Joined: April 2005
I see. So none of this "it might have happened this way" or a sort of "general scenario". Nothing less than the actual blow-by-blow, mutation by mutation, account will do. OK, if those are the rules, here's the score:
|This is nothing more than a huge cop-out. The best you could do is make up a story that might sound good, as has been done in other examples (blood clotting, bacterial flagellum, camera eye. etc.). If you say this to everyone who asks you then you never have to produce any evidence. Don't confuse just-so stories with actual empirical data. Just-so stories will continue to be rejected out of hand.|
Intelligent Design 0
Moreover, I can guarantee you that score will not budge any time in the conceivable future. Guarantee it.
Is that the end of the discussion? Or should we adjust the rules a little to allow for discussion of the relative plausibilities of the two kinds of explanations? Or the number of assumptions that need to be incorporated?
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.