Interesting. So you agree that direct observation of macroevolution is not necessary in order to determine whether it occurred. We’ll remind you of that as necessary.
You’ve done a test and I don’t understand it? What test? Where has this test been published? I’m super-interested.
We fundamentally disagree with the claim that evolutionists make that evolution could take any course especially at the cellular level.
I really have no idea what it means to say that evolution “could take any course especially at the cellular level”, and I haven’t seen anyone make that claim.
That assertion is not supported in any reasonable way in my opinion.
It’s even worse, nobody has made that assertion as far as I can see.
No, Bill. You are using incorrect terminology here. Gpuccio is using real data(which he gets from publicly available databases) and trying to analyze it in various ways. He’s not doing any measurements, not even indirectly. Gpuccio is doing a sort of data analysis, not data collection or data discovery.
He’d have to use instruments, and go into an actual wet-lab and do stuff with molecules and cells to make measurements and produce data. You know, those lab experiments you are so happy to demand evolutionists do to convince you. Somehow you’re always satisfied with data analysis when it’s pro-ID.
If you have a mechanism that you can model and test that is robust enough to validate the observations then you don’t need to observe it directly.
Ok. I agree he is using data available in the public domain. He is also doing comparisons of the data which is producing newly formatted data for analysis.
No. I do not support all their claims. I do believe they have the only viable argument for the origin of functional information given the current set of facts.
Evolution has such a model.
It turns out just the opposite is true for generating sufficient amounts of functional information.
This is the specific claim and I did not represent it properly. My apologies. As you know I don’t agree with the above claim either.
So if you don’t agree with it, does that mean you think evolution IS searching for something specific, and that the starting point for this search is completely arbitrary as opposed to historically contingent?
I don’t think there is any search going on at all. The only practical way to search through a long sequence is Dawkins method using the sequence itself. If you know the sequence you want then just infuse it into the genome. The eukaryotic cell is a single holistic design IMO.
How am I to understand this claim? Are you saying there is no evolution going on at all, that mutations do not occur, or that they do not accumulate?
If you have a problem with the word search then you can substitute it for something else. Sampling of sequence space, for example. The effects of mutations are being tested in real environments by living organisms. Are you denying that this happens? How deep does this rabbit hole go?
The only practical way to search through a long sequence is Dawkins method using the sequence itself.
If you think there’s a pre-determined target that needs to be found, sure. But there is no evidence that there are any targets that need to be found.
If you know the sequence you want then just infuse it into the genome.
Sure, there’s no reason to search for something you already know what is. There’s also no evidence that evolution is searching for anything specific. Rather, evolution happens in the way I described earlier: Mutations happen, they have phenotypic effects, and those in turn determine how likely they are to rise in frequency or go extinct. Over time mutations build up, and descendant sequences have changed a lot from their ancestors. They change in sequence, and they change in function.
The eukaryotic cell is a single holistic design IMO.
You opinion has been noted there’s just no evidence for it.
There is no search for a de novo functional sequence. Mutations happen but they are not the source of a de novo functional sequence. They can result in simple adaptions.
This is an assertion that I think is as false as anything.I ever heard an intelligent person state. The evidence is a functioning eukaryotic cell. The evolutionist canard of “no evidence” when there is a smoking gun is astonishing. Let’s agree to disagree.
That doesn’t make sense. What is preventing these accumulating mutations from resulting in novel functional sequences?
Well thanks for another pile of opinions piled on top of the previous one.
And those aren’t found by searching, they’re found by… something you want to call something else. Okay, what should we label that process? Evolution?
Also, if simple adaptations can evolve, why can’t slightly more complex ones also evolve in longer time, and so on?
Bill again agrees that the scientific case for macroevolution has been verified.
“This is soooo complex and I don’t understand it, therefore it was Designed!” isn’t an argument Bill. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow. Never.
When we asked you to provide the model by which a mind was able to physically produce a functional sequence, the best you could come up with was, in effect, “A mind did it, with its mind.”
So, sorry, no.
De novo functional sequences, of the sort you are referring to here, do not occur. ID itself demonstrates this is not the case. Like you guys keep saying, it is too improbable.
With the above communication you demonstrated the process.
You keep on asking