[QUOTE=Dowly;2561544]Instead, you use blogs.[QUOTE]
Too a certain extent yes. But here's the thing, I don't give a rats arse if the intelligent design community thinks it was baby jesus, cthulhu, the flying spaghetti monster, or the God of Spinoza. All I am saying if the possibility exists we are here by design not a random selection it should be examined. If you can make the argument about that instead of derping on about religion all the time we could possibily learn something.
Btw, Dick Tracey here's your secret decoder ring you've been promoted to internet super sleuth.
Do you?
My initial request was for proof of Darwinism's random selection evolution. I got something about a nylon eating bacteria. But it wasn't proof. If it was we wouldn't be having this argument now would we? Anyway, My understanding of the argument from one side is that the bacteria in a forty year span developed a random mutation which allowed it to feed on nylon. The otherside of the argument is this:
A significant problem for the neo-Darwinian story is the origin of new biological information. Clearly, information has increased over the course of life’s history — new life forms appeared, requiring new genes, proteins, and other functional information. The question is — how did it happen? This is the central question concerning the origin of living things.[a question neither evolutionists or intelligent design have yet to answer]
Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe have made this strong claim:
[T]he neo-Darwinian mechanism — with its reliance on a random mutational search to generate novel gene sequences — is not an adequate mechanism to produce the information necessary for even a single new protein fold, let alone a novel animal form, in available evolutionary deep time.
Their claim is based on the experimental finding by Doug Axe that functional protein folds are exceedingly rare, on the order on 1 in 10 to the 77th power, meaning that all the creatures of the Earth searching for the age of the Earth by random mutation could not find even one medium-size protein fold. [also please note baby jesus wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with the experiment either]
https://uncommondescent.com/intellig...asy-to-evolve/
Put religion aside for just for a moment and consider their argument about the DNA before you pass judgement on it because of their personal beliefs, religion or website the information is found on. Im not asking you to follow any religion, I'm not saying you have to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. My argument is other possibilities should be examined.
For me my reasons for thinking it ought to be examined is this 1. In my bible like others it is said God created the universe with wisdom/information/mind. My bibles creation timeline of night and day has been viewed by certain sages of bringing order out of chaos. Scientists in Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Physics seem to agree. 2. That desert sheep herders wrote the universe was created is the current scientific thinking by NASA. Instead of God they found quantum fluctuation as the source but as I said before both can be defined in much the same way. In that they both are non-physical, both act upon the physical, both created something from nothing, both predate the universe.
As for number 3. Because of the first two rather than random selection from a fish I think we should at least look at the other possibility that we homo sapien were designed/created. Buts that me and my personal thoughts and ideas.
If they come to find out it is by design you can if you like believe it was the turnip god Pyhä Äkräs, I dont give a rats arse. I just want to know I want all avenues explored - scientifically. Maybe its a combination of both design evolution who the fark knows.
As Anthony Flew once said "from Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of "follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads."
__________________
Guardian of the honey and nuts
Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.