Replies

1) If evolution is part of the "design" then so be it. I have no philosophical problem with it. Most "scientists", on the other hand, must believe it is all natural processes in order to continue subjecting it to study. It is fine with me if that's what keeps you going. The only problem I have is when you state with certainty that everything is subject to natural laws. And in order to prove that you overstate what you know and present as fact things that only conjecture, best guesses or subject to interpretation.

2) The religious text of your choice says nothing in this world is perfect.

3) I'm sorry, but they haven't. Nothing I've seen is very impressive. But many scientists seem too ready to jump to conclusions because they are the ones who fear there might be limits.

Just count what no scientist on this thread could answer or tried to sidestep or semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids, a "new species" that is not new, why it is valid to call a group of fossils "whales" because the ears and teeth are similar when the bodies are drastically different, why "When a development is really independent it shows in the DNA" does not assume the conclusion it is supposed to prove, why creation implies there should not be a "defective" GLO gene ("Defective" is an opinion, not a physical property. You are aware that some genes have multiple purposes? If you look for a gene which correlates with one property, that does not mean it does not also correlate with another property you were not looking for. And even if not, you still have to assume the conclusion absent observation of the actual or analogous occurence. The logic is rather simple.)

No, it is you who simply scoff and dismiss and move on, refusing to consider other views.

Most "scientists", on the other hand, must believe it is all natural processes in order to continue subjecting it to study.

That would be because science is unable to study anything beyond the natural universe.

The only problem I have is when you state with certainty that everything is subject to natural laws.

When speaking of science, there is no other option. If something isn't subject to natural laws, then science cannot address it in any meaningful way.

And in order to prove that you overstate what you know and present as fact things that only conjecture, best guesses or subject to interpretation.

What, you mean like not considering every cockamamie assertion that a supernatural process "might" have been behind some given event?

2) The religious text of your choice says nothing in this world is perfect.

What "religious text of my choice?" I'm an atheist.

I'm sorry, but they haven't. Nothing I've seen is very impressive.

That would be because you're not looking.

ust count what no scientist on this thread could answer or tried to sidestep or semanticize: hybridization that does not produce hybrids,

What are you talking about? You've already been corrected on this matter.

a "new species" that is not new,

Are you playing semantic games now? Does it not get to be labelled "New" unless it is no older than a date that you specify?

why it is valid to call a group of fossils "whales" because the ears and teeth are similar when the bodies are drastically different

Are you a biologist? Have you studied the fossils in-depth to determine that there is no valid reason to call them "whales", or are you a layman who has decided that you know better than all of those uppity secularists with their "degrees" and their "education" and you know a whale when you see one, damnit, and you know that you're right because some of the fossil finds are not museum quality, and that just proves everything.

"When a development is really independent it shows in the DNA" does not assume the conclusion it is supposed to prove

We're sorry that we don't assume supernaturalistic explanations by default, as you apparently do.

Independent development resulting in DNA differences was a prediction of evolution, not a find out of nowhere that led to a conclusion. It was predicted that similarly functional structures that appeared in otherwise apparently unrelated (due to other physiological differences or the fossil record) species would show differences in the DNA. That prediction was borne out.

why creation implies there should not be a "defective" GLO gene ("Defective" is an opinion, not a physical property.

The real question is why the "broken" (in that it does not work as it does in most creatures that have it) GLO gene seems to be the same in all primates, including humans, and different in guinea pigs. If the "designer" really wanted to copy over that "feature" across species, why wouldn't it be the same? Moreover, why include such a detrimental trait? We'd do a lot better without that little inability; ever hear of scurvy? Why would the "designer" decide to include the same type of non-functional gene in all primates?

You are aware that some genes have multiple purposes?

Tell me the purpose of the "broken" GLO gene, then.

No, it is you who simply scoff and dismiss and move on, refusing to consider other views.

Please. You assume your conclusion from the beginning, and then invent bogus reasons for not accepting any evidence to the contrary; your "a designer could have done it this way" excuse for dismissing any and all presented evidence for evolution is an empty cop-out.