Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
How were the most frequent motifs transferred from the upstream to the downstream region of the transcription start sites of RP genes in mammals?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How were the most frequent motifs transferred from the upstream to the downstream region of the transcription start sites of RP genes in mammals?The natural ones are RNA transcription and protein translation. What are the supernatural ones?
Let me get this straight, if something is complex then a magic man must have designed it because there is no other way
[as far as you're concerned] it could have come about, am I close?
I've already answered. I don't hold to a purely naturalistic view as do materialists. It is commonly accepted that if God exists He is capable of producing the inner working of the cell and the design of the cell reflects that design.Bet you a buck, you don't get a straight answer to this question.
Upon further review, you will get a question, instead of an answer.
Widmanstätten structure in iron meteorites, perhaps.I would ask what you call phenomenally complex that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone.
I don't just think I "see" design. Dawkins, Crick and most biologists see that appearance of design and some have concluded that evolution alone could not have been responsible while others dismiss it as an illusion.
Again, seeing patterns rather than purpose, function and complicated interaction of systems.Widmanstätten structure in iron meteorites, perhaps.
Perhaps you have forgotten how this started. It was the appearance of design and the need for hand waving it away. We recognize what design looks like and it looks designed. To claim that that appearance is only an illusion is a claim that needs to be supported as design is already supported in the appearance in living things.No explanation for how God did, because that is off limits and he is God and he can do whatever he wants.
Special plead much?
I would ask what you call phenomenally complex that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone.
I don't just think I "see" design. Dawkins, Crick and most biologists see that appearance of design and some have concluded that evolution alone could not have been responsible while others dismiss it as an illusion.
You asked for something phenomenally complex that was made by natural processes alone. Now you are shifting the goalposts by asking for purpose and function as well. Also, the formation of kamacite and taenite crystals from a nickel-iron melt seems to me to require a complicated interaction of systems.Again, seeing patterns rather than purpose, function and complicated interaction of systems.
You asked for something phenomenally complex that was made by natural processes alone. Now you are shifting the goalposts by asking for purpose and function as well. Also, the formation of kamacite and taenite crystals from a nickel-iron melt seems to me to require a complicated interaction of systems.
Perhaps you have forgotten how this started. It was the appearance of design and the need for hand waving it away. We recognize what design looks like and it looks designed. To claim that that appearance is only an illusion is a claim that needs to be supported as design is already supported in the appearance in living things.
You asked for something phenomenally complex that was made by natural processes alone. Now you are shifting the goalposts by asking for purpose and function as well. Also, the formation of kamacite and taenite crystals from a nickel-iron melt seems to me to require a complicated interaction of systems.
You have this turned around. Biologist recognize that the life forms appear to be designed and must remind themselves of their own worldview that it isn't. It is up to those who clearly see design to show how that appearance is not actual and is an illusion.The appearance of design does not mean that design actually exists. It just appears that way. You have the burden of establishing actual design.
What evidence do you have that it is only an illusion?If it is an illusion, then it isn't evidence.
You have this turned around. Biologist recognize that the life forms appear to be designed and must remind themselves of their own worldview that it isn't. It is up to those who clearly see design to show how that appearance is not actual and is an illusion.
I have provided biologists claiming that life forms appear to be designed and not only life forms but the molecular machines within them appear designed for a purpose. Dawkins who is an avid atheist has a bias and yet everyone seems to have no problem taking his word for it that it is all an illusion. Ignorance is when you are unaware or do not understand the issue at hand. I've shown examples with an in depth video of what I am referring to and the details of why I hold that opinion.I don't have anything backwards. You're twisting the word design to fit your own ideas. Why,I do not know. This is no different than the creationists who quotemine. Certain things may appear complex enough that an ignorant person may conclude that those things were designed. But those things may not have any real indication of design, just the appearance of design. So if you want to say that something is designed you must state why.
Like talking to a brickI have provided biologists claiming that life forms appear to be designed and not only life forms but the molecular machines within them appear designed for a purpose. Dawkins who is an avid atheist has a bias and yet everyone seems to have no problem taking his word for it that it is all an illusion. Ignorance is when you are unaware or do not understand the issue at hand. I've shown examples with an in depth video of what I am referring to and the details of why I hold that opinion.
IF you and others feel that evolution alone has the explanatory power to show that this appearance of design is simply illusion provide that evidence. I've provided the evidence that illuminates the complex function and complicated systems that even biologists recognize as having the appearance of design. It is up to you and others to provide evidence of why that appearance is an illusion.
Right, when all else fails and no evidence can be found turn it back to the person. So typical.Like talking to a brick
Right, when all else fails and no evidence can be found turn it back to the person. So typical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?