B
BobRyan
Guest
1. Patterson's frank observations go to the very core of the atheist darwinist argument. Though some Darwinists may wish to avoid this obvious point -- it hardly makes sense for the rest of us to pretend we don't see the problem for darwinists.
2. The thread itself starts out to address this very point - Patterson's observations and how they either help or hurt darwinist mythology. I propose that they expose the atheist "belief" and faith-based core of Darwinism (it's weakness) whereas the author of the OP suggests that I am missing some detail in Patterson's remarks such that it is really a strength for Darwinism.
It does no good to simply ignore inconvenient details in an effort to stop them from getting in the way of a good story.
This left me free to address the flaw in the Darwinist argument from fossils -- which you seem to prefer to avoid.
This also left me free to address the flaw in the Darwinist argument from genetics (breeding of dogs... dogs vs bananas... claims the Darwinists were SHOWN to make in that regard IN The videos!) - which again you seem to prefer to avoid.
Given that you aready chose to select for the fallacy of equivocation between variation within a genetic species (breeding of dogs for example) and macro-evolution stories (Darwinism) "about how one thing came from another" such as birds-from-reptiles -- I believe me focus on the comparison holds up so far. Your argument that they are the same thing - means that looking at dog breeding to SEE the salient argument of Darwinism is valid.
And that is precisely where we see Darwinism failing -- dogs don't produce birds and neither would the same artificial selection and manipulation in the breeding of reptiles. Leaving Darwinism exposed as a "by faith alone" argument.
It may mean that polymorphism was designed into that architecture so that the gene is not the entire software library for building eye - rather the gene is more like the command to the subsystem to do whatever it's predefined context for eye determines. so a fly with compound eyes as the context for eye simply looks for a command to "execute" the build function for "eye". Certainly that shows a very high level of engineered complexity in the architecutre -- but as I always point out -- Chemistry is applied physics and microbiology is applied chemistry where the architect doing the application design is God.
So as we see in this case - the master designer has the "execute" command PAX-6 that engages 2000 other genes in the "Context build function" for Eye where the context is "fly".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 44_01.html
I dare anyone to take the periodic chart and "repeat the exercise"! No matter how "intelligent" the human designer!! It is simply an example of technology far beyond what any human can do with that periodic chart.
Speaking of which -- get out your periodic charts readers -- Now try this as an exercise in testing your chemistry expertise...
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266
Is it any wonder that Darwinist become frustrated when we point out their "innability to perform" the above experiment (which is what they claim "Lightning and mud" will easily master by themselves given enough time)?
Bob
2. The thread itself starts out to address this very point - Patterson's observations and how they either help or hurt darwinist mythology. I propose that they expose the atheist "belief" and faith-based core of Darwinism (it's weakness) whereas the author of the OP suggests that I am missing some detail in Patterson's remarks such that it is really a strength for Darwinism.
It does no good to simply ignore inconvenient details in an effort to stop them from getting in the way of a good story.
This left me free to address the flaw in the Darwinist argument from fossils -- which you seem to prefer to avoid.
This also left me free to address the flaw in the Darwinist argument from genetics (breeding of dogs... dogs vs bananas... claims the Darwinists were SHOWN to make in that regard IN The videos!) - which again you seem to prefer to avoid.
Given that you aready chose to select for the fallacy of equivocation between variation within a genetic species (breeding of dogs for example) and macro-evolution stories (Darwinism) "about how one thing came from another" such as birds-from-reptiles -- I believe me focus on the comparison holds up so far. Your argument that they are the same thing - means that looking at dog breeding to SEE the salient argument of Darwinism is valid.
And that is precisely where we see Darwinism failing -- dogs don't produce birds and neither would the same artificial selection and manipulation in the breeding of reptiles. Leaving Darwinism exposed as a "by faith alone" argument.
Do you think it significant for our understanding of evolutionary theory that inserting the gene that controls mammalian eye development from a mouse to a fly-embryo will cause the fly to develop an eye with typical fly structure wherever the gene lands?
It may mean that polymorphism was designed into that architecture so that the gene is not the entire software library for building eye - rather the gene is more like the command to the subsystem to do whatever it's predefined context for eye determines. so a fly with compound eyes as the context for eye simply looks for a command to "execute" the build function for "eye". Certainly that shows a very high level of engineered complexity in the architecutre -- but as I always point out -- Chemistry is applied physics and microbiology is applied chemistry where the architect doing the application design is God.
So as we see in this case - the master designer has the "execute" command PAX-6 that engages 2000 other genes in the "Context build function" for Eye where the context is "fly".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 44_01.html
I dare anyone to take the periodic chart and "repeat the exercise"! No matter how "intelligent" the human designer!! It is simply an example of technology far beyond what any human can do with that periodic chart.
Speaking of which -- get out your periodic charts readers -- Now try this as an exercise in testing your chemistry expertise...
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266
Is it any wonder that Darwinist become frustrated when we point out their "innability to perform" the above experiment (which is what they claim "Lightning and mud" will easily master by themselves given enough time)?
Bob