I am showing you how your argument doesn’t flow logically from premises to the conclusion.
There are multiple parts that work in concert to produce ice. First, you have the multiple components of the atoms themselves which are the protons, neutrons, and electrons. Those atomic particles are also made up of parts called quarks. Each water molecule is then made up of 2 hydrogen parts and one oxygen part. The ice crystal requires all of these parts to work in concert to produce a hexagonal design:
Natural processes that require multiple parts working in concert produce a design.
200,000 insertions have been selected by natural selection, why those 200,000 ?
Steve said, there were more ERVs insertions, which have not been selected by natural selection.
how much more? if you can say… i put that same question to Steve, no reply yet…
Most of those insertions were probably not positively selected for. Most are probably fixed through neutral drift. Why those 200,000? Chance, for the most part.
I don’t know of any hard numbers, but the distribution of ERVs in the genome can give us some clue. ERVs are usually found outside of the “important” parts of the genomes where there are genes that could be interrupted by retroviral insertions. We also know from experiments that retroviruses would insert into those regions, so their absence in those important sections of the genome tells us that there is a very strong possibility that those insertions did happen and they were selected against.
If an insertion has a negative impact on fitness the individuals don’t survive to pass that insertion on. There is no modern DNA that could point to these. All of the evidence would be erased.
it seems i missed … alright, so an atheist … The moment you came up with the snowflake argument, i was 99% sure. However, this forum is a bit strange, because here are theistic evolutionists as well. So sometime it is not easy to recognize.
The snowflake:
Yes, such an irony…all the engineering masterpieces we see in nature can be discarded using a snowflake argument … e.g. an octopus - a camouflage technology beyond our comprehension, but you guys downgrade octopus’s technological sophistication to a snowflake… moreover, you feel like you won the argument…
Just look at it:
What if our Creator would show up, today, on Earth, and show you how he created all the species … would that be a good design argument?
I guess, for you, it would be not, I bet your first question to our Creator would be: “and who created you?”
alright, i am not sure when we can expect our Creator to show up, meantime, what other creation proof would you accept ? From your 20+ years molecular biologist perspective…
We need to see explanations for the most basic observations in biology. We need to see explanations for the tree-like patterns seen in biology, both at the morphological and genetic levels. We need to see explanations for the divergence between exons and introns. We need to see explanations for shared ERVs.
“It looks designed” just isn’t going to cut it. That is nothing more than a subjective opinion which doesn’t go far in science.
Just curious, why are you so convinced that science can be used to prove the reality of a Creator? What empiric, testable hypothesis for design (or any other metaphysical concept) could you propose using the scientific method?
Remember, gaps in our scientific knowledge are not evidence of anything more than gaps in knowledge.
