In a message dated 10/16/2000 1:02:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, DNAunion
writes:
> >FMAJ: Cool but a non sequitor. We do not have evidence of inteligent design
> as it applies to biology.
>
> >Nucacids: Ever hear of Dolly? Ever hear of a transgenic mouse? Or a
> rabbit that glows green when placed under a black light?
>
> >FMAJ: Interesting examples, but none apply to pre-existing biological
> systems. That humans can manipulate genes is still no evidence that this
> happened in the past.
>
> > DNAunion: Your attempt at changing the subject to save face is noted.
>
> >FMAJ: Please explain the relevance of this to evidence of design?
>
> DNAunion: Okay stupid. You said, "We do not have evidence of inteligent
> design as it applies to biology." Nucacids provided you with valid
> examples of intelligent design in biology. You rejected his valid counter
> examples to your ludicrous claim, and changed the subject to asking about
> evidence - apparently empirical - of intelligent design in the past. That
> much is obvious - you were outright, plainly, no one can deny, purely,
> unequivocally wrong: and you attempted to divert us all from this fact by
> playing a typical sleight of hand trick, hoping no one would notice or at
> least not comment.
>
So there is evidence that we can intervene in biology in an intelligent
manner. But my question was "do we have any evidence of ID in biological
systems"? Of course not. There is no evidence of design in biological systems.
> >FMAJ: That we have evidence of design in systems we know were designed is
> not evidence of design in existing biological systems.
>
> DNAunion: Sure it is - it is called indirect evidence. That you don't
> like it does not mean it is not evidence. It shows that intelligent agents
> can manipulate biological
What indirect evidence?
entities. We have empirical evidence that intelligent agents can create
novel
> proteins and genomes, and in fact, can create molecules found in all life
> that nature itself cannot produce (such as RNA, which is not a
> prebiotically plausible molecule). This is indirect evidence that supports
> the idea that intelligent
Where is the evidence that nature cannot produce these molecules?
intervention could have been involved in the appearance of life on Earth -
and in fact,
> with the generally-accepted existence of ETI's, becomes more parsimonious
> than a purely-natural origin of life here on Earth.
>
Generally accepted existence of ETI's? Wow...
> >FMAJ: I like you ad hom though. Keep up the good work
>
> DNAunion: Sure, I will be glad to continue to point out your tactics and
> shortcomings - no need to ask.
>
>
Can't wait dear.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 11:16:25 EDT