Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Jonathan McLatchie explains irreducible complexity

Listen to Jonathan McLatchie's explanation of irreducible complexity and why it represents a problem for the "neo-Darwinian paradigm." Keep in mind that he has been asked to do this by a Christian pastor on an Christian apologetics podcast. I wonder why?

McLatchie claims that an irreducibly complex system consist of a number of subfunctions where the removal of one subfunction renders the whole system nonfunctional. He implies that such systems can't be explained by evolution. Do all ID proponents agree? If we can show you a reasonable evolutionary explanation of the evolution of a single irreducibly complex system, using McLatchie's definition, would that refute his claim that such systems present a challenge to evolution? How about if we show you two examples? Three?



116 comments :

  1. What if they presented two or three examples that evolution couldn't explain? Would that falsify evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, obviously. Notice what you wrote "that evolution couldn't explain". That means, by definition, that evolution can't explain them.

      The question is, are there any such examples?

      Delete
    2. That question has been answered in the affirmative- there are many such examples.

      Delete
    3. Evolution can not be falsified.

      Evolution is change over time. The fact is that life forms have changed over time. Examples include a new variety of rose or a new breed of dog. The fossil record indicates the changes have been greater than that over time.

      Since evolution is observably true, it can not be falsified.

      What could be falsified would be an attempt to explain why and how the changes have occurred.
      If there is IC, then that would falsify any theory that would not allow IC to occur.

      Is there a theory that does not allow IC to occur?

      Delete
  2. Larry, I'm too busy to do it in the near future, but at some point I'd happily engage in a debate with you on "Does irreducible complexity present a challenge to evolution?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh. Please start by explaining why irreducible = unbuildable. Cutting off an organism's head does not simulate the evolution of heads and show why heads could not evolve gradually.

      Delete
    2. Heh. Intelligent agencies build irreducibly complex structures all of the time, NickM. You don't have any way to test your position's claim that drift and natural selection can produce IC. Attacking ID won't help you with that.

      Delete
    3. If anyone is interested, McLatchie will be debating Cory Markum on "Whether God is the best explanation for apparent design in biology" on Friday.

      The audio will be uploaded here

      Delete
    4. "Joe GWednesday, October 21, 2015 7:42:00 AM
      Heh. Intelligent agencies build irreducibly complex structures all of the time, NickM. You don't have any way to test your position's claim that drift and natural selection can produce IC. Attacking ID won't help you with that."

      This is trivial to refute. Hypothesis: Evolution builds complex systems stepwise primarily by duplicating, coopting, and mutating pre-existing systems. Prediction: complex systems will share abundant homologies (here, meaning detailed similarities unrelated to functional similarity - Owen's homology) with simpler systems of different function. Result: we find this basically everywhere we look in biology.

      Another prediction is we will see stepwise assembly of the characters of complex systems when we map the distribution of these characters on a phylogeny, at least as can be expected depending on the resolution (number of taxa) available. This too is abundantly confirmed.

      Testing hypotheses = how we do science. Requiring video camera-level documentation of every last detail of the evolution of every complex system before accepting that it evolved = Intelligent Design Creationism's pitiful attempt to distract from the fact that it has no positive theory and it just a collection of bogus creationist criticism of evolution, disguised with the invented "ID" label to get around the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision against teaching creationism in schools.

      Delete
    5. Nice equivocation, NickM. How did you determine that gene duplication is an accident, error or mistake? Please do tell.

      Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with directed/ guided evolution as exemplified by genetic and evolutionary algorithms.

      You need a testable hypothesis that pertains to blind watchmaker evolution. Good luck with that.

      Delete
    6. BTW there is plenty of evidence that supports ID.

      Delete
    7. @Jonathan McLatchie

      I'm happy to debate you but if you stick to the definition in the video, you will lose. In order to have any chance at all you will have to redefine irreducible complexity like your ID colleagues do. The new definition of irreducible complexity is "any system where evolutionary biologists can't provide a detailed, step-by-step, evolutionary pathway supported by dozens of papers in the scientific literature." The absence of such an explanation means that gods must have created the system. According to the ID rules of the game all you have to do is say that gods did it. IDiots don't have to provide any other information such as when, where, why, how, what species etc. because it's really unfair to hold them to the same standards as evolutionary biologists.

      Delete
    8. LoL! Explanations are meaningless without support, Larry. Even Einstein required empirical support for his scientific theory.

      Also, Larry, the design inference comes first. we do not need to ask nor answer any other questions beyond designed or not. All those other questions can only be answered by first detecting design and THEN studying it and all relevant evidence.

      Science 101

      Also it is the evolutionary biologists who say that they have a step-by-step process for producing life's diversity. All we are doing is asking them to support that claim. ID does not make such a claim so it is stupid to ask ID to be held to it.

      Delete
    9. > How did you determine that gene duplication is an accident, error or mistake?

      Joe,

      If I show you a broken, duplicated gene that we share with other primates, will you tell me that it was intentional?

      Delete
    10. You cannot say it was duplicated via a genetic accident. Similar genes is evidence for a common design. And we have actual experience with that.

      Delete
    11. In order for a duplicated gene to do something it has to be put under the control of other regulatory networks. Or it has to evolve new networks for that gene. It has to be on the exposed part of the DNA coil. And then to provide a new function it has to mutated, specifically.

      Oh, if it codes for a long polypeptide it requires a chaperone for proper folding.

      Delete
    12. Joe G says,

      LoL! Explanations are meaningless without support, Larry. Even Einstein required empirical support for his scientific theory.

      He also says,

      Also, Larry, the design inference comes first. we do not need to ask nor answer any other questions beyond designed or not.

      I suspect he is completely oblivious to the contradiction between those two statements. This is why I call them IDiots.

      @Joe G,

      If you don't, or can't, make a rational, intelligent, contribution to the discussion here on Sandwalk then you won't be making any contribution at all.

      Delete
    13. > You cannot say it was duplicated via a genetic accident. Similar genes is evidence for a common design. And we have actual experience with that.

      Joe this is why I was specifically talking about BROKEN genes what common design can there be in a duplicated gene that is broken and so is no longer functional?

      Delete
    14. McLatchie wants a debate. 'Cuz the last time he engaged in a discussion here, it went so well for him.

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/search?q=mclatchie

      If the Dunning-Kruger syndrome didn't already have a name, it could have been known as "McLatchie syndrome."

      Delete
    15. Larry, There isn't any contradiction between those two statements. ID is has empirical support as it posits testable entailments for the intelligent design.

      Delete
    16. aceofspades- why would a broken gene remain in populations for thousands of generations?

      Delete
    17. Great question, Joe G! Why would God do that?

      How long have you been reading this blog, Joe G? And you still don't know the correct scientific answer to that question?

      Delete
    18. Joe/Virgil/Frankie/toaster boy: "Also, Larry, the design inference comes first. we do not need to ask nor answer any other questions beyond designed or not. All those other questions can only be answered by first detecting design and THEN studying it and all relevant evidence."

      You repeat this statement endlessly. You also repeatedly claim that design has been identified in biology. When can we expect all of this research into the nature of the designer and the mechanisms he uses to start. Be sure to link to the peer reviewed papers when they are published.

      Delete
    19. This is pretty lame, trying to give credit to evolution for duplicating, co-opting, and mutating.

      Evolution is not an entity. It does not build, it doesnt foresee, it doenst plan.

      Therefore, it DOES NO co-opting, duplicating, building. Evolution is about step-wise, incremental change, which as it happens only succeeds in tweaking existing designed objects.

      But we knew that already.

      Nick, your 'tantalizing hints' shtick has not changed all that much since your failed debunking of the BF.


      "This is trivial to refute. Hypothesis: Evolution builds complex systems stepwise primarily by duplicating, coopting, and mutating pre-existing systems. Prediction: complex systems will share abundant homologies (here, meaning detailed similarities unrelated to functional similarity - Owen's homology) with simpler systems of different function. Result: we find this basically everywhere we look in biology.""

      Delete
    20. Joe G aceofspades- why would a broken gene remain in populations for thousands of generations?

      Because there is no mechanism to get rid of it, and it would not mutate to undetectability over that number of replications given known mutation rates.

      Delete
    21. YEC joey yapped:

      "LoL! Explanations are meaningless without support, Larry. Even Einstein required empirical support for his scientific theory."

      In that case, joey, since there's no explanation and no empirical support for it, so-called 'ID theory' was stillborn and is still dead.

      "Also, Larry, the design inference comes first. we do not need to ask nor answer any other questions beyond designed or not. All those other questions can only be answered by first detecting design and THEN studying it and all relevant evidence."

      As Larry pointed out, that contradicts your other statements, and you still haven't figured out what a scientific inference is. You're also admitting that you and the rest of the IDiot-creationists don't have any explanation and/or any "empirical support" for 'ID'. You don't even have a legitimate "inference", let alone a legitimate hypothesis or theory. All you have is bald assertions and malicious attacks on anyone who doesn't agree that your chosen, so-called 'God' did and does it, except, conveniently, for diseases and deformities and other bad stuff of course. Your precious sky daddy can't be blamed for diseases, deformities, and other bad stuff, eh joey? That's why things such as sin, evil spirits, demons, bad guys, fallen angels, evil monsters, a devil, a satanic talking serpent, etc., are always added to religious fairy tales. There has to be someone or something else to blame for the bad stuff so that the 'hero' of the story (e.g. 'God') can be touted as being omnibenevolent, loving, good, perfect, the knight in shining armor, the guy wearing the white hat and riding the white horse, the prince, the king, the good guy, the upstanding lawman, the savior, a saint, a miracle worker, etc.

      "Science 101"

      Is just one of the things that you haven't learned and obviously never will.

      "Also it is the evolutionary biologists who say that they have a step-by-step process for producing life's diversity. All we are doing is asking them to support that claim. ID does not make such a claim so it is stupid to ask ID to be held to it."

      So, you admit again that so-called 'ID theory' has no explanation and no evidence of the 'ID process' and that 'ID' doesn't even involve a process (yeah, 'poof' by sky daddy isn't a process), yet you expect and demand that scientists and everyone else accept your bald assertions. That isn't science, joey. It's preaching and proselytizing. And joey, you IDiot-creationists are "asking" for a lot more than "support" of the claims by evolutionary biologists. You religious loons arrogantly demand (from evolutionary biologists and other scientists) absolute proof of absolutely every detail of the origin and diversity of life, the origin of Earth, the origin of the universe, and everything else that you attribute to your chosen, imaginary sky daddy, and you arrogantly believe that your religious insanity must be accepted and worshiped unless absolute proof of all those details is delivered to you RIGHT NOW.

      Get this, joey and other creationists: no matter what you say and do the practice of science is NOT going to cater to your fears, narcissism, delusions, and demands. To do so would not be the practice of science.

      Delete
    22. mclatchie: "I'm too busy..."

      Yeah, too busy preaching and proselytizing.

      Delete
    23. Too busy not publishing retractions too?

      Delete
    24. Joe G aceofspades- why would a broken gene remain in populations for thousands of generations?

      You surely know about the seriously broken vitamin C gene in humans and many other species in our clade of primates? It's still here, still doing nothing. There's no good reason for it to be here, of course. Bad design, one could say. It's just here because it hasn't disappeared, because there's no efficient way to remove it.

      Delete
  3. Larry, the claim is that blind watchmaker evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems. ID is OK with directed evolution, as exemplified by genetic and evolutionary algorithms, can produce IC.

    Tell us Larry, how can we test the claim that drift and natural selection could produce any existing bacterial flagellum? What does such a claim entail? Please do tell.

    And no, it is not good enough just to spew some alleged pathway. You actually have to demonstrate what you spew is possible. Science 101

    So any bacterial flagellum is one. ATP synthase is another and the genetic code. And while you are at it take a stab at basic biological reproduction: Peering into Darwin's Black Box:The cell division processes required for bacterial life

    As Dr Behe wrote:

    In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
    experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
    system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

    How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow... great example you picked there Joe! Bacterial flagellum are found NOT to be irreducible complex.
      When stripped from its complete tail and some more components, you are stuck with the Type III secretory and transport system.
      In other words, you can reduce the flagellum considerably to another fully functional structure.

      https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/

      Delete
    2. LoL! The type III secretory and transport system is IC and unguided evolution cannot modify it to become a flagellum.

      Delete
    3. I just showed you one thing which can be simplified into another fully functional structure, right after you've quoted Behe and said "If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity"

      And now you want to move the goal post and claim that something else is irreducibly complex.

      So it's true what Coyne says: "If one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed"

      You clearly aren't interested in science, you're just interested in moving goal posts to invent new arguments when your old ones get defeated.

      Delete
    4. Umm, you FAILED to show that unguided evolution can produce either structure. No one can demonstrate that natural selection can produce the TTSS nor any bacterial flagellum.

      Delete
    5. BTW it isn't moving the goalposts by pointing out the facts.

      Delete
    6. I showed you (as per your challenge) that it wasn't irreducibly complex. It could clearly be built up from simpler systems.

      You're now moving the goal posts and talking about those simpler systems. When does this game end for you?

      I know when...

      It doesn't because you have a religious bias. Because your motivation is to prove that your god exists, every time something new is explained, you will always find a new gap to stuff your god into because you're desperate for any scientific reason to cling to your fairy tales.

      Delete
    7. You failed to show it isn't IC. You are more ignorant that Miller.

      BTW I am not religious.

      Delete
    8. If it can be broken down into simpler functional parts then it isn't irreducible is it?

      > BTW I am not religious

      Semantics. If your biases exist because of Jesus then you're religious.

      You're not really interested in the scientific method. You've already made up your mind about what you want to believe and now you're on a crusade to find evidence to fit those beliefs. Science doesn't work that way.

      Delete
    9. It cannot be broken simper parts that have the same function. And no, I am not a Christian.

      You failed to show it isn't IC. Don't blame me for your failure.

      Delete
    10. The definition of an IC system is one that cannot be reduced to a simpler system that has the same function? That doesn't sound right.

      Delete
    11. Hey ACE, Scott Minnock debunked Matzke's supposed takedown of IC by showing that the T3SS is actually a derivitive of the BF, not its predecessor.

      Delete
    12. "The definition of an IC system is one that cannot be reduced to a simpler system that has the same function? That doesn't sound right."

      This sounds like a garbled version of the definition of a molecule.

      By Joe's own definition though, Joe managed to kill IC!
      If we break down the flagellum into it's individual parts, neither of these individual/ simpeler parts have the function of the flagellum.
      The definition of an IC system is one that cannot be reduced to a simpler system that has the same function.

      Any more tidbits you'd like to share Joe? Or can we expect the goalposts on the move *again* when your own logic fails you *again*?

      Delete
    13. "The definition of an IC system is one that cannot be reduced to a simpler system that has the same function? That doesn't sound right."

      Joe just makes things up as he goes. And he is pathologically incapable of admitting that he is wrong. He still insists that wavelength = frequency.

      Delete
    14. @Steve While that's possible, we don't know that for sure - in fact the evidence seems to lean in favour of the two structures deriving from a common ancestor.

      Delete
    15. YEC muslim-christian baraminology-and-privileged-planet-and-noah's-ark-pusher joey lied:

      "BTW I am not religious."

      Hey joey, how many original, 'created kinds' were there? How many were on noah's ark and which 'kinds' were they? And how old is Earth?

      Delete
  4. Aerobic utilization of citrate in E coli requires at least three components to be present and found in the right order and location. A citrate transporter protein, an operon, and the associated regulatory protein. If you remove any one of these, aerobic utilization of citrate halts. If the citrate transporter is not located downstream from the aerobic regulator, utilization of citrate halts. Therefore, aerobic utilization of citrate is irreducibly complex.
    An E coli cell living in an environment where citrate is the only available carbon source, with oxygen present, will die if it does not have all three components present and arranged in the right order.

    And it yet this system evolved in the Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE). So a three component system evolved in less than 20 years, and ID creationists think a 20 or 40 component system can't evolve in 3.5 billion years?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The claim is that UNGUIDED evolution cannot produce IC. And even Behe's mousetrap had FIVE separate components.

      Delete
    2. Nothing was guiding the evolution of aerobic citrate transport. It was no more likely to evolve in Lenski's flasks than anywhere else.

      And I take it, with that comment, you think a 5-component system is impossible to evolve? Why would it be?

      Delete
    3. Because you've just disproved that a 3 component system is impossible to evolve and so now he's moving the goal posts again.

      Delete
    4. Nothing was guiding the evolution of aerobic citrate transport.

      Cuz you say so? The only gene that could resolve the issue was duplicated and put under control of a promoter that allowed it to be expressed in the presence of O2.

      Do you really think that was an accident?

      Delete
    5. There have been hundreds of thousands of accidents (over 425,000 generations now).

      Why couldn't it have been one of these accidents?

      Do you really think God did it?

      Delete
    6. If it is all accidents then it is all sheer dumb luck. And that means it isn't scientific.

      Delete
    7. So your argument seems to be that if we're statistically modelling group behaviour where the individual members are stochastic and impossible to predict then that makes it not-science?

      Have you heard of thermodynamics or quantum mechanics?

      Delete
    8. If it cannot be modeled nor does it produce any testable hypotheses, then it isn't science. And even Dawkins admits that science can only accept so much luck as an explanation. But luck is all you have.

      Delete
    9. Nothing was guiding the evolution of aerobic citrate transport.

      Cuz you say so?

      No, because there were 12 independent lineages all evolving alongside each other, each in their ownf lask, all founded by the same single bacterium at the experiment's start, yet only one lineage evolved the aerobic citrate transport.

      If it was guided, all 12 should have produced the same result. Instead all 12 are different, aka random and unguided.

      Do you really think that was an accident?
      No, I think it was a combination of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection.

      Delete
    10. 1- Natural selection includes random mutations

      2- If it was guided, all 12 should have produced the same result.

      Why? It wasn't a required change. And it would be stupid to have all individuals the same. Variation is the key.

      Delete
    11. So, if you can't prove evolution is unguided, the default is that it's guided. And you can't prove evolution is unguided, since guidance can be undetectable. Therefore god. I believe that's Joe's argument.

      Delete
    12. Joe G,

      "The only gene that could resolve the issue was duplicated and put under control of a promoter that allowed it to be expressed in the presence of O2.

      Do you really think that was an accident?"

      Then how did this occur, and how do you know?

      Delete
    13. "Why? It wasn't a required change. And it would be stupid to have all individuals the same. Variation is the key."

      Oh, so it's guidance that looks so much like random it's indistinguishable from unguided. Good to know.

      Delete
    14. Joke: "If it cannot be modeled nor does it produce any testable hypotheses, then it isn't science."

      Please predict for me when a single atom of uranium will decay. Or are you saying that nuclear physics is not science?

      Delete
    15. YEC joey drooled:

      "Variation is the key."

      Then why wasn't there more variation in the original 'created kinds', joey? And how do you explain extinctions? Is allahoo-yahoo-yeshoo-holy-spook a lousy designer-creator-guider that can't get it right the first time or does it just like to kill things? Oh wait, the bad stuff, like diseases, deformities, death, and extinctions can't be blamed on precious sky daddy. The bad stuff is.because of 'the fall'. LOL

      Delete
    16. YEC joey asserted without thinking, as usual:

      "If it cannot be modeled nor does it produce any testable hypotheses, then it isn't science."

      Let's see your models and all of your testable hypotheses of intelligent design, creation, and guidance of everything that you attribute to your sky daddy, joey.

      Delete
    17. YEC joey vomited:

      "If it is all accidents then it is all sheer dumb luck.And that means it isn't scientific."

      Evolution isn't "all accidents" and it isn't "all sheer dumb luck" and evolutionary theory doesn't claim that evolution is "all accidents" and "all sheer dumb luck".

      Delete
  5. Mind boggling how Joe G lectures people about what science is. I would love to see his publication record.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is is

      Climate science denier / creationist who claims he's not religious ;)

      Delete
    2. I don't deny climate science. The math says that a doubling of CO2, from 280 ppm to 560 ppm- would only cause a 0.6 C increase in temperature.

      And I am not a creationist as creationists rely on the Bible and I do not.

      Delete
    3. "I don't deny climate science."

      joey, you zealously deny and bash climate science and anything else that doesn't cater to your insane religious beliefs. You even deny your well documented denial. You're a chronic liar, including to yourself.

      Delete
  6. Irreducible Complexity does not just defy evolution. It buries it. End of game. Finish. Its over. Naturalists, face reality and the facts. If it were in any other field of science or general inquiry, without the baggage of the consequence involved in making such a admittance, that would be a settled issue for a long time. But since atheists and proponents of naturalim in general cannot permit a creator to enter the game, Irreducible Complexity , which is perfectly obvious to any sane mind, must be denied, refuted, ignored, battled and buried. Unfortunately, irreducible complex and interdependent biochemical systems are not the exception, but the norm. The cell is a gigantic factory of interrelated and interdependent parts, where if even just one tiny protein is missing, the survival would not be possible. As a example i might mention just one protein. Topoisomerase II . II Topoisomerase enzymes is a ubiquitous enzyme that is essential for the survival of all eukaryotic organisms and plays critical roles in virtually every aspect of DNA metabolism It performs the amazing feat of breaking a DNA double helix, passing another helix through the gap, and resealing the double helix behind it. They are essential in the separation of entangled daughter strands during replication. This function is believed to be performed by topoisomerase II in eukaryotes and by topoisomerase IV in prokaryotes. Failure to separate these strands leads to cell death. As genetic material DNA is wonderful, but as a macromolecule it is unruly, voluminous and fragile. Without the action of DNA replicases, topoisomerases, helicases, translocases and recombinases, the genome would collapse into a topologically entangled random coil that would be useless to the cell. 3 The topoisomerase is thought to be a highly dynamic structure, with several gates for entry of DNA into the two DNA-sized holes. Loss of topoisomerase activity in metaphase leads to delayed exit and extensive anaphase chromosome bridging, often resulting in cytokinesis failure, although maintenance of limited catenation until anaphase may be important for sister chromatid structural organization 9 Accurate transmission of chromosomes requires that the sister DNA molecules created during DNA replication are disentangled and then pulled to opposite poles of the cell before division. Defects in chromosome segregation produce cells that are aneuploid (containing an abnormal number of chromosomes)-a situation that can have dire consequences. 7

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Like many other enzymes, topoisomerase II are essential for cell function, and had to be present in the first living cell to exercise their function right in the beginning, when life began. Topoisomerase II forms a covalent linkage to both strands of the DNA helix at the same time, making a transient double-strand break in the helix. These enzymes are activated by sites on chromosomes where two double helices cross over each other such as those generated by supercoiling in front of a replication fork

      Once a topoisomerase II molecule binds to such a crossing site, the protein uses ATP hydrolysis to perform the following set of reactions efficiently:

      (1) it breaks one double helix reversibly to create a DNA “gate”;
      (2) it causes the second, nearby double helix to pass through this opening; and
      (3) it then reseals the break and dissociates from the DNA. At crossover points generated by supercoiling, passage of the double helix through the gate occurs in the direction that will reduce supercoiling. In this way, type II topoisomerases can relieve the overwinding tension generated in front of a replication fork. Their reaction mechanism also allows type II DNA topoisomerases to efficiently separate two interlocked DNA circles. Topoisomerase II also prevents the severe DNA tangling problems that would otherwise arise during DNA replication. The enormous usefulness of topoisomerase II for untangling chromosomes can readily be appreciated by anyone who has struggled to remove a tangle from a fishing line without the aid of scissors.


      These molecular machines are far beyond what unguided processes involving chance and necessity can produce. Indeed, machinery of the complexity and sophistication of Topoisomerase enzymes are, based on our experience, usually atributed to intelligent agents.

      Topoisomerases by their own have no function , but are essential in every cell. They had to emerge prior the OOL, since life depends on them. They could not arise upon mutation and natural selection, since mitosis and replication depends on them. There are literally thousands of examples like this.

      Delete
    2. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2111-topoisomerase-ii-enzymes-amazing-evidence-of-design?highlight=topoisomerase

      Delete
    3. Life wasn't made of DNA at the origin of life. LOL.

      Delete
    4. haha, no kidding. How do you possibly know ?

      Delete
    5. Why didn't the intelligent designer design a genetic system that didn't require topoisomerase?

      Delete
    6. ElShamah777 says,

      Like many other enzymes, topoisomerase II are essential for cell function, and had to be present in the first living cell to exercise their function right in the beginning, when life began.

      That's simply not true. You don't need topo II to replicate and transcribe short stretches of linear DNA. You don't even need it for long chromosomes because simple nicking and ligase activities will do the job.

      It's not even essential for supercoiled DNA but it sure helps.

      Usually when you don't know that you're talking about it's better to say nothing than to open your mouth and confirm that you are ignorant.

      Delete
    7. "haha, no kidding. How do you possibly know ?"

      Among other things because the enzymes that make DNA use RNA precursors. And the DNA replication machineries in bacteria and archaea are different, meaning they probably arose independently in each lineage around the time of origin of DNA.

      Delete
    8. Among other things because the enzymes that make DNA use RNA precursors. /// Says who was denying the RNA world hypothesis at League of Reason forum.... haha.

      And the DNA replication machineries in bacteria and archaea are different, meaning they probably arose independently in each lineage around the time of origin of DNA.

      So therefore DNA is not required for life ?? LOL.... bravo. fabulous.

      Delete
    9. Btw. were you not such enamoured with your hero Nick Lanes pseudoscientific brainless nonsense about miraculous alkaline hydrothermal vents using atp synthase and sodium-proton antiporter (SPAP) to explain the OOL ? The US National Academy of Sciences explains, “In water, the assembly of nucleosides from component sugars and nucleobases, the assembly of nucleotides from nucleosides and phosphate, and the assembly of oligonucleotides from nucleotides are all thermodynamically uphill in water. Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored at any plausible concentrations: polypeptide chains spontaneously hydrolyze in water, yielding their constituent amino acids,” (Luskin). Physicist Richard Morris concurs, “… water tends to break chains of amino acids. If any proteins had formed in the ocean 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated,” (Morris, 167). Additionally, the cytoplasm of living cells contain essential minerals of potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions. If cells manifested naturally, these minerals would need to be present nearby. But marine environments do not have widespread concentrations of these minerals (Switek). Thus, it is clear, life could not have formed in the ocean. What we’re left with is a perplexing paradox: Water prevents the formation of life. Oxygen prevents the formation of life. Lack of oxygen prevents the formation of life. Yet the only source of oxygen currently accepted is organic. How can organics be the source of something it requires present in the first place? The only way for life to create oxygen is if the life itself already has built in mechanisms present from the very beginning to protect itself from the outside environment. Needless to say, the specific details regarding the origin of oxygen remain mysterious.

      Say hello to Nick Lane...LOL....

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1556-when-did-oxygen-rise-in-the-atmosphere#4157

      Delete
    10. @ElShamah777

      There you go again. Take my advice, keep quiet and learn. The other option isn't working for you. You just look more and more stupid even when you quote other people.

      Delete
    11. Laurence,

      the only way for me to learn is you refute my claims , and provide better science and better explanations. Critizising the oponents knowledge, intelligence or education is not the best way to establish a point. I hear often critiques like : You need basic understanding in science, you don't understand evolution, take a science class, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance of the subject, you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision, you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms and degrees. Mock and ridicule with contempt is not new to me. That are responses put forward frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the oponent. Not only does it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their oponents knowledge and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on a specific topic. Fact is, even IF their oponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their views become more credible or correct. Thats a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themself about the issue in question, and 2. if they disagree with the inference drawn , provide a better explanation based on their views.

      Delete
    12. Will you stop spamming this blog with your unreadable copypasta, you disgusting idiot?

      https://matthew2262.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/in-the-beginning-was-oxygen/

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2114-critizism-about-the-opponents-knowledge

      etc.

      Delete
    13. ElShamah777, you really need to get better sources - quoting 'Attack Gerbil' Luskin to SUPPORT your delusions ?

      Hydrolysis of peptide bonds may be more energetically favorable than formation in water, but it is very, VERY slow. The halftime for spontaneous peptide hydrolysis is around 400 years.

      So if you had a sample of a dipeptide, you'd have to wait about 400 years before half of the bonds were broken.

      Perhaps that is why fish don't spontaneously dissolve in the water they live in their whole lives. Or why people don't dissolve in the rain.

      Or why proteases evolved - if proteins were as unstable and prone to falling apart as you flatulently imply, there would be no need of such things to break them down.

      Or if proteins were so unstable they would fall apart on their own, they could not be used to make anything !

      Thus, the reality-based community knows that water does NOT prevent the formation of life. That you 'think' it would shows that you really don't think anything you say completely through.

      There are ways to concentrate ions, and you are (as usual) presuming that ancient life was exactly like modern life.

      Oxygen is a highly reactive gas, so there would not be much unbound present long ago. Photosynthesis breaks water into hydrogen ions and oxygen - the hydrogen ions and electrons are used to generate chemical energy. Oxygen would have been toxic to early organisms - in fact, there are organisms LIVING TODAY that are killed by oxygen.

      Sequestering oxygen, then later utilizing it to generate even more ATP occurred later - thus there was no need to handle it from the beginning.

      Like most creationuts, you seem to 'think' that life is as inflexible and unchangeable as what passes for your 'mind'.

      All the proponents of ID have is misrepresentation and personal incredulity - they PRESUME that if they can't figure something out, no one can. And so the only 'explanation' is 'an unknowable Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent Designer' somehow did something sometime in the past for some reason !!'

      I mean, look at you - you give up and drop to your knees in drooling incomprehension at the sight of anything more complex than a stick !

      Delete
    14. El, please read this to understand why your arguments and you logic are flawed.
      Galileo gambit.
      Invoking Galileo's gambit doesn't mean you're right, au contrair.

      They made fun of Galileo, and he was right. They make fun of me, therefore I am right.

      Delete
    15. He doesn't understand the difference between chemical kinetics vs thermodynamics. He thinks when things are "uphill" they can't happen at all. He doesn't understand the concept of specificity or promiscuity in catalysis, he thinks that everything has to work the way it does now in extant cells or there's no way it could ever function in any other way. He often makes blanket statements about things that are impossible, using examples of systems present in Eukaryotes but lacking in prokaryotes.

      He thinks irreducible complexity is by definition impossible to evolve and shows no sign of being able to fathom what the term even means or why it is not a problem for evolution. He some times latches on to single words he read, like "RNA" and he instantly starts blathering about the varius RNA-world-hypothesis type scenarios for the origin of life, throwing random and patently irrelevant quotes from the late biochemist Robert Shapiro (who was a proponent of metabolism-first) around.

      He has this giant "library" of quotes on that webpage, almost none of which he understand, and he will just link and quote random sections when he thinks they "fit" the subject. He thinks they fit the subject when he recognizes single words, like aforementioned "RNA". This is how he operates, he actually understands almost nothing of what he quotes or even whether it actually is relevant to the discussion.

      Kids, Elsamah is your brain on creationism and strong religious belief - Just say no!

      Delete
    16. Paul

      The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life

      http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/7933.full

      High-temperature origin-of-life theories require that the components of the first genetic material are stable. We therefore have measured the half-lives for the decomposition of the nucleobases. They have been found to be short on the geologic time scale. At 100°C, the growth temperatures of the hyperthermophiles, the half-lives are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds (t1/2 for A and G ≈ 1 yr; U = 12 yr; C = 19 days). Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine. The rates of hydrolysis at 100°C also suggest that an ocean-boiling asteroid impact would reset the prebiotic clock, requiring prebiotic synthetic processes to begin again. At 0°C, A, U, G, and T appear to be sufficiently stable (t1/2 ≥ 106 yr) to be involved in a low-temperature origin of life. However, the lack of stability of cytosine at 0°C (t1/2 = 17,000 yr) raises the possibility that the GC base pair may not have been used in the first genetic material unless life arose quickly (<106 yr) after a sterilization event. A two-letter code or an alternative base pair may have been used instead.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1404-the-genetic-code-is-nearly-optimal-for-allowing-additional-information-within-protein-coding-sequences#2011

      some scientists suggest that the genetic code found in nature emerged from a simpler code that employed codons consisting of one or two nucleotides. Over time, these simpler genetic codes expanded to eventually yield the universal genetic code based on coding triplets. The number of possible genetic codes based on one or two nucleotide codons is far fewer than for codes based on coding triplets. This scenario makes code evolution much more likely from a naturalistic standpoint. One complicating factor for these proposals arises, however, from the fact that simpler genetic codes cannot specify twenty different amino acids. Rather, they are limited to sixteen at most. Such a scenario would mean that the first lifeforms had to make use of proteins that consisted of no more than sixteen different amino acids. Interestingly, some proteins found in nature, such as ferredoxins, are produced with only thirteen amino acids. On the surface, this observation seems to square with the idea that the genetic code found in nature arose from a simpler code. Yet, proteins like the ferredoxins are atypical. Most proteins require all twenty amino acids. This requirement, coupled with recent recognition that life in its most minimal form needs several hundred proteins , makes these types of models for code evolution speculative at best. The optimal nature of the genetic code and the difficulty accounting for the code's origin from an evolutionary perspective work together to support the conclusion that an Intelligent Designer programmed the genetic code, and hence, life.

      Delete
    17. And there we go, direct proof of what I just said. Mention RNA, he goes word-searching for random irrelevant quotes by scientists arguing against prebiotic soup versions of the RNA-world hypothesis.

      Utterly clueless.

      Delete
    18. "Most proteins require all twenty amino acids."

      Most modern proteins. There's no reason to expect small peptides at the origin of translation to have any of these requirements. There are many good reasons to think the first code was must simpler, perhaps coding for as few as 4 or 6 amino acids and only being used to produce small peptides instead of the much later and more evolved proteins similar to the ones we see today.

      This is the same fail Elsamah always makes: Things appear to work a certain way now, so there's no way it could ever have been different or simper in the past, and he can't imagine how that could be, so therefore a god mustadunit. *Allakazam* case closed science can stop now.

      Delete
    19. There are many good reasons to think the first code was must simpler, perhaps coding for as few as 4 or 6 amino acids and only being used to produce small peptides instead of the much later and more evolved proteins similar to the ones we see today. //// aham.... and what reasons are that ??

      Delete
  7. Laurence, why do you not argue with Wiki then ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_topoisomerase

    Type IIA topoisomerases are essential in the separation of entangled daughter strands during replication. This function is believed to be performed by topoisomerase II in eukaryotes and by topoisomerase IV in prokaryotes.

    furthermore :

    Type IIA topoisomerases include the enzymes DNA gyrase, eukaryotic topoisomerase II (topo II), and bacterial topoisomerase IV (topo IV). These enzymes span all domains of life and are essential for function.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1654050

    The type II enzyme is essential to the eukaryotic cell and is required for unlinking daughter chromosomes and maintaining chromosome structure.

    So ??

    ReplyDelete
  8. Btw. If you google : topoisomerase II are essential for cell function
    you will find 650 thousand links.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Topisomerases are essential in almost all modern cells.

      Are you too stupid to realize that is irrelevant?

      Delete
    2. Laurence

      The DNA topoisomerases are essential for DNA replication, transcription, recombination, as well as for chromosome compaction and segregation. They may have appeared early during the formation of the modern DNA world. Several families and subfamilies of the two types of DNA topoisomerases (I and II) have been described in the three cellular domains of life (Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya), as well as in viruses infecting eukaryotes or bacteria.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17293019

      you are a university professor of biology. I expected you to know this.....

      Delete
    3. ElShamah777,

      Are you so stupid that you could not understand the two simple sentences that Larry wrote? Or were you too lazy to read them?

      Delete
  9. If ireducable complexity explanation is needed and there is one, two, three examples of how evolutionism can do it THEN how much does need to be done? How many IC items are there? Are there millions in biology? if so on a curve on a chart it makes it unlikely or impossible that ir items could evolve by chance by mere numbers alone.
    Debunking one IC is not accurate sampling of why IC is a great problem for chance evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We already knew that it doesn't matter how many times an IDiot is proven wrong, he will always ignore that and move on to the next flawed argument.

      Bobby, debunking only one IC claim is enough to prove that IC is wrong, because there's no possible positive evidence that IC can't evolve. It's a negative argument.

      So no positive evidence to support your pathetic argument from ignorance, and positive evidence that IC can evolve means that IC is dead.

      Of course in the minds of theoloons IC will always be unfalsifiable and they think that's a win. Scientific illiteracy is that cool, isn't it?

      Delete
    2. Dazz, its actually the other way around. The problem is that many structures in nature exist, which could not have evolved. As said previously, the cell is a example par excellence of a giant factory of numerous parts, organelles, proteins , enzymes etc. of which if even one tiny part were missing, the cell would cease to function. These parts do have however no function by their own, but only when correctly interlocked and connected together. Some are well-matched and interacting, like protein - protein interactions : We read in Wiki:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein%E2%80%93protein_interaction

      Proteins are vital macromolecules, at both cellular and systemic levels, but they rarely act alone. Diverse essential molecular processes within a cell are carried out by molecular machines that are built from a large number of protein components organized by their PPIs. Indeed, these interactions are at the core of the entire interactomics system of any living cell and so, unsurprisingly, aberrant PPIs are on the basis of multiple diseases, such as Creutzfeld-Jacob, Alzheimer's disease, and cancer.

      This is strong evidence, that these parts had to emerge all together, all at once.

      And there are inumerous highly specific signal transduction pathways, some in a cascade form, where if one part or element is missing, the signal cannot go trough. Signal transduction is essential and vital for any cell, and must have been fully functioning at the OOL. Signal transductions are remarkably specific and exquisitely sensitive.

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2181-cell-communication-and-signalling-evidence-of-design

      Question : signal transduction had to be present in the first living cells. How could the specificity of the signal molecule , and the precise fit on its complementary receptor have evolved ? or the Amplification, or the desensitization/adaptation, where the receptor activation triggers a feedback circuit that shuts off the receptor or removes it from the cell surface, once the signal got trough ?

      Delete
    3. This is strong evidence, that these parts had to emerge all together, all at once

      It's not evidence of anything. It's only your retarded, unsupported claim with no evidence to back it up. You even claim that it's impossible that it emerged all at once.

      You fail to grasp this simple concept: if it's impossible that it emerged all at once, then your model is wrong, it's no proof that your sky daddy managed to do what you claim is impossible.

      Do you have evidence for your designer or is he busy creating square circles?

      Delete
    4. ElShamah, why are there "aberrant PPIs"? Did and does the designer-creator-guider design, create, and guide aberrations and diseases?

      Delete
    5. "Signal transduction is essential and vital for any cell, and must have been fully functioning at the OOL."

      Of course, because everybody knows that the OOL demands that the first cells were human cells.

      So damn obvious that I wonder why we keep dismissing those fantasies about gods. Oh, wait! Fantasies! Ah! OK.

      Delete
    6. Dazz said:

      "You even claim that it's impossible that it emerged all at once."

      Actually, ElShamah said:

      "This is strong evidence, that these parts had to emerge all together, all at once."

      Delete
    7. @The whole truth, are you kidding me? You mean to tell me you don't see the "tornado in a junkyard" argument there?

      Ask him if it's possible or not that it all emerged in a single step. And how could that happen.

      Please don't make me go and look it up in his pathetic forums

      Delete
    8. First it depends on the itewm that is being examined. IC is not determined by a critics picking a IC item.
      Anyways my point was accumulation. If there are millions of IC examples then on a curve on a graph its very unlikely or possible they could all of evolved by chance.
      IC examples would all have to be debunked and not a sample. Not this time.
      If it was by sample THEN it would require the right one. A very careful job of picking it so as to not compromise the test.

      Delete
  10. You even claim that it's impossible that it emerged all at once.// sorry ??!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did and does the designer-creator-guider design, create, and guide aberrations and diseases?

    On the Problem of Evil & Suffering

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1915-why-does-god-allow-evil-and-suffering-in-the-world#4155

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, are you dumb. Ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma? Objectives morals, if they exist, can't be proof of the existence of any gods, and there doesn't need to be a an objective, absolute moral standard for "good" and "evil" to exist.

      BTW, countering the problem of evil by claiming it proves god is not only absurd, it's hand-waiving and dodging the problem, an epic fail

      Your philosophy is even more pathetic than your science.

      Delete
    2. The bogus "we can't have absolute morals without god" argument doesn't do anything to explain the presence of evil. It just makes the situation worse.

      I any case, morality, whether objective or subjective, does not explain the fact that on average, a child dies of malaria every two minutes of every day, 24/7/365.25 days a year. If god is unable to prevent this, (s)he/it is not omnipotent. If god can do something about and chooses not to, (s)he/it is evil, or else indifferent to human suffering. Take your pick.

      Delete
    3. ElShamah, I didn't ask you about morals or if 'God' allows evil, and while I wouldn't label suffering as a good thing I also wouldn't label all suffering as evil unless it's caused or allowed by a 'God'.

      As a believer in the christian 'God' you have the dilemma of trying to justify, to yourself and others, any and all suffering (and evil). As a non-believer in the christian 'God' (or any other so-called 'God) I don't have that dilemma, and it's not because I want to get away with something that causes suffering. Any suffering in a universe that was and is allegedly designed-created-guided by the allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent christian 'God' or any other such 'God' just doesn't make any sense and no amount of contradictory, contorted, wacky excuses can make it make sense.

      It also doesn't make sense to say that the christian 'God' allows suffering (and evil) because saying allows is just another lame excuse since such a 'God' would be the direct cause of everything everywhere at all times. Any claim that such a 'God' doesn't directly cause everything everywhere at all times contradicts the alleged omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of 'God', and omnibenevolence is also contradicted by 'God' causing (or allowing) suffering (and evil). A 'God' cannot be moral, pure, and loving while causing (or allowing) suffering (and evil).

      On your website you say: "He is proving His sovereignty over evil, suffering...". Well, if "He" has sovereignty over evil and suffering "He" can easily stop them and if "He" is omnibenevolent "He" would never have designed-created-guided (caused) them in the first place. And no, the claim that stopping suffering (or evil) would take away free will is just another lame excuse since there can already be no such thing as free will if 'God' is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Do any or all animals have free will? If so, would their free will stop if their suffering were stopped?

      The biblical crap about 'the fall' and everyone is evil and a sinner and deserves suffering and death and eternity in a lake of fire unless they kiss an imaginary 'God's' ass is some of the most horrible garbage that has ever been thought up, believed in, worshiped, preached, published, and crammed into childrens' and gullible adults' minds. Are animals sinners too or does 'God' just get a thrill out of making them suffer and die?

      Delete
    4. if "He" has sovereignty over evil and suffering "He" can easily stop them and if "He" is omnibenevolent

      https://carm.org/if-god-all-powerful-and-loving-why-there-suffering-world

      https://carm.org/why-does-god-allow-evil-and-suffering-world

      Delete
    5. ElShamah777,
      Your links are painfully inadequate. The sheer scale and magnitude of human suffering in the world that has nothing to do with 'free will' is why no theologian in human history has produced an even remotely satisfying answer to this problem.

      Delete
  12. McLatchie claims that an irreducibly complex system consist of a number of subfunctions where the removal of one subfunction renders the whole system nonfunctional. He implies that such systems can't be explained by evolution.

    He said that such systems are a challenge to DARWINIAN evolutionary THEORY.

    Your rephrasing to "can't be explained by evolution" put words in his mouth that he did not say, or imply.

    Do all ID proponents agree?

    I agree that DARWIN evolutionary THEORY is very challenged to predict anything at all about genetics. But of course that's why there is "gene theory" and "cell theory" etc..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is "DARWINIAN evolutionary THEORY" and why is it is "very challenged to predict anything at all about genetics" you retard?

      Do you realize Darwin died long before genetics was a thing? But even without knowing about genetics he predicted that traits were inherited, and he was right which is remarkable, so without knowing about it, he already beats your nonsense in genetic predictive power. But then again, so does my pet dog

      Delete
  13. Joe G,

    I'm on your side most of the times but if you make claims that the evolution (depending on the definition of evolution of course) is guided, you need to explain 2 things, I think.

    1. If he evolution is guided, where would be the start point? Would there be more than one points of Interference, or possibly more than one?
    2. What evidence do you have for guided evolution versus unguided?

    I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but those are almost the exact questions, I've been asking Darwinists to prove their claims for many years and I think it is fair to ask you the same. Don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Professor Moran and his ilk love to pretend that they are the defenders of science and yet they reject what is known scientifically with their faith of life originating from non living matter by chance.

    They have to compartmentalize their minds in order to overcome the contradiction.

    As for rationality. They believe human reasoning came about by chance which provides 0 grounding to lecture others about the nature of reality.

    These chance devotees are walking contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Professor Moran and his ilk love to pretend that they are the defenders of science and yet they reject what is known scientifically"

    nope we reject what creationist assume they know scientifically

    faith of life originating from non living matter by chance.
    No faith involved
    no chance involved so straw man

    As for rationality. They believe human reasoning came about by chance which provides 0 grounding to lecture others about the nature of reality.
    non sequitur
    straw man

    These chance devotees are walking contradictions.
    If we were devoted to chance that might be true(thou i doubt )good thing neither evolution nor abiogenisis propose chance
    oh and another straw man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "nope we reject"

      You reject what is known empirically and that is the law of biogenesis.


      "no faith involved"

      Denying that you have faith won't change that you do.

      "no chance involved so straw man"

      That is a denial of your faith, Denying what you have faith in, is not demonstrating any straw man.

      "non sequitur"
      "straw man"

      Naming fallacies is not demonstrating them. You need to do better.

      "If we were devoted to chance"

      You certainly are.


      "(thou i doubt )good thing neither evolution nor abiogenisis propose chance"

      That's exactly what you believe.

      " oh and another straw man"

      It is another claim of a strawman from you but you have yet to demonstrate one.

      I can understand why you have to go into denial mode when it comes to your chance faith. You have a lot of faith in chance but your chance faith is not consistent with Biogenesis and how nature is known to operate.

      Delete