This is a response to RocketSurgeon. It said the other discussion was too long to post, so I'm putting it here. Hopefully you see it.
I am not presupposing that life requires enzymes. That is what we see. YOU are the one presupposing that RNA word is even possible, despite the lack of stability of the molecule. it is less stable than DNA, which requires enzymes to maintain it. It isn't a supposition to say that life always operated by the way we see it operate. It is a supposition to say that it operates by unobserved conditions. Again, observing the molecules necessary for life is a long way from saying abiogenesis can happen. You also seem to think that there are so many promising hypotheses for abiogenesis, but saying it may have happened long ago and far away is not good science. I'll accept it when they do the work and provide better evidence. I realize they are working, but like other scientific theories, it needs to be developed more before I can accept it. Until then, it should be the job of the rest of scientists to challenge what they put forward with facts. You keep saying I'm ignoring facts but I think I just have a different interpretation of the facts, which seems to bother you.
You explained evolution exactly as I understand it. It is microevolution, and I know it's an old debate, but I don't think that it can be extrapolated to macroevolution. Natural selection is capable of changing the allele frequencies of a population, but these small changes in phenotype (which i agree can lead to better adapted individuals) are due to small differences in the code. Small changes in the code don't accumulate, because, while the code can tolerate some change, most change is detrimental to protein function.
I don't have a supreme lack of understanding of the functions of genetics. I have already taken these 300 level classes you mentioned, and more next semester. I finished with the highest grade in the class, and I have asked my professors some of the questions.
Why do the whales have terrestrial leg design? I don't think they do. I think that is presupposed by the evolutionists. Yes I heard the muscle attachment thing from the creationists, but it's not the source that matters, it is what they are saying. The picture you have is a nice story, but I've said this before that we could easily do these gradual looking charts connecting virtually any two species. They are just putting similar organisms next to each other.
The bacterial flagellum is still problematic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard on the topic, less than half of the proteins involved in the flagellum come from proteins with other functions. The fact that proteins can do multiple things shows efficiency, which could be interpreted as design or evolution. The flagellum may not be irreducibly complex, but it again seems like they are making assumptions about the past. Some of the proteins involved have other functions, therefore in the past they must have done different things, and slowly evolved into the flagellum.
I stand by the fact that we should not discourage the questioning of evolution. If it can only be done through peer reviewed articles, then we are at a disadvantage due to the ideologies held by the bulk of the scientific community. I watched a documentary called no intelligence allowed. It seems like there is unfair treatment of the intelligent design people. I'm not saying that the scientific method is wrong, but it is portrayed as the ultimate system to ensure objective interpretation of evidence, but it isn't. Everyone has presupposition and we cannot ignore them no matter how hard we try.
Again I think that ID people should be considered real scientists. What do they have to do to be considered a scientist? They are doing research. They are intelligent people who know their science. Steven Meyer seems to be very up to date with evidence, and I have never seen him lose a debate, so I don't think they can just be dismissed as wrong due to the fact that they are questioning the theory.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and Happy Holidays.
I am not presupposing that life requires enzymes. That is what we see. YOU are the one presupposing that RNA word is even possible, despite the lack of stability of the molecule. it is less stable than DNA, which requires enzymes to maintain it. It isn't a supposition to say that life always operated by the way we see it operate. It is a supposition to say that it operates by unobserved conditions. Again, observing the molecules necessary for life is a long way from saying abiogenesis can happen. You also seem to think that there are so many promising hypotheses for abiogenesis, but saying it may have happened long ago and far away is not good science. I'll accept it when they do the work and provide better evidence. I realize they are working, but like other scientific theories, it needs to be developed more before I can accept it. Until then, it should be the job of the rest of scientists to challenge what they put forward with facts. You keep saying I'm ignoring facts but I think I just have a different interpretation of the facts, which seems to bother you.
You explained evolution exactly as I understand it. It is microevolution, and I know it's an old debate, but I don't think that it can be extrapolated to macroevolution. Natural selection is capable of changing the allele frequencies of a population, but these small changes in phenotype (which i agree can lead to better adapted individuals) are due to small differences in the code. Small changes in the code don't accumulate, because, while the code can tolerate some change, most change is detrimental to protein function.
I don't have a supreme lack of understanding of the functions of genetics. I have already taken these 300 level classes you mentioned, and more next semester. I finished with the highest grade in the class, and I have asked my professors some of the questions.
Why do the whales have terrestrial leg design? I don't think they do. I think that is presupposed by the evolutionists. Yes I heard the muscle attachment thing from the creationists, but it's not the source that matters, it is what they are saying. The picture you have is a nice story, but I've said this before that we could easily do these gradual looking charts connecting virtually any two species. They are just putting similar organisms next to each other.
The bacterial flagellum is still problematic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard on the topic, less than half of the proteins involved in the flagellum come from proteins with other functions. The fact that proteins can do multiple things shows efficiency, which could be interpreted as design or evolution. The flagellum may not be irreducibly complex, but it again seems like they are making assumptions about the past. Some of the proteins involved have other functions, therefore in the past they must have done different things, and slowly evolved into the flagellum.
I stand by the fact that we should not discourage the questioning of evolution. If it can only be done through peer reviewed articles, then we are at a disadvantage due to the ideologies held by the bulk of the scientific community. I watched a documentary called no intelligence allowed. It seems like there is unfair treatment of the intelligent design people. I'm not saying that the scientific method is wrong, but it is portrayed as the ultimate system to ensure objective interpretation of evidence, but it isn't. Everyone has presupposition and we cannot ignore them no matter how hard we try.
Again I think that ID people should be considered real scientists. What do they have to do to be considered a scientist? They are doing research. They are intelligent people who know their science. Steven Meyer seems to be very up to date with evidence, and I have never seen him lose a debate, so I don't think they can just be dismissed as wrong due to the fact that they are questioning the theory.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and Happy Holidays.
