This Week in Intelligent Design - 22/03/11

Jack - Thanks for doing this - so I don't have to. I would much rather read your summary, than have to go straight through the Hard Tard as you do, and I find that as I get older, I just can't put up with unfiltered O'Leary and Luskin. So once again, we have proof of a bad design - anything written by O'Leary & Luskin - or evidence for an evolutionary safety valve.

Ah, the Dissent from Darwin list. A nice piece of work, that is. For those who are unfamiliar, it’s a list of scientists who have signed on to agree with this statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

So, ID does publish (for some value of the word 'publish') in kind-of peer-reviewed journals, that by some stretch of the imagination might have something to do with biology (in the round about way that the author was a living thing).

Of course, the articles don't come out and say "Therefore ID", so it's mostly a hollow victory that someone, who might or might not be pro-ID wrote an article that might or moght not be pro-ID, had the courage to stand up for something that might or might not be ID.

Got it, thanks.

I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

Henry J said:

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

So was Einstein. ;)

Henry J said:

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

So was Einstein. ;)

Heisenberg was uncertain.

I still the think 'bad design' argument is useful. "Well, that was a mistake, just like Venter's watermark!" This argument can be invoked to explain anything in a genome, therefore it doesn't really explain anything, which just shows how empty ID is. Pointing out "mistakes" also assumes once again that some feature of the Designer can be identified and characterized, which IDists say isn't really the case ("Who knows how that Designer works? Stop assuming they'd do any one thing any one way!").

More generally, the "sloppy design" argument (several features of the human body that are so badly arranged they speak of slow evolution instead of intentional layout) is still perfectly valid. ID is a worse explanation than gradual accumulation of changes. Evolution is simply a superior, useful explanation for "bad" or "sloppy" design, highlighting the utter failure of ID to deal with these cases is fair game.

Mike Elzinga said: Heisenberg was uncertain.

Agree with Wheels. Dembski et al. basically claim that ID infers design based on the 'goodness of fit' of the internal properties of some structure alone. That claim is undermined when one says that a designed structure may, like nondesigned ones, have faults. All of a sudden, the one criteria you used to infer design is no good any more, because now designed structures may not fit together so well.

So, the 'error' argument is a legitimate complaint against standard ID.

Its not a legitimate complaint against mainstream scientific practices which infer design (say, of a stone age tool) based on multiple independent lines of evidence. But design proponents reject the idea that independent evidence of design is needed, because they don't have any. Unlike stone age toolmakers, God did not leave his lab equipment lying around for us to find.

The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.

Jim Harrison said: The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.

Jack,

Thanks for sharing Klinghoffer's latest breathtaking inanity. It's hard to believe that this delusional fellow alumnus of my undergraduate alma mater thinks he's an instant expert on peer review, but what more can you expect from someone who seeks Divine guidance from a fanatical rebbe who espouses a most unique variant of Conservative Judaism.

Jim Harrison said: The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.

Kevin B said:

Jim Harrison said: The laugh will be on all of you when it turns out that Craig Venter eventually invents time travel, returns to the primal earth, and seeds it with life. Junk DNA is actually a long series of patent numbers. We all owe him royalties every time we reproduce.

You just need to sequence his mother's DNA to invalidate the patents on the grounds of prior art :)

Amadan said:

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

QED

SWT said: I am skeptical of claims for the ability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the complexity of motion. Careful examination of the evidence for Newtonian theory should be encouraged.

But Laurie Lebo didn't say there were no peer-reviewed articles making ID-friendly assertions. She said there was no peer-reviewed ID research. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the ID camp has ever even suggested a testable hypothesis that might distinguish between designed and non-designed, or show that any organism must have been designed. With no hypotheses and no researchers (and no research budget), just exactly what do these "peer-reviewed papers" actually contain?

If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently.

Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life.

God said, “be still and know I am God”

We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

Marylyn, no problems with this -- just as long as you don't start talking about "information".

Marylyn, no problems with this -- just as long as you don't start talking about "information".

Marilyn said: The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours.

Marilyn said: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet.

It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently.

Marilyn wrote:

"I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing."

Really? I view DNA as undergoing random mutation and organisms as undergoing natural selection. I have experimental evidence to support my view. Do you have any evidence for your view?

How exactly do genes "mature"? What exactly is a "mature" gene? Do genes actually change in order to "enable" things? Does this require intelligence? Whose intelligence is in charge? What is the purpose of this intelligent intervention?

Thanks in advance for your clarification of these points.

Marilyn said: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently. Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life.

Your whole post is based on made up nonsense, the denial of existing facts and magic sky fairy mumbo jumbo.

We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

How many hairy reptiles are there? What about clams? How about potatoes?

This is perhaps one of the best examples of why ID cannot be attacked using a “bad design”-style argument. It simply does not logically follow that design necessarily must be perfect, especially when the ID “hypothesis” is framed in such a way that none of the properties of the Designer need be known: if the Designer could have any characteristics whatsoever, who’s to say that a perfect design record is one of them?

Glen Davidson said: Oh yes, "poor design" remains an excellent argument, but only insofar as people point out that the specific forms of "bad design" that we see are wholly explicable via evolution--and so is the "good design" that we see.

And these are just the small issues.

It seems even the YEC home schoolers can’t agree among themselves. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: It seems even the YEC home schoolers can’t agree among themselves. :-)

Marilyn the utterly clueless British Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same. I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing. Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently. Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life. God said, “be still and know I am God” We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

As for humanity’s appearance resembling that of GOD, then who are you, a mere mortal, to presume to know what GOD really looks like. For all we know, GOD could be a Klingon, a Borg, or, heaven forbid, Katy Perry.

My #3 bet for what GOD looks like is bacterium.

My #2 is a plate of Spaghetti

My #1 is that there are separate GODS of various descriptions designing separate creatures a-la Multiple Designer Theory. (Which I Still think is superior to vanilla ID!)

<Fine Print>In reality I am an Atheist<Blatant Winking Smiley></Fine Print>

Mike Elzinga said: And these are just the small issues. It seems even the YEC home schoolers can’t agree among themselves. :-)

Flint said: With no hypotheses and no researchers (and no research budget), just exactly what do these "peer-reviewed papers" actually contain?

I consider the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe as well as a lot of other corresponding examples are well accounted for within evolutionary theory but to which all branches of creationism have no consistent reply but hand-waving. If it is not evidence for evolution then it is evidence of sloppy design that even mere mortals wouldn't have done.

Or maybe it is nature disobeying God; just doing its own thing.

Rolf Aalberg said: I consider the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe as well as a lot of other corresponding examples are well accounted for within evolutionary theory but to which all branches of creationism have no consistent reply but hand-waving. If it is not evidence for evolution then it is evidence of sloppy design that even mere mortals wouldn't have done.

The problem with "bad design" arguments is that the advocates of ID do not describe what they mean by "design", so any argument against design can be met with the rejoinder that "that isn't what we mean by design".

TomS said: The problem with "bad design" arguments is ...

Henry J said:

As for humanity’s appearance resembling that of GOD, then who are you, a mere mortal, to presume to know what GOD really looks like. For all we know, GOD could be a Klingon, a Borg, or, heaven forbid, Katy Perry.

Or a beetle.

OgreMkV said: But you guys are right, ID has variable definitions specificallly so they can avoid being pinned down to something testable.

If evolution were DNA’s business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances.

Courtesy of Zack Kopplin:

My state is addicted to creationism!

Louisiana doesn't remember the lesson it was taught back in 1987 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Edwards vs. Aguillard, invalidated a Louisiana law requiring creationism be taught alongside evolution and ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science classes.

In 2008, the Louisiana Legislature passed a new creationism law, making us second-time offenders. We are the only state with a creationism law on the books.

Named the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the law pretends to promote critical thinking. In reality, though, it is stealth legislation designed to sneak the unconstitutional and unscientific teaching of creationism or its offshoot, intelligent design, into public school science classes.

Because the Edwards decision established that creationists cannot legally foist their religious views on public school students directly, the creationist zealots are now trying misdirection. Their new legislation employs code language like "critical thinking" and "teaching the alternatives" in order to pretend to be promoting something noble. But creative language doesn't change the fact that they are simply pushing their religious agenda into the science classroom.

And LSEA doesn't change educational and scientific realities.
•Teachers are already supposed to teach critical thinking.

•There are no scientific alternatives to evolution.

The sole purpose for the Louisiana Science Education Act is to insert creationism into a public school science classroom.

Even as the bill's proponents toss around their education-friendly phrases like "critical thinking," they have on numerous occasions openly identified the true aim of the law: to teach creationism as science.

Senator Ben Nevers, the sponsor of the Senate version of the LSEA said,

The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill ... They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory.

Jan Benton, the Livingston Parish School Board Director of Curriculum, also openly admitted to her board that the law's purpose was to allow "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes.

If these so-called "leaders" were serious about academic freedom, they would not have scrapped the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education's original rules about implementing the LSEA which expressly prohibited the teaching of creationism because it lacks scientific merit.

The true intent of this law, rather than the rhetoric associated with it, is clear; sneaking unconstitutional and unscientific creationism into public school science classrooms.

This hurts Louisiana kids. We want jobs, but if we are taught creationism, we will not get them. There are no creationist jobs. Check any major job finding sites like Monster or CareerBuilder, and they will tell you, sorry, there are zero creationist jobs. On the other hand, if you search those sites for biology, you will find over a thousand jobs. Louisiana students need to be taught evolution, not creationism, to get jobs.

This law is also hurting Louisiana tourism, which is one of Louisiana's most important industries. Louisiana's anti-science reputation is scaring away major science conventions which bring thousands of people and millions of dollars to our state. One organization, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology actually pulled a convention that was scheduled for 2011 as a protest. Others are simply looking elsewhere when they're considering locations.

Louisiana wants to develop a 21st century biomedical industry through the New Orleans Bio District and the Shreveport Biomedical Research Foundation. But Louisiana's reputation has created a negative business environment that is chasing away scientists and entrepreneurs. Louisiana won't be able take a place at the forefront of the biomedical industry if we don't repeal this law.

Louisiana's creationism law must go. It is killing Louisiana jobs and hurting Louisiana kids.

I'm a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High and I'm leading an effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. I encourage everyone who cares about education to help out by joining the repeal's Facebook page and by going to www.repealcreationism.com to get involved. Invite your friends to join us.

If enough of us care, we can help Louisiana kick its addiction and join the modern world.

You can read of the rest of it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/how-you-can-join-the-figh_b_837896.html

John Kwok said: Courtesy of Zack Kopplin: This hurts Louisiana kids. We want jobs, but if we are taught creationism, we will not get them. There are no creationist jobs. Check any major job finding sites like Monster or CareerBuilder, and they will tell you, sorry, there are zero creationist jobs. On the other hand, if you search those sites for biology, you will find over a thousand jobs. Louisiana students need to be taught evolution, not creationism, to get jobs. This law is also hurting Louisiana tourism, which is one of Louisiana's most important industries. Louisiana's anti-science reputation is scaring away major science conventions which bring thousands of people and millions of dollars to our state. One organization, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology actually pulled a convention that was scheduled for 2011 as a protest. Others are simply looking elsewhere when they're considering locations. Louisiana wants to develop a 21st century biomedical industry through the New Orleans Bio District and the Shreveport Biomedical Research Foundation. But Louisiana's reputation has created a negative business environment that is chasing away scientists and entrepreneurs. Louisiana won't be able take a place at the forefront of the biomedical industry if we don't repeal this law. Louisiana's creationism law must go. It is killing Louisiana jobs and hurting Louisiana kids. I'm a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High and I'm leading an effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. I encourage everyone who cares about education to help out by joining the repeal's Facebook page and by going to www.repealcreationism.com to get involved. Invite your friends to join us. If enough of us care, we can help Louisiana kick its addiction and join the modern world. You can read of the rest of it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/how-you-can-join-the-figh_b_837896.html

mplavcan said: C'mon...creationism creates lots of jobs and brings in lots of money. They can open a creation museum, or build a Noah's Ark theme park. Tons of money to be made there! And let's not forget the millions of dollars in donations dumped into preachers' war chests (all tax free!). Don't forget the home-schooling conferences that will flock to Louisiana. And when ignorance is thoroughly entrenched (ah, the race with Texas), think of the multiple millions of dollars in unemployment benefits brought into the Louisiana economy (it's one thing to denounce the feds for "socialist" policies -- it's another to turn down money). And of course with wages and benefits down, and an ignorant population willing suffer anything to eat, the work force will finally be competitive with other impoverished third world nations, thereby creating lots and lots of opportunity to attract sweat shops from the garment industry, and manufacturers of cheap trinkets and low-profit electronic gadgets. It's all about jobs man!

C’mon…creationism creates lots of jobs and brings in lots of money.

Karen S. said:

C’mon…creationism creates lots of jobs and brings in lots of money.

It brings in lots of money for the creo leadership.

Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?

Intelligent Designer the moronic Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:

Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?

Glen Davidson doesn't really exist.

Since Intelligent Designer has opted to return after his long, twenty-four hour nap, I have these questions for him to answer which he hasn't yet:

1) Why do we need to think of GOD in science? Tell me why GOD is important in trying to understand Planet Earth’s biodiversity when GOD is not needed to understand Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, the Periodic Table of the Elements, or Plate Tectonics? If GOD is not needed to understand these, then it is clearly illogical to suppose that we need to invoke GOD in trying to understand the history and current composition of Earth’s biodiversity.

2) The question regarding how life originated on Planet Earth is not the same as trying to understand the history and current composition of our planet’s biodiversity. Theories pertaining to biological evolution deal only with the later, not with the origin of life on Planet Earth which is a question best left to chemistry, especially organic chemistry, NOT biology.

3) As I have said on numerous occasions, random mutation is not strictly “random”. These random mutations are contingent on the prior phylogenetic history of the population being affected (as I have pointed out to you MORE THAN ONCE) and on the complex interaction of physical and biological factors acting on that population. While mutations are the raw ingredients, then Natural Selection acts as a process to determine whether such mutations are passed on to succeeding generations and become dominant in the population and thus allow for the eventual creation of a new species (singular or plural) from this ancestral population.

4) Read again “Why Evolution is True” since it obviously didn’t sink in with you. I also highly recommend Richard Dawkins’s “The Greatest Show on Earth”.

5) Your statement about entropy would be true if living things were not open systems who receive more energy via the “fuel” they acquire via the acquisition of food, whether it is photosynthesis in plants and blue green algae, or predation in protists and Metazoans. Moreover your observation is a typical creationist canard that I have heard ever since I saw the late Henry Morris make such an absurd declaration during his April, 1981 debate against then assistant professor of biology Kenneth R. Miller at Brown University’s hockey rink (In the interest of full disclosure I was the sole “evolutionist” on the ad hoc committee that organized this debate; the rest were actively involved in the Brown University chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ.).

And yes, I concur with Malchus’s statement that DNA does not contain information.

If evolution were DNA’s business

then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances.

Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same.

I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.

Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet.

It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently.

Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life.

God said, “be still and know I am God”

We have pictures of Leonardo De Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew.

The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speek so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances.

John Kwok said: 5) Your statement about entropy would be true if living things were not open systems who receive more energy via the “fuel” they acquire via the acquisition of food,

TomS said: Such as: Designers are not exempted from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I wouldn't say that biological "mistakes" are evidence against ID. This suggests that there CAN be evidence for ID. ID is ultimately a belief, and so has no relationship to evidence, reality, etc. I would say rather that "mistakes" provide strong reasons not to accept ID.

mrg said: With the other side of that coin being that if evolutionary constructions are a violation of the SLOT, then so are Designed constructions.

John Kwok said:

Intelligent Designer the moronic Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:

Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?

Glen Davidson doesn't really exist.

Au contraire, Monsieur. Glen has been a steadfast critic of ID for years. As for you, you could be a student in Bill Dembski's course opting to get some "extra credit" by posting your risible comments replete in their breathtaking inanity.

Randy "Intelligent Designer" Stimpson -

Glad to see you back. Let's pick up where we left off.
To summarize -

1) You can’t explain the theory of evolution. Feel free to prove me wrong by giving an adequate explanation of the theory of evolution.

2) No possible evidence can convince you of biological evolution with mutation and natural selection as major factors. Feel free to prove me wrong by explaining what reasonable evidence would convince you.

3) Your descriptions of “specified” and “indexical” information are vague and informal. These are just arbitrary terms you invented. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting rigorous, usable definitions of these terms.

4) Your examples of “design”, such as software or recipes, are examples of human activity. These examples merely lead to a sequence total non sequitur. A extremely fair paraphrase would be “humans write recipes, some characteristic of living cells reminds me of recipes, therefore a non-human magically created living cells, and therefore living cells don’t evolve via a mechanism that involves mutation and natural selection”. I hope this is not “misrepresentation”, it is an attempted fair paraphrase of your line of reasoning. If it sounds stupid when tersely summarized, perhaps that means something.

5) You can’t say who the designer is. Feel free to prove me wrong by saying who the designer is.

6) You tried to play the disgraceful trick of saying “the designer is God, I don’t know who or what God is, but I didn’t say that I don’t know who or what the designer is”. I repeat, you can’t say who the designer is.

7) You can’t say what the designer did. Feel free to prove me wrong.

8) You can’t say when the designer did it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

9) You can’t say how the designer did it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

10) You offer no explanation as to why you, individually, are so special that, with no study or even significant informal knowledge of a major scientific subject, you can overturn a major scientific theory in that subject. Feel free to prove me wrong by explaining what it is about you that makes you able to achieve this remarkable accomplishment.

OgreMkV said:

John Kwok said:

Intelligent Designer the moronic Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:

Glen Davidson said: Teh Designer is an idiot savant?

Glen Davidson doesn't really exist.

Au contraire, Monsieur. Glen has been a steadfast critic of ID for years. As for you, you could be a student in Bill Dembski's course opting to get some "extra credit" by posting your risible comments replete in their breathtaking inanity.

Oh yeah, I guess it is that time of year again.

John Kwok,

You institutionalize yourself not me.

I was not brought up on beer and crisps.

I would remove the word obediently if it implied anything to do with the Daleks.

DS said: Marilyn wrote: "I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing." Really? I view DNA as undergoing random mutation and organisms as undergoing natural selection. I have experimental evidence to support my view. Do you have any evidence for your view? How exactly do genes "mature"? What exactly is a "mature" gene? Do genes actually change in order to "enable" things? Does this require intelligence? Whose intelligence is in charge? What is the purpose of this intelligent intervention? Thanks in advance for your clarification of these points.

“I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing.”

Marilyn the delusional British Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone whined and moaned: John Kwok You institutionalize yourself not me. I was not brought up on beer and crisps. I would remove the word obediently if it implied anything to do with the Daleks.

Awwww it's always so cute when the creobots eat their own.

Marilyn said: If evolution were DNA's business then you would expect more transitions or morphs that make for different appearances. Yet for Millennia-plus species stay very much the same. I view DNA as being a fixed process with exact improvement in a species when environment permits, also if the genes mature to enable for example hearing. Whichever species you look at, ears, eyes, hair, and limbs are all part of the living beings on this planet. It is the reason for the existence of DNA to produce flesh and blood beings of any species, and it has done this forever consistently and dedicated and in my view intelligently and obediently. Some species have become extinct so cannot now partake in the future of life. God said, “be still and know I am God” We have pictures of Leonardo Da Vinci to provide evidence that he wrote or drew. The only evidence of God is when we look at each other as we were made in his image and that is his legacy he left for us, and his way of surviving and ours. He gave us the intelligence to draw, write and read and speak so we can look to the past and leave the best for the future.

Marilyn said: Thank you all for your comments. I would like to add to ...consistently and dedicated... with... precisely and lovingly. Also rather than ...obediently... more of in the way of ...in command...

Marilyn,

So that would be a no. You don't have any evidence whatsoever for your ideas. You just sort of made up stuff that, for whatever reason, sounded good to you. Sorry, that isn't the way that science works. If you really want to learn something, that is not the way to go about it.

By the way, thanking others for their comments and then refusing to answer their questions is a little disingenuous don't you think?

wholesale handbags

cheap coach purses

cheap coach wallets

cheap coach handbags

wholesale cheap coach

handbags

wholesale wallets

cheap wallets