active Information in a Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Euclidean Steiner Tree Problem Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II Time and Information in Evolution Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, and Robert J. Marks II Time and Information in Evolution Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, and Robert J. Marks II Conservation of Information in Relative Search Performance Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations William F. Basener and John C. Sanford Conservation of Information in Coevolutionary Searches Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II Observation of Unbounded Novelty in Evolutionary Algorithms is Unknowable Eric Holloway and Robert J. Marks II Mode hunting through active information Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón, Juan Pablo Sáenz, J. Sunil Rao, and Jean-Eudes Dazard https://www.evoinfo.org/publications.html
bornagain77
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Give me a detailed explanation of their teachings, if you’re claiming to have studied them. If not, you haven’t even looked at the evidence of the mathematical models given but claimed there are none. I have looked at Dr Dembski's mathematics regarding ID and it's purely a justification that ID exists not how it works. If I am wrong then provide an explanation or link regarding any and all work explaining how ID works. And I will concede if I am incorrect. Show me what new features appeared in the equivalent of a million human years time (40,000 generations) in Lenski’s bacteria. Not the same thing though is it? That's like saying dog years count as human years. You tell me: what evidence would you accept that human hands arose through a process of unguided evolution and then we'll go from there.JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
JVL
So, if a transition takes a few million years, what kind of evidence would convince you?
Show me what new features appeared in the equivalent of a million human years time (40,000 generations) in Lenski's bacteria.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
"So, if a transition takes a few million years, what kind of evidence would convince you?" JVL, This is not a thought project for me to answer a series of hypotheticals. If you have what you consider robust evidence, let's have it. Andrewasauber
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
JVL
Firstly, you don’t know that your statement is true.
Give me a detailed explanation of their teachings, if you're claiming to have studied them. If not, you haven't even looked at the evidence of the mathematical models given but claimed there are none.Silver Asiatic
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Asauber: I accept all evidence. I don’t consider just-so stories as “scientific”. So, if a transition takes a few million years, what kind of evidence would convince you?JVL
March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply