DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

@T0 Th3 M4X

Stating the current scientific consensus on some subject is not ‘making a claim.’  It’s simply an acknowledgement of a scientific fact. The claim, (hypothesis) has already been thoroughly tested by the scientific community, and elevated to the status of a fact, or a theory, if you’re talking about evolution. Respectfully, no one here is obligated to provide you with an education, and the weight of the work done on evolutionary theory does not rest on the backs of a couple of members on an internet forum.  We use science because it works!  Every time you get in your car, turn on your phone, take a pill, or eat a meal, you are relying on the efficacy of scientific inquiry. To deny it in one subject, when you accept it in every other aspect of your life, seems dishonest.  And, I don’t want to think that of you.

OTOH, CDF is making a claim that goes against the scientific consensus; that humans are designed, rather than evolved. 1. He bears the burden of proof in this argument. 2. Attempting to poke holes in evolution does not constitute a positive case for design.

@T0 Th3 M4X

I think you may have missed my post.

Sorry, I did miss it unintentionally.  I think if you miss a day, you get about 5 pages behind in this thread.

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered.  I'm more interested in individual statements made pertaining to it.  If you lump fiction in with things that are factual, which is why I like to look at claims individually.  That way I'm not saying "yep" or "nope" to all of it.

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something.  IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science.  The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous.  Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased.  Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

So back to CDF, as I've stated I'm not siding with him or anyone else.  If someone has something, they can show it.  Let facts speak for themselves.

---

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I will be fair and say you usually do provide sources, and it's always appreciated.

So... care to remind me what the claim was? I think that's the best way to move forward... if that is of interest.

Honestly, I'm lost too at this point.  I think it was about 50 pages and 4 days ago.