Replies

[[why certain features appear to have developed independently, but others which would *seem* to be useful never got the chance;]]

All these myriad mutations happen fully within species specific parameters, and can be demonstrated scientifically- which also points very heavily toward the idea that there is a system of metainfo at work, controlling, directing, allowing, and not allowing etc. But again, these all work within species specific parameters that is already designed and built into the whole species- a system that ‘forsees’ problems, plans for htem, allows them, and works through them to try to help preserve the species. And again, these allowances are species specific- think of breeders who are bound by species limitations, and can only go just so far when messing with species trying to modify them.

Anyways, this system of metainfo is present right from the simpelst cells all the way to fully functional creatures, and idneed must be present or hte species, whether just a ‘simple’ cell, or a complex species, would perish before it could even get started.

The htread on ‘life’s irreducible structures’ is quite fascinating, and it presents a serious challenge to darwinian macroevolution, while fully accountign for and allowing for microevolutionary adaption and change within species kinds.

Macroevolution demands a ‘bottom up’ cretion of metainfo, which is impossible (somethign we discussed in the article), and it’s especially impossible if we’re to concider life coming from ‘dirty chemicals’ (Life is created from pure chemicals and cells)

Anyway- there it is. Thel ink I gave to Discovery.org is on a paper talking abotu this concept a bit further, which I posted exeprts to- but hte whole paper is worth a read as it layws out why mutaitons can’t account for hte complexities in heiararchy that we know to exist in species.