Replies

"You really seem to have a very dismal opinion of God. If you want to portray him as mediocre programmer reusing broken code to save a buck, I will not stop you. I choose to have a higher opinion of his design skills." - EnderWiggins

Opinion and logic are not synonyms.

My original post destroyed the claim that ERVs were proof of Evolution ... by showing that routine lab work inserts ERVs into DNA today by design, not by Evolution. Thus, there is a non-Evolutionary option...which means that Evolution was not proven (please, no sophomoric rants that nothing is really provable, let's not devolve to that level).

I used logic. You used opinion. One is scientific, the other is debatable.

"My original post destroyed the claim that ERVs were proof of Evolution ... by showing that routine lab work inserts ERVs into DNA today by design, not by Evolution."

Again... your "routine lab work" absolutely fails to account for the ERVs as found in the primate family tree. It does not explain the independent but mutually reinforcing data sets they provide. The first being their relative age, the second being their distribution.

Neither are explained by design since the accumulation of point mutations demonstrate that they were acquired tens of thousand, hundreds of thousands and millions of years apart. They do not reflect a single or even several closely spaced events of design... but multiple millions of years over which the insertions were periodically made. I would be fascinated in a "design rationale" for that fact.

And second... the pattern of distribution does not reflect the sort of purposeful reuse found in things designed by humans. I'd love for you to try and assemble a phylogenetic tree for the products of human engineering that would have no exceptions in the distribution of technology that leaped across clades falsifying the pattern of descent with modification. It cannot be done. I assure you (as an engineer myself) I have made the effort. If you can demonstrate otherwise...have at it.

Even accepting your portrayal of God as a mediocre software engineer constrained by budgets or time (a very weird idea that you seem to have no problem with) there is no possible way of assembling a tree of phylogenetic descent for computer programs... even operating systems like Windows. The code instead reflects the contagious technology of actual design, and not the nested similarities created by descent with modification and characteristic of biological organisms.

Does code get reused? Of course. Might even bits of broken code be retained? I imagine it is possible, although it would still be, by definition, bad design. Again, I speak as an engineer, and as a person who has managed teams of engineers. But does code get reused in a patter that perfectly mimics descent with modification?

Not on this planet.

Your alternative seems to have missed these details. And they are the only important part of the proof. Odd that. But in final review, your alternative is not an "non-Evolutionary option at all," it is essentially an appeal to divine conspiracy.

I know you have a high regard of your own command of logic. I can only point out that logic, even of the most refined and sublime sort is of little use if it fails to address the issues at hand.