Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,039
- 7,404
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
I... what are you trying to ask? What do 'soft tissue studies' have to do with genes?
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 far back do 'soft tissue' studies of the eye go that provide this information?
You’d have to have VERIFIABLE evidence of the designer, not faith in the designer, to be accepted as science
i think that OldWiseGuy refer to the question of how many genetic information we need to evolve a simple eye\light detector. we know that even the simplest light detector required several parts, so it cant evolve by small steps.The gene that makes a bacterial light sensing pigment is the same gene that is the “ master control gene” for eye formation in animals that have eyes. There is the molecular level you asked for . IIRC it’s called bacteriorhodopsin
From other genes. E.g. PaxB. Origin of Pax and Six gene families in sponges: Single PaxB and Six1/2 orthologs in Chalinula loosanoffi. - PubMed - NCBI
It seems to be as if you believe that if you can avoid googling something, then: Goddidit.
true. here is my evidence:
this is basically a spinning motor found in bacteria. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design. so the best explanation for the existence of nature is the design model. (image from Museo de máquinas moleculares: El flagelo bacteriano)
i think that OldWiseGuy refer to the question of how many genetic information we need to evolve a simple eye\light detector. we know that even the simplest light detector required several parts, so it cant evolve by small steps.
i afraid that you will not get an answer since no one can answer such a question. it means that we cant realy test evolution and this is why its not a scientific theory.
I just keep asking why until you have no answers, which occurs rather quickly.
We are interested in painting evolutionists into a corner. You are a slippery bunch though, like a wet bar of soap. We have a hard time 'grasping' what you are trying to put over on us.
I... what are you trying to ask? What do 'soft tissue studies' have to do with genes?
Very happy you like it.
so if you will this object. and lets say that it was made from organic components and has a self replicating system, you will not conclude design because of that?:
Except that if you keep asking long after you've been given the answers.
E.g. here's more on the origin of Pax genes. Evolutionary History of Chordate PAX Genes: Dynamics of Change in a Complex Gene Family
You first need to have some understanding of painting, including which end of the paintbrush to hold. Asking us questions that we can trivially answer, and then pretending that you haven't been given an answer, isn't exactly painting us into any corner.
I just keep asking why until you have no answers, which occurs rather quickly.
We are interested in painting evolutionists into a corner.
We have a hard time 'grasping' what you are trying to put over on us.
From your link.
"Although the PAX family is specific to the animal lineage, the evolutionary history of these genes remains uncertain."
I'm not intimidated or bewildered by the scientific terms in these articles. They are mostly supposition. You and others throw this stuff against the wall thinking that I won't find the flaws in it.
Google has no answers for my questions. For example, where did the 'process' of evolution originate. It must have existed before the first organism appeared; waiting to pounce on it and develop it over millions of years into a critter (man) that could then explain itself to itself.
I have read many articles attempting to explain some facet of evolution. None has ever addressed the complexity of what they are trying to explain, and all were shot through with suppositions. That's why I encourage reading anatomy books wherein these complexities are explored at some depth. Here is where design is revealed to all but those who don't accept the concept of design itself in nature.
like evolution. we cant realy test or falsify it so its no a scientific theory.
Thank you for actually looking at the page.
Yes, the evolutionary history of those genes is uncertain. What conclusion do you draw from that?
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?