[Heartlander]

I am speaking about the first ‘reproducing’ cell – evolution requires a reproducing cell. DNA replication requires enzymes and proteins that are already encoded in the DNA . DNA polymerase, DNA Helicase enzyme, DNA primase enzyme, DNA ligase enzyme, exonuclease, topoisomerase, telomerase… Again, this requires forethought – and this is just the beginning. An article just came out yesterday about early eukaryotic evolution. It states, “that the first cell to incorporate a mitochondrion (considered the key step to the increased complexity of eukaryotic cells) already presented eukaryote-like complexity in structure and functions. It goes on to state, “a lot of complex cellular machinery had evolved even before the symbiosis with mitochondria, including the development of transport within the cell and the cytoskeleton.” Again, forethought…

Darwin used analogia, a fortiori and vera causa to formulate his theory and it was an argument against Paley’s watchmaker argument.

The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.
- Darwin

Intelligent Design uses a vera causa argument - DNA contains functional information and we know functional information comes from intelligence - we know DNA and the cell contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards (we know this comes from intelligence) - DNA stores data more efficiently than anything we’ve created - DNA contains meta-information - information about how to use the information in the context of the related data (we know this comes from intelligence). It is a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. Put simply, a message assumes a protocol (agreement, set of rules) between the sender and the receiver, to help correctly encode and interpret the contents of the message (we know this comes from intelligence). Again, a simple example would be codons, they only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS). This cannot just happen by accident and the design inferences are obvious and inescapable. We know it is intelligence that creates these type of systems – vera causa (true cause).

Darwin stated, “ There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Random breezes of wind does not cause this…Furthermore, “given enough time, luck can happen” is not a scientific theory. To quote Behe, Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.

[freedumb2003]

Again, a lot of cutting pasting to sidestep the VERY simple question I asked:

How can all this sophistry be applied using scientific rigor? TToE is applied in medicine, particularly immunology (viruses EVOLVE in line with TToE models, which are applied to reagents).

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, explain what reproducible rules can be modeled, applied and used as tools? How does this explain the billions of data points already in support of TToE?

These are easy questions if you know of what you speak. Any fool can copy and paste without understanding what he/she is saying.

And many do.