What is genetic vulnerabilities in terms of our discussion of genetic divergence? I think I have to hear this to believe it : )
Going beyond hte science by claiming anything more isn’t science, it’s projecting a religious hypothesis
No it is what you do and it is called projection.
Did you know that with DNA samples you can trace your family history? In fact you can trace your own history back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other great apes? Science is on the verge of even being able to bring that common ancestor back to life : ) Does it bother you that Orangutans are closely related to you? Or do you the zoo keepers look twice at your uncle Ned?
But we have diverged from the original argument. What is you evidence supporting ID? If you don't have any evidence just say so? Please don't just say that there is evidence, but you don't know where it is.
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting : )
[[No it is what you do and it is called projection.]]
no, it is what you do- There- now that we’ve settled this ‘tit-for-tat’ let’s either move on, and step it up a bit, or as I said, I’m done- Not gettign into a long drawn out argument about issues irrelevent to the thread topic-
[[Did you know that with DNA samples you can trace your family history? In fact you can trace your own history back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other great apes?]]
You can’t be serious? Our genetic coeds were traced back to a mitochondrian EVE- BEYOND that there was NO direct evidnece- just projections about religious beleifs about common descent- And guess what? Mito-EVE was genetically pure- and the genetics degraded down to our present day conditions-
[[What is you evidence supporting ID?]]
I told you where to look, I told you who presented it, and I told you this thread topic provides more eivdnece supporting ID whether you accept it or not- if you don;’t- just say so- and we’ll move on. you seem bound and determined to argue moot points and to claim there is nothign supporting ID- and I’m not goign to get into a long drawn out argument with you when you can find evidneces which DO support ID- this paper one of them. If you have soemthign relevent to add to this discussion- do so- if not- just say so, and perhaps get back to you ‘mass energy’ discussion
there is scientific evidence that chemically pure systems can not arise from dirty chemicals naturally- this supports ID whether you think so or not- there is also evidence that info can not exist without metainfo inplace- Biology provides this evidnece- This supports ID whehter you think it does or not is irrelevent- There is evidnece from the fossil records that species came onto the scene suddenly, fulyl formed, and fully functional- This evidence supports ID whether you think it does or not is irrelevent- There is evidnece that IC systems can not have hteir IC parts removed without breakign down and must have been assembled in one move- this supports ID whether you think it does or not is irrelevent- The fact is that all these things and many others do indeed support ID regaRLDESS OF WHEHTER YOU ACCEPT THEM OR NOT- tHROWING A FANTASTICAL HYPOTHESIS OUT HTERE SUPPOSEDLY SHOWING SOEM (srry- cps lock) mythical evolutionary pathway for the REDUCIBLE parts does NOT invalidate the support for ID, the mythical pathway is just an assumption and a projection of a Darwinian religious belief into the equation