Continuing the discussion from Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate:
[quote=“Eddie, post:205, topic:3204, full:true”]
Redundancy in itself is no disproof of intelligent design.[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that you can’t explain it, and your huge misrepresentations below only confirm that.
You’re illustrating the problem with putting words above evidence, Eddie. You clearly don’t have the slightest clue about the NATURE of biological redundancy.
They are not partial like biological redundancy. Fail.
For that to be analogous to the nature of biological redundancy, some essential functions wouldn’t be covered by the generation system. Fail 2.
And not a one of those is analogous to the biological redundancy that exists in spades. It’s analogous to ring species.
Biological redundancy doesn’t do that. Fail 3.
Perhaps you should learn about partially-overlapping functions in biology before pontificating from a position of complete ignorance, Eddie. But I have to compliment you for not running away from discussing mechanisms for once. If you could only do it from actual knowledge of biology…