OK I think I may have a new “Favorite” argument “against” intelligent design. The genetic oddities of the octopus are because it descends from space aliens…
How is this an argument against design?
Let me reiterate I think a running series with this moniker is misleading. It would be better to pick a specific argument for design, such as irriducible complexity, and look at the case for an against it.
In the end, I agree that God created us, bit have been unconvinced by design arguments. That is not to say Im arguing against design.
1 Like
Because it allows them to explain the sudden emergence of the unique gene suites via naturalistic means. They still evolved, they just evolved somewhere else and that’s why we can’t see where those genes came from and how they got here.
Irriducible complexity would be in the middle-top of my list of my “for ID”, but moreso on the protein making level, which gets tedious for me to dive into. I think I gave an example in the other thread of an experiment that would be closer to the top for evidence “against” depending on how it turned out. I guess just beneath that one would be the existence of the genes adapted for later complex function in the genomes of creatures who had no need for it. It was as if the life form “knew” it would at some point have a descendants which would need such a function. That along with genes which are in say, sponges and mammals but missing from everything in between.
But the Octopus from Outer Space is my “favorite” by a whole 'nother metric and that’s the one I’d like to focus on here…
I guess I did not catch it on the first iteration. I thought you had suggested moving my fly experiment to a new thread, which I took to mean you did not mind exploration. This one however is at least half in jest and I will pull it if you prefer.
No need to pull. Just consider renaming it.