No paper followed. There was no link there.
i'm sorry, i should have been a little clearer.
select the title of the paper, then drag it into your search engine.
it should appear in the search results.
That post seemed like more loose heuristic arguments.
you might have had a point if it was the only paper i have, but it isn't
i've presented a lot of evidence in that thread.
Let me give an example of what I mean when I say "ID authors tend to give very specific molecular biology examples."
In figure 10.5 in his book "Undeniable", Douglas Axe shows all 20 amino acids make up the protein Rhodopsin, which is one of 5 components that make up the membrane disks, which is one of 2 components that make up the outer segment, which is one of 5 components that make up rod cells, which is one of 2 type of cells that make up the rod/cone layer, which is one of 10 components that make up the retina, which is one of 7 components that make up the eye, which is one of 5 systems that make up the complete visual system of mammals.
The point is functional coherence. It does no good to evolve hundreds of amino acids into precisely the right order and folding to form Rhodopsin if all the other components aren't there too. That's a very specific design example. Evolutionists would need to answer with an order of evolution--a possible path to get there which includes natural selection. But all we get are vague hand waving arguments.
first, throw natural selection out the window, preferably the 10th floor.
second, it seems to me that transposons and epigenetics can produce the above mentioned protein.
third, i consider the acquisition of sight acquired information.
IOW it's an example of actual evolution instead of rearrangement of already existing material.
fourth, the above makes it plain that biomolecules do not need to be useful to be "created", the only requirement is that the cell maintains viability.
throw in the sandbox concept, epigenetics, and tagged transposons, and you got yourself a functioning genetics engineering lab.
the modern synthesis is dead, and practically everything associated with it.
Scientists realized that microbiology has revealed there is a clear design to life.
i'll agree that science is going to have a very tough time of recreating life.
whether it was designed or not puts a person in a very bad situation, because you now have to give evidence of the nature of the intelligence that created (or designed) life.
do any of these people mention this nature, or how this intelligence effected the arrival of first life?
They don't have to reference God or the Bible to show that the mechanism described a century and a half ago only explains variations within a kind (roughly a species). It cannot explain the origin of species.
catalysis or enzymes can explain it.
i also believe tagged transposons in combination with the sandbox concept explains it.
these people do however have a point, it certainly appears that there was an intelligence "tinkering" with the earliest stages of life, apparently trying to "get it right".
"what if", you CLAIM to be agnostic, and yet you repeatedly conflate the science of ID with God by using your little "god/ID" moniker. That's the kind of thing the atheist high priests of Darwinism do.
FYI, i despise the word atheist, and i find the god concept ludicrous.
as far as ID goes, you either must call ET or a god.
I don't think there's any need for new standards. ID draws heavily on mainstream microbiology. There's probably not much disagreement there. They also draw heavily on logic, which may be a standard within itself. They also draw heavily on the relatively new field of information theory. Some have gone so far as to say infomation is a fundamental element of the universe which must be added to matter and energy.
give me some sources for this stuff.
titles of books, peer reviewed papers, anything.
Second is the lack of intermediate states. I know this has been hotly contested ever since Darwin published, but it just makes no sense that you would have such finely tuned, extremely complex life forms with nothing in progress; and no evidence that there ever was anything in progress. (Maybe this connects with your "sudden arrival" clause.)
the paper i mentioned goes into this and essentially confirms what you have said.
yes, it connects with the "sudden arrival" of animal phyla.
koonin used the phrase "ready made" but later changed it to "abruptly" because one of the reviewers commented that "ready made" alludes to ID.