NanoGecko writes:
This is the first time that I have come across this site. I have had a brief look at the posts on this thread and see a lot of pontificating about semantics and definitions. So in response lets look at some facts.
Welcome to EvC!
Facts are good, let's see what you have.
Lets have a look at what evidence is out there.
It's hard to choose where to start because there is so much evidence!!!!
So I'll just jump in at the deep end and suggest that you threaders/posters (or whatever your called) consider the massive and irrefutable evidence for design.
Strange that the real scientific community, as opposed to the proven (in the legal sense) liars at AIG, ICR, and the DI, has found none of this "massive and irrefutable evidence."
...cites two papers that are 'interpreted to mean' that enzymes can't develop naturally due to that old improbability problem.....
As to
Just a moment... why didn't the authors clearly state this 'proves' any purported 'god of the gaps.?' All I see is an examination of a complex biochemical reaction.
As to the abstract linked to through
Just a moment... there is no mention or inference that:
quote:
The amazing part is that without this complex enzyme operating in the right place at the right time, these reactions which are essential for the cell to function would take 1 TRILLION YEARS. Without design from an unimaginably superior intelligence, it is inconceivable that there were a series of small mutational steps that led to the writing of the information on the DNA that is required to build this complex enzyme, because the cell would have long disappeared before it was able to function prior to the enzyme.
So where did you get this from, your own interpretation?
This is not a peer reviewed article, it is a post.
Here is a post that refutes your interpretation of your citations.
Page not found · GitHub Pages
It is based upon: Aharoni A, et al. Nat Genet. 2005 Jan;37(1):73-6.
This post shows that enzymes, similarly to the genetic code which controls their production, includes inadvertent minor other expressions that will be selected for under environmental pressure. Incredulity upon the part of the anti-science crowd does not preclude this simple fact that has been shown experimentally in thousands of cases.
So to me a mere individual in country NSW Australia, it seems very clear that a Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence is evident by these two enzymes alone without proceeding to the vast amount of other scientific evidence for complex and brilliant design that is evident to everyone, or should I say, should be evident to everyone, but unfortunately many have been deceived by the continual bombardment of evolutionaty propaganda.
So to me as a mere librarian in West Texas, it seems very clear that your entire argument is of the usual form, 'life is improbable' which is easily refuted by the fact natural selection, be it upon enzymes or organisms, is not a random process.
You wanted facts, perhaps any evolutionists out there would like to explain how these complex enzymes came into existence by random accident, chance and time?
The fact that evolution is not the action of random processes has been explained in this forum, and in any decent scientific text that covers evolution, countless times.
It is incumbent upon you to learn what the actual scientists have discovered before proclaiming as infallible, such easily refuted and 'so-called' evidence to the contrary.
Edited by anglagard, : Add 'so-called' as there is no real evidence
Edited by anglagard, : add a welcome and the phrase "which controls their production" for purpose of clarity
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2
