Joined: July 2006
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18)|
He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations.
Hardly any is still a number greater then zero. And that's all that is required.
|My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what? |
This is where I usually bring out the evil designer options.
The parasitical brain sucking wasp, for example.
It exists because
A) It was designed to be like that.
B) It evolved.
If A) then the designer is a shit.
If B) Then, well, we all agree.
They might choose option C) which is that it was once "good" and due to the fall it devolved into what it currently is. And that's good because it means they have already left the realm of science far behind.
So even if it "devolved" from it's original perfect state that does not actually help them because that means that evolution can significantly change organisms, and that's what they are disputing.
Ask then who designed this behavior, evolution or their "designer"?
Either way they lose.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand