The polymorphisms being very different in a single animal but very similar across animals is very strong evidence the polymorphisms were designed. There is no good evolutionary explanation for this result.
The hypothesis is the data will supports design (mind) as a mechanism. It does that exactly. Just as starlight curving around the sun supported mass(energy) as a mechanism. How many times do I have to repeat this
But the data can only “support design (mind) as a mechanism” if you have a hypothesis that predicts the data. And you don’t.
Where? Where is the prediction of the data Bill?
Even if you repeated it an infinite amount of times, that wouldn’t make it true. Where is the predict of the data Bill? Where is the design model that says “due to a mechanism that qualitatively and quantitatively functions in the following way X, we should expect there to be data patterns like this Y” ?
Nowhere, it is nowhere. Such a model does not exist. You do not have a predictive theory of ID, hence the patterns in the data (such as some particular degree of conservation of some gene between different species, or distributions of types of DNA mutations) isn’t evidence for it.
Why don’t you just accept this, what you must at some level know is true, and move on with your life? Do something else with your life, find some other basis for your beliefs.
As others have noted, that’s not a hypothesis. A hypothesis predicts what observations we should see AND what observations we should NOT see. You don’t have that. You simultaneously claim that design will result in many polymorphisms and conservation of sequence which only begs the question of what design won’t produce. Until you have a null hypothesis you don’t have a hypothesis.
The prediction is that the evidence will show ultimately what we are observing is the direct product of a mind. If you found a mechanism in the prokaryotic cell that could generate complex functional information de novo then you would strongly challenge the hypothesis.
I have been discussing this for 4 years and in the beginning I was merely an evolutionary skeptic. I now believe science is getting to the point it needs to re engage the old design argument given what we are observing in biology.
You can make nit picky arguments as no analogy is perfect but that’s all you guys have at this point. Design is a much better explanation for the origin and evolution of life then any evolutionary theory be it Darwinian, neutral theory or the Shapiro group…
I do believe that common descent explains some of the data but it is only a partial explanation. It certainly does not explain the origin of the mechanism that it is touting that explains the data: sexual and a sexual reproduction.
A mind is able to put together a long string of meaningful symbolic sequences. I have seen evolutionists try to explain how the cell can do this for 4 years. We can test a minds ability to do this with human minds.