Replies

[[”What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?”

I don’t recall bringing up The Origin of Life, that was the posters choice and I chose to oblige him.]]

Oh but you did bring it up by putting an onus on him that you yourself are unwilling to tackle. The evo model states that it is possible, yet offers no evidnece to show that it is- a simple statement of faith will suffice evidently, yet when it comes to opposing hypothesis that state that what we know from biology and mathematics, makes random processes moving a species higher and higher outside hteir own kinds, we’re immediately put to the task of having to prove it? I’ll answer for him, or in addition to him- Mathematics and biology are the the evidences that it is impossible. Biological investigations have shown quite clear that the only way for NEW infromation, which is needed to move a species beyond it’;s own KIND, if for lateral gene transference to transfere the needed new information from one species KIND to another dissimiliar KIND. The individual species specific gene codes are incapable of creating new organs and systems because hte instructions simply are not present, nor can any alterations create combinations of instructions that could produce non species specific organs or systems- We know it is a biological fact that species can lose organs, lose instructions, and can even, within species specific parameters to the instructions alter information already present, but nothing other than a literal lateral gene transference can introduce NEW non species specific organ/system instructions.

Not that I should have even bothered to respond to that question when your side ducks the same challenge, but there ya go.

"Oh but you did bring it up by putting an onus on him that you yourself are unwilling to tackle."

He wanted to go there, therefore the onus is on him.

"The evo model states that it is possible, yet offers no evidnece to show that it i"

No it doesn't. I mean this with all sincerity, go read about what the ToE is as you really do not know what you are talking about.

I think what you are talking about is Abiogenesis or Naturalism (not naturism), not the ToE. If you use words in ways that are not appropriate to their meanings, that too is babbling.

"yet when it comes to opposing hypothesis that state that what we know from biology and mathematics, makes random processes moving a species higher and higher outside hteir own kinds, we’re immediately put to the task of having to prove it?"

There is no proof in science, we are just asking for evidence.

"I’ll answer for him, or in addition to him- Mathematics and biology are the the evidences that it is impossible."

And paisley monkeys are the proof that you are wrong. Now wouldn't it be nice if I bothered to show HOW paisley monkeys made you wrong?

"Biological investigations have shown quite clear that the only way for NEW infromation, which is needed to move a species beyond it’;s own KIND, if for lateral gene transference to transfere the needed new information from one species KIND to another dissimiliar KIND"

You're babbling again. I will now introduce the word "ganower". I demand you explain why God killed all the ganowers which is clearly necessary if ID is correct.

"The individual species specific gene codes are incapable of creating new organs and systems because hte instructions simply are not present, nor can any alterations create combinations of instructions that could produce non species specific organs or systems"

OK, now you seem to be trying to say something with words I know, but I'm not exactly sure what.

Do you mean that if you remove the genes that two species share in common, the remaining genes do not code for organs? If so, I'm not sure of your point.