>>FMAJ: Cool but a non sequitor. We do not have evidence of inteligent design
as it applies to biology.
[...]
>>FMAJ: 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.
DNAunion: You are still wrong. Let me refresh your memory.
>>Nucacids: Ever hear of Dolly? Ever hear of a transgenic mouse? Or a rabbit
that glows green when placed under a black light?
DNAunion: These are examples of design in biological systems.
You have tried twice in this thread to make some statement about design and
biology but have not made one that reflects reality yet. Saying that there
is no "evidence of inteligent design as it applies to biology", and your
revised, but not corrected, version, "There is no evidence of design in
biological systems", are both wrong. Care to try again (they say the third
time is the charm).
>>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 entities.
>>FMAJ: What indirect evidence?
DNAunion: Perhaps you could have resisted your temptation to jump in until
after you read my next several sentences.
>>DNAunion: 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.
DNAunion: See, there was the indirect evidence you seemed to have completely
missed.
>>FMAJ: Where is the evidence that nature cannot produce these molecules?
DNAunion: Enantiomeric cross-inhibition (prevents long polynucleotides from
forming), short "lifetime" of nucleobases, different conditions needed for
the production of the sugars and the bases, the improbability of linking two
nucleotides correctly (roughly 1 in 1000 - not fatal, but still adds to the
overal improbability), no satisfactory prebiotic pathways known to
biologically-relevant ribose, and others. In fact, all attempts at
synthesizing RNA under prebiotically-plausible conditions have failed. So we
not only have absence of success, but we also have some reasons to doubt that
we will ever achieve success.
>>DNAunion: [my words snipped by FMAJ] ... 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.
>>FMAJ: Generally accepted existence of ETI's? Wow...
DNAunion: Amazing, isn't it.
>>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.
>>FMAJ: Can't wait dear.
DNAunion: Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references to me as
"Dear" *after* I told him I found his doing so offensive: which he took as a
cue to *INCREASE* his use of the term. Nothing like trying one's best to
offend and/or irritate the opponent (but since FMAJ is not an IDist, his
offenses are allowed by the majority here).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 03:03:15 EDT