Mud-to-Mozart Atheology (Or, Who are the real skeptics?)

_{GilDodgen
October 22, 2011

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

I find the “skeptic” claim on the part of Darwinian materialists very interesting and equally illuminating. Darwinists exhibit no skepticism whatsoever about the thesis that physical stuff turned into Mozart by chance. (Don’t try to deny this, Darwinists, that is the essence of your claim. You can try to obfuscate with legion “peer-reviewed scientific papers,” but you’re not going to fool me and many others about what you are actually promoting and advocating.)

I choose Mozart not just because I am a classical concert pianist, but because his existence epitomizes everything that Darwinian theory is totally powerless to explain.

Darwinists, claiming to be skeptics, actually exhibit the antithesis of skepticism — making transparently ludicrous claims and providing a never-ending stream of unsupported extrapolations, based only on wildly imaginative speculation with no empirical support.

How is it that Darwinian atheists are the only ones who get to declare themselves legitimate skeptics? Is mud-to-Mozart-by-chance philosophy the only worldview immune to skeptical inquiry?

Comments

DrBot: Again with neutral mutations. I have explained. If you don't understand, what can I do? So, to sum up: do you belioeve that the transitions from one existinf basci domain to a new one happened without selectable intermediaries? That my assumption that there must be selectable intermediary, expanded selectable intermediaries, and a lot of them, is only "a misunderstanding I have of evolutionary processes"? OK, it's fine for me. You are the first darwinist I know who believes in evolution by RV alone. Then, it's mud to Mozart by chance alone, all the way. Congratulations: you have just refuted the neo darwinian model, cancelled NS form the scenario, and proposed the most blatantly absurd explanatory theory for the origin of protein domains.gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

It’s demonstrated every time a genetic algorithm is used to produce a completely new complex design with an iterative process that follows a few simple rules. One quick example: Automated Analog Circuit Design Using Genetic Algorithms The process is identical to what happens in the reproduction of biological life. There is more than one way to achieve complexity beside just designed and manufactured complex from the start. Iterative filtered feedback processes can do it too.
I cannot speak about the paper you linked by Navid Azizi, but I will look at it as soon as I can. Recently, I have spent time looking at Avida, specifically the 2003 Nature paper by Richard Lenski et al, The evolutionary origin of complex features. I am still new to genetic algorithms, but I have some serious initial doubts about Avida regarding its analogy to biological evolution. Biological mutations are random with respect to fitness or function, but mutations in Avida, while random wrt the rewardable outputs, are randomly inserted from one of 26 functions...every insertion is an actual funciton. That is nothing like what we should expect in biology. Even though I haven't read the Azizi paper, I am initially very skeptical of your claim of it being "identical" to the reproduction of biological life. You were criticizing the use of "superficial similarities", like the flagella vs. outboard motors, in this very thread at comment # 23.3.1.1.4 (emphasis added):
The way archaeologists determine if a find is human produced (say a primitive stone ax) or just a natural rock is by comparing the object with other known human designed similar objects. Not superficial similarities, not analogies (like flagella and outboard motors) but actual known designed objects.
Every genetic algorithm that I've seen has claimed to be "proof" of Darwinian-like mechanism creating complex functionality has one huge assumption/aide built into every one of them: a smoothly sloped function gradient. Weasel was the most ridiculous example, of course, but even Avida does this... they nine (9) incrementally complex functions that build towards the final desired function (EQU), and they are rewarded exponentially greater and greater. Most ID advocates will admit that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is capable of creating complex functionality when each step forward is small enough to be traversed by random search. as gpuccio said in #38:
RV + NS in principle could, but only if the pathway to the complex information could be deconstructed into steps of low enough functional complexity...
This is all Avida demonstrated. In fact in the Discussion section, the authors stated:
The most complex function, EQU, evolved only when several simpler functions were also useful.
and
Some readers might suggest that we ‘stacked the deck’ by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires, and indeed, our experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved when simpler functions were not rewarded.
i.e. they proved nothing other than what everyone agrees on, that RM+NS can create ANYTHING...that has a smooth enough fitness gradient leading up to it. And this gradient was constructed by the programmers of Avida, so what's the point? btw, here is there "reward curve" for output functions (the number is the "computational merit", analogous to the "fitness value" it adds to the organism): NOT - 2 NAND - 2 AND - 4 OR_N - 4 OR - 8 AND_N - 8 NOR - 16 XOR - 16 EQU - 32 It is Table 1 of their paper, which I linked above.uoflcard_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Let me rephrase this as an evolutionary prediction. Evolutionary theory predicts that living things should possess features or behaviors that are necessary for their survival or reproduction, or were at some point necessary for the survival or reproduction of their ancestors. Is that an accurate prediction of evolutionary theory?ScottAndrews2_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

I've been stuck unable to comment for a few days, and this has really irked me. What selects for Mozart's brain? Or ours? How does Dawkins' indifferent universe a.k.a. law of the jungle produce pleasantly enlightening musical entertainment? Of course you'll say that it's an anomaly, like a water-skiing dog. Fine. What about the average human intellect which none of us use? Every other case in which a feature goes unused it is considered vestigial. What about the brain? Are we supposed to believe that at some point in prehistory our distant ancestors were forced to learn multiple languages and calculus and engineering and whatever else was thrown at them, in excess of anything any modern man has ever comprehended, all in order to survive? I've heard ridiculous sexual selection story. So let me rephrase. Was there ever a time in prehistory when our distant ancestors had to do all the above things in order to get a mate? It's the equivalent of saying that giraffes needed longer necks to reach the tops of trees, and that's why they are 4,000 feet long. The existence of the human intellect falsifies Darwinism. Any evolutionary narrative requires an extended period during which survival or reproduction required the entire lineage to exercise a mental faculty surpassing the greatest minds in history. And while leaving a deceptive trail indicating the a gradual development of language, writing, and technology with our present state as its pinnacle. Which does evolution predict - vast, untapped capability or whichever characteristics are required for survival, allowing for a degree of fluctuation? Doesn't evolution predict that our minds should never happen? Why doesn't it predict that?ScottAndrews2_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

uoflcard
GB: "But the combined iterative process of RV filtered by NS with entities that retain heritable variations can and does easily create new features and complexity. You’ve only had that explained to you several dozen times by now." Actually we have had it asserted several thousand times on this site and in other forums. Demonstrated or proven? Still waiting on the first one.
It's demonstrated every time a genetic algorithm is used to produce a completely new complex design with an iterative process that follows a few simple rules. One quick example: Automated Analog Circuit Design Using Genetic Algorithms The process is identical to what happens in the reproduction of biological life. There is more than one way to achieve complexity beside just designed and manufactured complex from the start. Iterative filtered feedback processes can do it too. Complexity by itself is not a sure indication of one-time design
Mutation + selection “easily” stumbled upon human consciousness in a few hundred thousand generations?
'Consciousness' has almost certainly been around for a lot longer than that. 'Human consciousness' only since the time you define in our evolutionary timeline as the appearance of first humans.GinoB_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

GinoB
But the combined iterative process of RV filtered by NS with entities that retain heritable variations can and does easily create new features and complexity. You’ve only had that explained to you several dozen times by now.
Actually we have had it asserted several thousand times on this site and in other forums. Demonstrated or proven? Still waiting on the first one. Mutation + selection "easily" stumbled upon human consciousness in a few hundred thousand generations?uoflcard_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

by the same logic... There are about 142,000 characters in Hamlet. I make a program that randomly generates 1,000,000 characters per second. I'll recreate Hamlet in no time!! No, I didn't mention selection, but neither did you. ...Unless you're suggesting that 150 mutations per generation were selected. That is fantastically generous considering that those mutations had to "stumble" towards human consciousness, among other things.uoflcard_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the response,
The point is: we were discussing transition through selectable intermediates.
The problem is you are assuming that intermediates have to be selected for. They don't, they can just be near neutral. This, I would argue, is a fundamental misunderstanding you have of evolutionary processes.
Non coding DNA is not translated, by definition. Therefore, it does not produce a protein. A proteins that is not produced cannot obviously give a reproductive advantage, abd therefore be selected by NS.
Again, they don't need to confer a reproductive advantage, just not a severe reproductive disadvantage. Think of it this way - if a protein coding gene can mutate into a psuedogene, then a psuedogene can mutate into a protein coding gene. Now what else can a psuedogene mutate into, and what else can mutate into a psuedogene? To put it another way - if we are discussing, metaphorically, how to get from rock A to rock B, you appear to me to be arguing that there is no way to get from A to B because we know of no rocks in between. I am saying that there is more to the terrain (the genes) than just rocks (protein coding genes) and that some of the non-rock terrain may be relatively flat (neutral), providing routes to other rocks.DrBot_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

DrBot: I apologize if I am responding only now to your 46.2.1.1.3. The point you raise is interesting, but not pertinent to the discussion we were having. I wil be more clear. You say: One problem there is it is only comparing protein coding sequences. To get a full picture of the degree of isolation between domains you need to look at non-coding sequences as well because these can potentially provide routes between domains. The point is: we were discussing transition through selectable intermediates. While the role of non coding DNA is certainly interesting (more on that later), one thing it cannot do is provide selectable protein intermediates. That's, indeed, exactly because it is "non coding". Non coding DNA is not translated, by definition. Therefore, it does not produce a protein. A proteins that is not produced cannot obviously give a reproductive advantage, abd therefore be selected by NS. Beware: mutations in non coding DNA can certainly give a reproductive advantage abd be selected, but not certainly for their protein coding information. So, I can't see how non coding DNA can represent a bridge between protein coding domains, if it does not code for a translated protein. On the other hand, I am indeed a big fan of non coding DNA. I do believe that new genes can emerge from non coding DNA, but certainly not by darwinian mechanism. Transposons have been considered an import tool in modifying DNA, including non coding. I agree with that. The point is, before a segment of non coding DNA generates an ORF, it is not translated, Therefore, no protein related information in it can ever be selected. So, if new genes emerge (as I believe) form non coding DNA, for example by transposon activity, there are only two possible explanations: a) Pure random variation, with no NS b) Design Guess my choice?gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Well, have you tried calculating it for one of Lenski’s EQU outputs? No, because frankly I am not interested in GAs, that IMO are only examples of intelligent design. For dFSCI computation, you need a purely random system, or you have to isolate the random part of a complex algorithm. And why did you set your “personal threshold” at 150 bits? Empirical reasons. The 500 bit threshold of Dembski is an universal probability bound. It takes into consideration all the possible probability resources of the whole universe, from the big bamg to now, and at the level of elementary quantum particles and quantum times. That is frankly too much for a plaen of 4 billion years of existence, and for a maximum random system that has biological proportions. I simply tried to grossly compute the probabilistic resources of the whole planet, from the beginning of its existence, assuming that it was from the beginning covered by a bacterial population, and assuming a mean time of bacterial reproduction and a mean rate of mutations. I could not redo the calculation now without some research, but at the time I came out with a generous threshold of 150 bits. It's just a proposal, I am ready to review the calculation if anyone has better data or better assumptions. But the 500 bits of Dembski's UPB are certainly too much for a planetary biological system. I am tired of being too generous with darwinists!gpuccio_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

GinoB
As for evolutionary processes being sufficient, this has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community for over 100 years.
I point out the same thing all of the time, even on this very thread. It is a black eye for natural evolution, IMO. It was accepted as fact decades before we even began to pry the lid off the complexity that ID advocates believe poses serious challenges to natural evolution, and we are still tumbling down the rabbit hole, waiting to hit the bottom. It was never seriously questioned, there was never serious skepticism on a community-wide level. You pointing out that it was an accepted fact long before the relevant challenges ever came up doesn't sway me the way you intend. But maybe that's just me. It seems like every few years, we uncover another order of magnitude of complexity, and we haven't even begun to adequately explain exactly how some of the most complex phenomena arise (like human consciousness). Yet with each complexity revelation (or timeline reduction...we've witnessed highly complex evolutionary events in a matter of decades as opposed to the "deep time" that was preached for so many decades), the prevailing science community response has zero skepticism towards the theory, but joyful exclamation at the newly revealed power of natural evolution.
There are literally thousands of colleges, universities, natural history museums, and millions of pages of on-line text where you can learn about the evidence. People spend their whole lives studying and getting PhDs and only touch on a tiny portion of it. There’s far too much of it to give it adequate coverage here on this tiny blog. Get thee to a library!
I have been actively seeking evidence rebutting ID theory since I came across the concept 7 years ago. I have asked many skeptics for references to such evidence, as have dozens of others on forums like this. I have yet to see one remotely successful paper or piece of evidence. The vast majority are evidence for common descent, "microevolution" or some other seemingly related yet actually irrelevant information. I honestly try to be as open-minded with any argument anyone makes on this issue. I would be lying if I said that I successfully do that all of the time or that it is easy; everyone comes to this table with a bias - everyone. But I do try to comprehend and rationally judge (for my own belief) the validity of any claim someone makes (unless they are being nasty). If I found convincing evidence that natural evolution is categorically capable of producing the complexity we find in life, I would have no huge problem abandoning ID. But arguments from authority like "everyone who matters believes it" or Elizabeth's question-begging, simplistic argument;
"...by the simple logical fact that if things replicate with heritable variation, and at least some of that variation is variation in reproductive success, the population will adapt to its environment"
are not going to convince me that said replication with heritable variation in reproductive success can and did create the astounding biological complexity we have so far discovered and have yet to comprehend.uoflcard_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

GinoB,
The first step in identifying suspected design, and the most important step, is understanding the identity and capabilities of the designer.
See my comment # 23.3.1.1.6 where I respond to these thoughts of yours. To archaeologists, of course the most important part of their process is identifying the designer(s), how it was made, what it was used for, etc., not whether or not it was designed. But you are simply lying that you say we need to know those things to tell if a discovered object was designed.
That’s the big part IDists won’t own up to, because they know their Omnipotent God wouldn’t be allowed in science classes. So they keep playing the “it’s not about the designer” game, and science keeps just rolling its eyes.
We don't address the identity of the designer in this forum because a.) it is not central or even relevant to the ID hypothesis, regardless of your assertions and b.) identifying the designer scientifically does not seem to be possible given our current observable evidence. Contrarily, I believe the reason that you and others keep bringing it up is because you KNOW that once anything metaphysical is mentioned on our side, it will be crushed in science departments and in courts, and the merits of our arguments won't even have to be addressed. You DON'T need to identify anything about the designer to infer design. You simply don't. As I stated in comment 23.3.1.1.6, design identification in biology is much more difficult than its archaeological equivalent, because there is a natural process that can cause adaptation beyond the means of simple law and chance mechanisms. But one example of identifying an object as designed without addressing who the designer was or understanding their capabilities completely demolishes the nonsense you have been posting on this thread (and, I'm guessing, many others) on this subject.uoflcard_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

The design inference has ALWAYS been about the origin of living organisms- always. The stuff about whales is about evidence as in you need some that demonstrates the transformations required are possible via genetic variation.Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Ah, so your design inference depends on OOL? What was all that stuff about whales about, then?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

No, I am not using "reproductive success" as a "mantra" gpuccio, I'm using it because it is a more direct description of what we are actually talking about when we talk about "NS" and "RV" and "neutral drift". And my arguments are certainly not "non-arguments"! By "differential reproductive success" I simply mean what it says on the tin; that some organisms reproduce more successfully than others - produce more viable offspring. This may be due to luck, or it may be due to something they inherited from their parents, for instance, better camouflage. That is why "heritable variance in reproductive success" is a better name for "natural selection" because that's all it is. Non-heritable variance in reproductive success would just be luck. If I'm spider and I produce few children because you wash me down the plug hole, then I'm not going to pass on "wash-down-the-plug-hole genes" to my offspring because there aren't any. So while I may have less reproductive success than my peers, it isn't heritable reproductive success (unless you washed me down the plug hole because I had particularly googly eyes, in which case, if that was a systematic effect, we might get cuter spiders after a while, but let that pass....) On the other hand if I don't have many offspring because I am bright red and easy for predators to spot, whereas my peers are a dull green, and tend not to be eaten, then my genes for bright-redness will tend to fair worse in the population than my peers' genes for dull greenness. On the other hand, if I have more children because my venom is more effective at killing juicy flies, then my venom genes are going to do better in the population than those of my less venomous peers. Not a mantra, then! "Neutral drift", "RV" and "NS" are certainly concepts, but they are high level concepts, and only implemented in explicit models at the level I have given, i.e. at the level of differential reproductive success. Dawkins makes many errors with this. The reason I "don't understand it" is because it doesn't make a lot of sense. What I am saying is much simpler, and, IMO, makes much more sense. Indeed it's exactly what AVIDA uses, and the result is evolution. Tell me why "the Lenski and Avida things have nothing to do with dFSCI" :)Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

I have already told you what would refute ID and very dissimilar organisms would only refute a common design. To refute ID- as Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Wells, et al., have said- all you have to do is demonstrate blind, undirected chemical processes can account for a living organism- Do that and there is no longer a requirement for a designer.Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Well, you have just made a differential prediction, Joseph, for which I commend you. I'm asking what evidence would refute ID. You seem to suggest that dissimilarities would refute ID. How dissimilar would things have to be to refute ID?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Read this: The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms Chase W. Nelson and John C. Sanford Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 2011, 8:9 | doi:10.1186/1742-4682-8-9
Abstract: Background: Avida is a computer program that performs evolution experiments with digital organisms. Previous work has used the program to study the evolutionary origin of complex features, namely logic operations, but has consistently used extremely large mutational fitness effects. The present study uses Avida to better understand the role of low-impact mutations in evolution. Results: When mutational fitness effects were approximately 0.075 or less, no new logic operations evolved, and those that had previously evolved were lost. When fitness effects were approximately 0.2, only half of the operations evolved, reflecting a threshold for selection breakdown. In contrast, when Avida's default fitness effects were used, all operations routinely evolved to high frequencies and fitness increased by an average of 20 million in only 10,000 generations. Conclusions: Avidian organisms evolve new logic operations only when mutations producing them are assigned high-impact fitness effects. Furthermore, purifying selection cannot protect operations with low-impact benefits from mutational deterioration. These results suggest that selection breaks down for low-impact mutations below a certain fitness effect, the selection threshold. Experiments using biologically relevant parameter settings show the tendency for increasing genetic load to lead to loss of biological functionality. An understanding of such genetic deterioration is relevant to human disease, and may be applicable to the control of pathogens by use of lethal mutagenesis.
Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

Ahh so your only response is to act like a child? Have you even bothered to look around and observe how dissimilar organisms are?Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

No, I read the paper.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Ah. So your designer is incapable of making dissimilar organisms?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Yup just make stuff up...Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Wrong again, as usual. Only evidence of SIMILARITIES can support a common design- obviously you have absolutely no idea what a common design is and obvioulsy you have never dealt with IEEE nor building codes. Your ignorance is not a refutation.Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

It evolved, Joseph.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Where did that EQU come from? It sure as heck doesn't represent any evolutionary reward from the real world.Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Sure. Any evidence can be used to support a common design. That's the problem.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Well, have you tried calculating it for one of Lenski's EQU outputs? And why did you set your "personal threshold" at 150 bits?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
That said, the evidence for Common Descent seems to me even more overwhelming than the pretty overwhelming evidence for Darwinian evolution as an explanation of Common Descent!
Yet that same evidence can be used to support a common design.Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

GinoB:
Common descent is a fact.
Yes common descent as in I am descended from my human parents is a fact.
ID is an unsupported hypothesis.
ID is supported by scientific fields such as physics, biology, cosmology and chemistry.Joseph_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

He doesn't say that someone suspects it is an alien spacecraft, just that they suspect it is intelligently designed. Certainly, the debate about what the object is would immediately follow the identification of it being designed.
The problem with interpreting living populations as designed is that we have a candidate for a natural process that produces incremental change over time.
I agree! In fact I say as much in 23.3.1.1.9. Here is my comment:
Biological design is much tougher to scientifically decipher, because there IS a mechanism that can lead to adaptation. The problem there is that few outside of the ID camp seriously question the adequacy of neo-Darwinism to produce the “designs” at which we marvel in organisms. It was “100% adequate” around the turn of the 20th century when it was first adopted, and it has remained “100% adequate” every second since then through all of the challenges that should have been considered as we have observed more and more of the complexity. Every time we find a new level of complexity, the reaction is never “hmm, I wonder if the neo-Darwinian mechanism could have accomplished this”, it’s “Wow! This mechanism is even better than we thought! This genius design is highly selectable.”
Back to your post:
We have no candidate for a designer capable of anticipating the results of sequence changes in DNA.
And again, we don't need a candidate. If we can objectively prove that an organic phenomenon is beyond the reach of random serach, natural law, or both (neo-Darwinism, that still leaves intelligence. Hypothetically, if one of Richard Lenski's E. coli bacteria spawned with a completely re-written genome and hundreds of novel, complex functions, we would be 100% justified in rejecting neo-Darwinism. Would we be wrong to attribute it to design, at least until another mechanism could be proposed, because we don't know who or what did it? Obviously we don't have any such dramatic sweeping changes, so the debate is not that easy. But it just shows that you don't need to even consider who the designer could be in order to conclude design.
The large numbers cited as as evidence of design also make anticipation of genetic change impossible. there simply isn’t any way, even in principle, to anticipate changes in protein folding or regulatory sequences.
For human intelligence, yes, that is virtually impossible. But you are disregarding the possibility that the designer's intelligence could be many orders of magnitude, or infinitely, greater than our own. You have entered the realm of philosophy.uoflcard_{October 27, 2011
October
10
Oct
27
27
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply