“[[No-the editing and processing nucleases occassionally fail.]]
And that has to do with hte price of tea in china how again? Programmed systems aren’t allowed to fail otherwise they are noty to be concidered programmed? you’re trapsing far from the trail here-”
My statement was not about evolution per se, it is a basic fact of cell biology. You do not want to discuss the roles of genes and proteins in living systems. I’m not even sure you acknowledge the existence of anything in modern science other than the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply.
[[You do not want to discuss the roles of genes and proteins in living systems.]]
Oh contraire- you’ve not asked anyhtign in particular- the discussion is about Macroevolution, not microevolution, so if you have soem eviddence that shows macroevolutionary change at hte genetic level, then present it- All I’ve seen from you thus far are statements about microevolution
[[My statement was not about evolution per se, it is a basic fact of cell biology.]]
Swell- But aGAIN, we’re talking claims of macroevolution, so not sure why your running from the trail in all directions? I broguht up the fact that chemicals can NOT account for metainformation, and I’ll bring up the fact that nature is simply incapable of creating PURE chemical assemblies out of hte dirty chemicals found in nature, YET, what do we see in living systems? Yup- PURE chemical assemblies atthe lowest levels. Care to explain to us all how nature managed to refine hte dirty chemicals in nature when it miraculously created all life from pond scum?
[[I’m not even sure you acknowledge the existence of anything in modern science other than the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.]]
That’s because oyu haven’t asked anythign relavent to this discussion- all you’ve done is demand precision while fully ignoring hte imprecision of the broad generalized claims of Macroevolutionists. I’ll reserve the term ‘hypocrisy’ until more time has passed, and see whether you still insist ID, which is FAR more precise than phylogeny and macroevolutionary biology claims, be 100% percent precise while ingoring the glaring imprecision of Macropevolutionary claims- We’ll see how far you take it.
[[Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply.]]
I don’t blame you for wanting to bow out the conversation- it’s tough defending the imprecise imaginary scenarios of macroevolution. If you want to change hte subject to biology, that’s fine too, but it just gets worse for macroevolution at hte biological stage.
The closer we examine microbiology, the more apparent it becomes that htere indeed is a system of metainfo, and that nature simply is incapable of constructing the incredibly complex systems and subsytstems in microbiolgy- what was once concidered ‘simple’ has now been discovered to be icnredibly complex, and interdependent on higher systems working relatively flawlessly in ways only a Designer could design, so yeah- whatever- no matter which way you choose to turn, there is evidnece of design that nature simply is incapable of constructing- doesn’t matter to me what you wish to discuss-
but most people here, most anticreationists prefer to just keep presenting generalized statements that they don’t have to put much thought into, because htta would involve actual research and work- they just prefer the petty accusations and imaginary claims most often spouted off by sites like talkorigins and darwin central. A lot less work.
I thought, with the several generalizations you were making, and hte avoidance of specific discussions about macroevolution you were avioding, that you wanted to just stick to generalizations, but if you want to get specific, then by all means present your case.
[[Therefore, I will argue on your metaphysical terms in a private reply]]
Lol- I’ve bene askign for specific physical realities, not metaphysical, don’t start falsely diverting the direction we’ve been heading. There was nothing metaphysical about any of hte 8 points I brought up- I didn’t appeal to any Creator, I simply pointed to hte facts that exposed the claims of macroevolutionists as imaginary intentionally deceitful claims that lack any evidence to support. But whatever, again, if you wish to duck out, that’s fine too- wouldn’t be the first time a macroevolutionist ran from such conversations. It’s a tough position tryign to assert that microevolution can lead to a wholly different biological process of macroevolution. Novel new organs don’t just pop out of nowhere when you muck with the info that is provided, you MUSt introduce non species psecific info from an outside source in order to achieve NEW non species specific info- this isn’t a metaphyisical statement, this is a basic biological fact.
and no- I won’t spend time spell-checking when being bombarded by myriad claims- not goign to stop and take hte time to do so- so before you ask, the answer is no- occassionally, when I use my blog writing program, I’ll do so, but for hte most part, my posts will be quite horrid to read- but oh well- it excersizes the brain to try figuring out words- staves off alzheimers- so no thanks to me are necessary, glad to help.
since we’re now apparently copying and pasting pm’s now (I added a comment htough that you’ll see with the -—— ——— lines surrounding it):
[[You’re not even going to look into DNA transcription and protein function in systems living TODAY, cells dividing TODAY. You won’t even use the word “gene” to reply to a comment on genetics. I can only assume you don’t believe in any mainstream science other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics.]]
As I said in my post- you’ve presented NOTHING specific- what is your quesiton or claim regarding genes? I can’t read your mind- I tried, but only saw a dark void- just kidding.
I ‘beleive’ in all kinds of modern science, what specifically are you driving at? Want to take this down to the microbiological level? Be happy to- I find microebiolgoy is even worse for claims of Macroevolution- Be more htan happy to explore that realm if you wish? I’ve doen so many many times here on FR- and quite amazingly, I’ve found that realm supports the concept of a Designer even greater than at hte generalized level of megaevolutionaruy claims.
There’s NO need to look at hte other thread and not argue from a macroevolutionist stance- I’ve even argued from that position myself in that whole thread- trying to figure out IF nature was capable of assembling metainformation fro mscratch- it’s a logn thread, but you’ll find it quite fascinating- and you’re impression of me is quite off I’m afraid- I’m able to look at BOTH sides of hte issue- to think from BOTH angles, and to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, which side presents the stronger case objectively.
—————IF you’re able to further my argument from a natural position in that thread, by all means, feel free to contribute- I think I was on the right path, but got stuck on a few issues, and couldn’t see a resolution- but if you can further my counterargument, I’d be happy to see if it holds water or not if I can——————
Take some time to just read that thread and it’s companion thread (GGG gave hte links in a couple of posts below the article), as well as the discussions that follow. Metainfo deals a serious death-blow to macroevolution I’m afriad- it’s the strongest arguemtn I’ve ever run across in regards to ID/IC- Behe’s examples of IC were fine, but the thread I pointed out takes IC to a whole new level that Behe only touched on. It is my belief that the arguments presented i nthat thread are FAR more important than anythign offered to date in ID/IC circles.
And, this isn’t just a crazy ‘creationist concept’ that isn’t havign any impact on secular science either- All manner of scientists are buisilly trying to come up with a ‘natural answer’ to hte ‘problem’ of metainformation. Demski, who beleives in ID, yet none-the-less mistakenly thinks a Creator of some sort simply began the process of macroevolution, has tried unsuccesfully to assert that higher informaiton can come directly from nature and be assimilated into the genetic makeups of species as they supposedly ‘macroevolved’- but his argument falls on it’s face i nthe mud, as discussed near the end of the thread- agian, it’s a fascinating read- hope you’ll take the time to read through it- if not, oh well. The arguments aren’t from a ‘metaphysical’ position, they directly address chemistry and biology, and determien whether or not nature is able to accomplish the biological complexities witnessed in nature.