Jump to content


Photo

Man's Organs Create An Unsurmountable Problem For Accidentalists


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 May 2017 - 02:52 PM

 
 
Blitzking: I guess that I misunderstood what you meant by this.."Technically Popoi is right BK"

 
I only meant that he is right that if you state that an organism can't exist without certain organs and one does exist without them, then on a technicality that is proof that there can exist an organism without those organs.
 
Theoretically all this means is that one can make a case that if simpler forms exist, or more "primitive" might be a better epithet, then hypothetically you can argue that there could have been a previous state in the past, that didn't involve a morphology that had those organs.
 
So it gives logical permission for one to at least argue that theoretically it is possible to have an organism without those organs and one of those types of organisms is what evolutionists claim existed as an ancestor. 
 
This doesn't mean that such an organism did or could evolve into a "higher" organism, it just means that you can't say that it's impossible for a creature to exist without those organs, if evolution says that certain creatures without those organs, were what existed in the past as ancestors.
 
This is the problem - evolution says that certain organisms like trilobites, which have less vital organs than men, because they aren't vital to it, existed BEFORE those other organs became vital.
 
If you're still confused perhaps a quote from Columbo will help when he says this to the person he knows is the murderer, when the murderer thanks Columbo for sticking up for her; "that's okay, no problem...after all I can't have you arrested on the wrong evidence."
 
So when it seems I am supporting evolution, all I am doing is sacrificing a pawn. "mike, what the hell, you gave that pawn to him, are you wanting him to have the checkmate by agreeing with evolutionary hypothetics?"
 
Not really, we can be objective and fair and just and knowledgeable and studious and not misrepresent evolution and evolutionists, WHILE arguing against the ToE.

"I only meant that he is right that if you state that an organism can't exist without certain organs and one does exist without them, then on a technicality that is proof that there can exist an organism without those organs."

I understand, but I made it very clear in the OP that I was specifically referring to Man and his 10 Interdependent Vital Organs and it is a Non Sequitur to point to OTHER irreducibly complex animals that are already designed to live with less organs As they are very much inferior to humans in virtually every conceivable way... Unless they can provide a pathway (Which they wont even attempt) for such creatures to start evolving other organs and then somehow slowly interlinking them with existing organs over millions of years and become Man! I even mentioned specific examples of such creatures.. Lungfish and Nematodes... It would be like finding a cheap timex watch by the seashore and then asserting that the Ocean also spits out Gold Rolex Watches as a result of your finding!

Let's take your example of a trilobyte that has a brain, heart, stomach, and gut.. It is Irreducibly complex.. But let us just ASSUME that a trilobyte popped out if the primordial ooze fully dressed up and ready to go... Now we have 600 Million Years for the Trilobyte to turn into Man.. Does it start evolving lungs, liver, pancreas, skin, upper and lower intestines right away because it knows it will eventually need them half a billion years into the future? What would be the order and why? And this is the dagger in the heart of the myth.. Critical Thinking and Logic must not be allowed in the classroom.. We are supposed to blindly believe by faith that all of this incredible stuff happened when we KNOW very well it is preposterous beyond words..

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",

#22 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 26 May 2017 - 03:38 PM

[Let's take your example of a trilobyte that has a brain, heart, stomach, and gut.. It is Irreducibly complex.. But let us just ASSUME that a trilobyte popped out if the primordial ooze fully dressed up and ready to go... Now we have 600 Million Years for the Trilobyte to turn into Man.. Does it start evolving lungs, liver, pancreas, skin, upper and lower intestines right away because it knows it will eventually need them half a billion years into the future? What would be the order and why? And this is the dagger in the heart of the myth.. Critical Thinking and Logic must not be allowed in the classroom.. We are supposed to blindly believe by faith that all of this incredible stuff happened when we KNOW very well it is preposterous beyond words..


Haven't you run out of straw yet ?



#23 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 May 2017 - 04:19 PM

 

But we don't observe anything of the sort today..

Organs had to originate somehow. If we don't observe it happening, we have no choice but to think about how it could have happened and what kind of evidence those scenarios would leave behind that we can observe. You know, science.

WHAT "Other organs? And Where did they come from?

Those are separate questions. We're trying to address your contention of irreducible complexity right now.

Are you saying that "Evolution" is a Omni Sentient being that starts to evolve "Other organs" MILLIONS OF YEARS Before the creature NEEDS THEM to survive?

In the sense that organs originated and had some function before they were necessary for survival.

How did it get to be "slightly less" functional??

We're working backwards from human. That's the "irreducible" part of "irreducible complexity".
 

Unbelievable how Darwinists try to convince people that they represent the side of "Science"
while they behave incredibly UNSCIENTIFIC by asking other people to PROVE A NEGATIVE!

If you don't want to be asked to prove a negative I'd recommend you stop asserting negatives. You could assert that scientists haven't adequately proven how human organs originated and you might even be right, but you went a step beyond that supportable statement and declared such proof impossible.
 

With all due, well deserved, and highly merited respect, I believe that you may have allowed yourself to be tricked into using an analogy with an accidental apologists mindset and lost sight of the fact that a bicycle is a perfect example of something that is irreducibly complex in its essence..Bicycles also dont arrive on the scene by way of methodogical naturalism.. No pedal, sprocket, chain, handle bars, wheels, frame, forks, etc.. And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its intended purpose...

There are actually several of ways to remove parts from a bike and still have something functional for pretty much the same purpose. See: balance bikes (no pedals), penny-farthings (no sprocket or chain), or unicycles (no handlebar, sprocket, or chain).

You are correct that bicycles did not have a natural origin and are therefore a flawed analogy for life, which did.

 

 

"In the sense that organs originated and had some function before they were necessary for survival."

 

What kind of function would a useless organ have 10s of millions of years before it is needed? Why is it not

eliminated through "Natural Selection" unless it is a fully functioning organ?   Are you saying that a

brain had a different "function" 10s of millions of years before it became a brain???  Huh??

 

"We're working backwards from human. That's the "irreducible" part of "irreducible complexity".

 

Yes, but you are purposely ignoring many required steps before that.. I cant say that I blame you..

 

 

"If you don't want to be asked to prove a negative I'd recommend you stop asserting negatives.

You could assert that scientists haven't adequately proven how human organs originated and

you might even be right, but you went a step beyond that supportable statement and declared

such proof impossible."

 

NO, I am saying that "Science" hasnt even given a plausible pathway or feasable order for Mans

10 interdependent Vital organs that one could even make a comic book drawing of.. :gotcha:

 

Forget about  "Adequately Proven"  LOL  That is the funniest understatement I have ever heard..

 

I guess, by your standards, it would be wrong to delare proof of Santas Existance "Impossible" too..

 

THE PROBLEM IS..

 

This is getting shoved down every public school childs throat at my expense..

I guess it is asking too much to inquire why no feasable pathway is EVER presented,

we are just supposed to all take it on faith that it really happened..

Darwinists are such hypocrites when it comes to the "Separation of church and state"

It applies to everone EXCEPT their religion of Metaphysical Naturalism..  :checklist: 

 

 

"There are actually several of ways to remove parts from a bike and still have something functional for pretty much the same purpose. See: balance bikes (no pedals), penny-farthings (no sprocket or chain), or unicycles (no handlebar, sprocket, or chain)."

 

Yes, I already anticipated such a reply.. That is why I put the statemen "And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its INTENDED PURPOSE in there... :smashfreak:



#24 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 May 2017 - 04:25 PM

 

[Let's take your example of a trilobyte that has a brain, heart, stomach, and gut.. It is Irreducibly complex.. But let us just ASSUME that a trilobyte popped out if the primordial ooze fully dressed up and ready to go... Now we have 600 Million Years for the Trilobyte to turn into Man.. Does it start evolving lungs, liver, pancreas, skin, upper and lower intestines right away because it knows it will eventually need them half a billion years into the future? What would be the order and why? And this is the dagger in the heart of the myth.. Critical Thinking and Logic must not be allowed in the classroom.. We are supposed to blindly believe by faith that all of this incredible stuff happened when we KNOW very well it is preposterous beyond words..


Haven't you run out of straw yet ?

 

 

"Haven't you run out of straw yet ?"

 

Translation :

 

I havent a clue as to how to answer your perfectly reasonable questions that expose the Darwinian Myth for the Fairytale it truly is.

But I dont want to remain silent, so I will just throw out a worthless one liner so I can pretend that I said something profound indeed!

 

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.

But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal"



#25 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 May 2017 - 05:11 PM

What kind of function would a useless organ have 10s of millions of years before it is needed? Why is it not
eliminated through "Natural Selection" unless it is a fully functioning organ?   Are you saying that a
brain had a different "function" 10s of millions of years before it became a brain???  Huh??

Who said useless?

The first thing with any kind of nervous system didn’t need it to survive. We know that because its mostly similar parents didn’t have one and they at least survived long enough to reproduce. That first nervous system wasn’t anything like a modern brain, but it was “fully functional” in the sense that it did something. Later generations adapted to the presence of that nervous system to the point that they weren’t capable of sustaining themselves without the capabilities it gave them. That’s the point at which it became necessary for survival rather than just advantageous.
 

Yes, but you are purposely ignoring many required steps before that.. I cant say that I blame you..

There are no required steps before that. If irreducible complexity is correct that single step should be impossible, and you should be able to prove that it’s impossible.
 

Yes, I already anticipated such a reply.. That is why I put the statemen "And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its INTENDED PURPOSE in there... :smashfreak:

What intended purpose is uniquely satisfied by a bicycle and not any of the other things I listed? This is a very strange claim, since there’s a pretty direct historical line through several of the things on the list to the modern bicycle precisely because the successive designs did a better job of human-powered transport.

The idea of “intended purpose” also compromises irreducible complexity as a response to evolution. It’s not required that the same purpose be satisfied before and after a change, and intent certainly doesn’t factor in.

#26 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:40 PM

 

What kind of function would a useless organ have 10s of millions of years before it is needed? Why is it not
eliminated through "Natural Selection" unless it is a fully functioning organ?   Are you saying that a
brain had a different "function" 10s of millions of years before it became a brain???  Huh??

Who said useless?

The first thing with any kind of nervous system didn’t need it to survive. We know that because its mostly similar parents didn’t have one and they at least survived long enough to reproduce. That first nervous system wasn’t anything like a modern brain, but it was “fully functional” in the sense that it did something. Later generations adapted to the presence of that nervous system to the point that they weren’t capable of sustaining themselves without the capabilities it gave them. That’s the point at which it became necessary for survival rather than just advantageous.
 

Yes, but you are purposely ignoring many required steps before that.. I cant say that I blame you..

There are no required steps before that. If irreducible complexity is correct that single step should be impossible, and you should be able to prove that it’s impossible.
 

Yes, I already anticipated such a reply.. That is why I put the statemen "And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its INTENDED PURPOSE in there... :smashfreak:

What intended purpose is uniquely satisfied by a bicycle and not any of the other things I listed? This is a very strange claim, since there’s a pretty direct historical line through several of the things on the list to the modern bicycle precisely because the successive designs did a better job of human-powered transport.

The idea of “intended purpose” also compromises irreducible complexity as a response to evolution. It’s not required that the same purpose be satisfied before and after a change, and intent certainly doesn’t factor in.

 

 

"The first thing with any kind of nervous system didn’t need it to survive.

 

Thats interesting, because that is not what we observe today (Empirical Science)

 

"We know that because its mostly similar parents didn’t have one and

they at least survived long enough to reproduce"

 

 

So we "know that"  :laugh_point:  do we?

You dont even realize the brainwashing that caused you to unflinchingly make dogmatic statements like that without even batting an eye..

You do realize that this is all non scientific wishful speculation with precisely ZERO evidence of any kind to support it dont you?

 

"That first nervous system wasn’t anything like a modern brain,

but it was “fully functional” in the sense that it did something."

 

What did it do? Why was it needed? Where did it come from? how did it evolve slowly? If it was "fully funcional"

Was it ALWAYS "fully funcional" right from the start? (sounds like creation) if it WASNT always "fully functional",

than there must have been an earlier time when it was "slightly less functional" (Like you say) How did it get to be

"slightly less" functional??  Aren't you missing the millions of years of plodding steps of from Useless, Nearly

Useless, Halfway useless, Barely functional, Almost Functional, Halfway functional, Somewhat Functional,??

HELP ME OUT HERE!! I am really trying to honestly figure out how to make this myth work! But all I get are

assurances that it did indeed happen, even though we Observe (There is that Empirical Science again) nothing

of the sort!!..  WITHOUT any plausible or feasable examples with any details at all!!  Please reread the OP..

 

 

"There are no required steps before that. If irreducible complexity is correct that single step should be impossible, and you should be able to prove that it’s impossible.

 

I am not the one forcing teachers by law to teach Genesis in Every public School biology class YOU are requiring them to teach YOUR worldview.

 

THEREFORE

 

it is not ME who has to prove it is Impossible, it is YOU that needs to provide evidence to support it that conforms to the scientific method..Do you understand how that works? :snapoutofit:

ANYWAY

 

"What intended purpose is uniquely satisfied by a bicycle and not any of the other things I listed?"

 

I guess the word we need to include is OPTIMIZATION.. :kaffeetrinker:    Anyway, we both agreed that the bicycle anaolgy fails here.

 

Remember Berras Blunder?

 

http://www.unm.edu/~...rrablunder.html

 

corvettes.gif



#27 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 May 2017 - 11:05 PM

Many genomes, like ours, contain diverse specialized systems
dedicated to genome innovation (Table 2).
The best known of these molecular genome innovation systems
are the dispersed mobile genetic elements, transposons, and
retrotransposons, which often comprise a dominant fraction of
the genome—about two-thirds in our own case.192 Genome analysis
has amply documented a historical role for these elements in
innovation. In mammalian evolution, for example, mobile elements
generated over 200 000 of the more than 1.1 million positively
selected DNA elements that distinguish placentals from
marsupials.193
Natural genetic engineering, and mobile elements in particular,
provide mechanistic solutions for evolutionary innovations
that, realistically, are impossible to explain with conventional
assumptions about accidental, random, gradual genome change.
Here are a few examples:
1. Evolution of novel proteins by domain accretion and exon shuffling.
2. Origination of novel coding sequences by reverse transcription and sequence fusions.
3. Origination of novel exons.
4. Origination of a complex cis-regulatory module (CRM) at a genetic locus.
- Constraint and opportunity in genome innovation, RNA Biology 11:3, 1–11; March 2014; © 2014 Landes Bioscience

#28 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 27 May 2017 - 01:29 AM

"Haven't you run out of straw yet ?"
 
Translation :
 
I havent a clue as to how to answer your perfectly reasonable questions that expose the Darwinian Myth for the Fairytale it truly is.
But I dont want to remain silent, so I will just throw out a worthless one liner so I can pretend that I said something profound indeed!


No not at all, I was merely pointing out the latest of your strawmen.

Humans are not arthropods, so we didn’t evolve from a trilobite or anything else within that phylum. For our ancestor, you need to be looking within Chordata, the earliest candidate fossil we know of is Pikaia (which possessed a notochord and associated muscle bundles) found in the half a billion year old Cambrian Burgess Shale (although of course no one can say for sure that it is our direct ancestor). As whatif endlessly states, the fossil record pertaining to the origin of the different phyla is extremely sketchy but developmental studies indicate an affinity with Echinoderms. As I understand it the hypothesis is that neoteny of the larval stage gave rise to the free living chordates.

Your question about organs is one that is simple to ask but one that would be complicated and lengthy to answer and would require extensive research in comparative anatomy and physiology between living organisms. I don’t feel the urge to commit the time to that especially as you will just dismiss everything out of hand anyway. Perhaps someone with more interest in doing so will. Since the fossil record is patchy and soft tissue such as organs do not preserve then clearly a line of ancestors is not something that can be expected.



#29 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 27 May 2017 - 09:58 PM

"Haven't you run out of straw yet ?"
 
Translation :
 
I havent a clue as to how to answer your perfectly reasonable questions that expose the Darwinian Myth for the Fairytale it truly is.
But I dont want to remain silent, so I will just throw out a worthless one liner so I can pretend that I said something profound indeed!

No not at all, I was merely pointing out the latest of your strawmen.
Humans are not arthropods, so we didn’t evolve from a trilobite or anything else within that phylum. For our ancestor, you need to be looking within Chordata, the earliest candidate fossil we know of is Pikaia (which possessed a notochord and associated muscle bundles) found in the half a billion year old Cambrian Burgess Shale (although of course no one can say for sure that it is our direct ancestor). As whatif endlessly states, the fossil record pertaining to the origin of the different phyla is extremely sketchy but developmental studies indicate an affinity with Echinoderms. As I understand it the hypothesis is that neoteny of the larval stage gave rise to the free living chordates.
Your question about organs is one that is simple to ask but one that would be complicated and lengthy to answer and would require extensive research in comparative anatomy and physiology between living organisms. I don’t feel the urge to commit the time to that especially as you will just dismiss everything out of hand anyway. Perhaps someone with more interest in doing so will. Since the fossil record is patchy and soft tissue such as organs do not preserve then clearly a line of ancestors is not something that can be expected.


"Humans are not arthropods,"

I am well aware that Man is not an arthopod.. I was merely giving an example of a irreducibly complex creature that had less than man's 10 vital organs (Since no one else seems to want to give specific examples or methodology)

"so we didn’t evolve from a trilobite or anything else within that phylum"

Here let me fix that for you..

We DID NOT EVER evolve from Anything at all.. (The name of this website is pretty clear..) The chances for Man "Evolving" from a Trilobyte is exactly the same as "Evolving" from a Picaia.. ZERO.. Therefore your "Strawman" accusation is merely another..."Strawman".. In fact, the whole religious belief of AbioDarwinism is a Strawman on Steroids..

"For our ancestor, you need to be looking within Chordata, the earliest candidate fossil we know of is Pikaia (which possessed a notochord and associated muscle bundles"

Sorry, you wont find him there either.. Forget about the "Missing Link" THE WHOLE CHAIN IS MISSING!!


" As I understand it the hypothesis is that neoteny of the larval stage gave rise to the free living chordates."

Again.. What is there to "Understand"?? There is ZERO Evidence for any of these wishful (And VERY Unscientific) speculations.. It is like trying to "Understand" any other Science Fiction novel by Jules Verne, Ray Bradbury, L Ron Hubbard, Steven King, or H.G Wells..
Its not that AbioDarwinists are not intelligent,
its just that they know so much that isnt so..

"found in the half a billion year old Cambrian Burgess Shale"

Have you invented a time machine? Let me know how you came up
with that number.. I would love to discuss that with you as well..

"As I understand it the hypothesis is that neoteny of the larval stage gave rise to the free living chordates."

Huh? What is there to "Understand" about science fiction tales about "Long ago and far away"?? At least much of what Jules Verne wrote is somewhat believable... The Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth NOT SO MUCH.!


"Your question about organs is one that is simple to ask but one that would be complicated and lengthy to answer and would require extensive research in comparative anatomy and physiology between living organisms. I don’t feel the urge to commit the time to that especially as you will just dismiss everything out of hand anyway. Perhaps someone with more interest in doing so will."

Funny It appears that NOBODY ELSE has EVER HAD the "Interest" in doing so either You can search the internet or libraries high and low, You wont find any such "Research" (Of course it would be easy for you to prove me wrong.. You know the drill).. Because it would make a comic book more reasonable to believe.. It is best to just pretend and assert it happened to ever single biology student without actually requiring anybody to think about it too much.. Like I said, Logic, Critical Thinking, and Empirical Science is the Mortal Enemy to the AbioDarwinian Myth..

Your religion of Metaphysical Naturalism reminds me of the Catholic Religion..Once, when I asked a priest about Transubstanciation.. These were his words..

"For those who DONT believe it, No explanation is possible..
"For those who DO believe it, No explanation is necessary..

"Post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.)

#30 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 28 May 2017 - 07:22 AM

"Your question about organs is one that is simple to ask but one that would be complicated and lengthy to answer and would require extensive research in comparative anatomy and physiology between living organisms. I don’t feel the urge to commit the time to that especially as you will just dismiss everything out of hand anyway. Perhaps someone with more interest in doing so will."

Funny It appears that NOBODY ELSE has EVER HAD the "Interest" in doing so either You can search the internet or libraries high and low, You wont find any such "Research" (Of course it would be easy for you to prove me wrong.. You know the drill)..


I don't think you can have searched at all let alone "high and low". There's a whole book about the subject that I found in two seconds
 
http://www.oxfordsch...f-9780198566687

Abstract

The field of systematics has developed remarkably over the last few decades. A multitude of new methods and contributions from diverse biological fields — including molecular genetics and developmental biology — have provided a wealth of phylogenetic hypotheses, some confirming traditional views and others contradicting them. There is now sufficient evidence to draw up a ‘tree of life’ based on fairly robust phylogenetic relationships. This book aims to apply these new phylogenies to an evolutionary interpretation of animal organ systems and body architecture. Organs do not appear suddenly during evolution: instead they are composed of far simpler structures. In some cases, it is even possible to trace particular molecules or physiological pathways as far back as pre-animal history. What emerges is a fascinating picture, showing how animals have combined ancestral and new elements in novel ways to form constantly changing responses to environmental requirements. The book starts with a general overview of animal systematics to set the framework for the discussion of organ system evolution. The chapters deal with the general organization, integument, musculature, nervous system, sensory structures, body cavities, excretory, respiratory and circulatory organs, the intestinal and reproductive system, and spermatozoa. Each organ system is presented with its function, the diversity of forms that are realized among metazoan animals, and the reconstruction of its evolution.

 

Now I suppose you'll complain that no one has provided an experiment in the lab showing an organ forming from scratch :rolleyes: 
 



#31 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 May 2017 - 08:26 AM

Now I suppose you'll complain that no one has provided an experiment in the lab showing an organ forming from scratch :rolleyes:

the biggest question is, where are these genetic sequences coming from?
the answer appears to be that they are being created by the cell itself, the cell itself is engineering these sequences.
sure, some of these are "ready made" in the form of retrotransposons, but others need to be engineered
the above implies only one thing, epigenetics/ regulatory networks, and transposons was present from the very first life, and like i said elsewhere, this puts a terrible burden on abiogenesis.

the cell as a genetic engineer?
arising naturally?
uh, i don't know man, it seems pretty far out there to me.
i think this is the major reason why gradualism is being defended so much.

koonin was right, abiogenesis research is an outright failure, THERE IS NO SOLUTION.
correction, he said it would be a "seeming miracle".

??????????????




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users