Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,229 Year: 5,486/9,624 Month: 511/323 Week: 8/143 Day: 8/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7780 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 20 of 63 (27545)
12-20-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
12-01-2002 11:01 AM


Dear all,
I observed the same question in several threads and therefore I will clear this once and for all.
The pivotal question to be addressed is:
How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently-Designed/Irreducible Complex system and a natural one which we?
PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (Nature - Not Found)
So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 12-01-2002 11:01 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 9:12 PM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7780 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 23 of 63 (27556)
12-20-2002 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mark24
12-20-2002 9:12 PM


Dear Mark,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Designed systems can be recognised by (genetic) redundancies. Structures, cells and/or genes present in the organism/genome without selective constraint cannot be explained by evolutionism and point in the direction of design. As elaborated several times before genetic redundancies do not have an association with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies in general are sufficient to bring down evolutionism since they do not demonstrate a relationship with gene duplications. Genetic redundancies leave the evolutionary community with complete surprise and disbelief. Have a look here: (Nature - Not Found)
So, remember for the next time: GENETIC REDUNDANCIES ARE CLEARCUT EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M: Well, that would be true if you can positively rule out other explanations. Can you?
PB: At least, you are starting to concur that evolutionism is untenable in the light of these data.
M: Remember, this is your assertion, no "well, explain it from an evolutionary POV" arguments please. Positively back up your claim that genetic redundancies ARE evidence of design, by way of ruling out evolution, & other explanations such as perpetual existance (Well if god can have existed forever, why not life, lurking in some backwater vacuum?)
PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished.
Now, let's find more evidence for the GUToB. Maybe we could discuss redundant CpG DNA in bacteria that specificly evoces an immuneresponse in higher organisms. Design, my friend.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mark24, posted 12-20-2002 9:12 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-21-2002 4:48 AM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7780 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 25 of 63 (27612)
12-21-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
12-21-2002 4:48 AM


Dear Mark,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: In one of my first mails I claimed that I would bring doubt upon evolutionism and I did that. To free your mind. That was the goal. Mission accomplished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: But you didn't.
PB: If so, explain to me genetic redundancies in a evolutionary way.
MP: You simply stopped posting to me.
PB: There was nothing new to address.
MP: I still don't know how you can tell where the hot spots were on ancient DNA from extant DNA, among other things. You claimed I wasn't vringing anything new to the argument without actually substantively responding to the criticisms/questions. Why would I bring something new?
PB: In the meantime --6 months or so-- I posted several examples that all demonstrate non-random mutations. If you have a careful look --like I did-- than you pick them out right away. I know that evo's are trying to explain them as mutations in common ancestors, but that vision cannot hold (see the 10 ZFY sequences Dr Page posted and my comments to it).
Non-random mutations can be deduced from sequences in subpopulations. They are non-random with respect to position, and often with respect to nucleotide. As soon as we find the mechanism I can address your question concerning where exactly they are introduced in original DNA. In another thread it was already mentioned that p53 often undergoes mutations on the same spots due to a mechanism that is associated with DNA sequence. So, my assertions on non-random mutations and the involvement of a mechanism that introduces them made sense. Apparently, it is something new.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-21-2002 4:48 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024