Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 27 2011,10:28)|
|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.
As far as I can infer they assume that organisms are somehow evil if they do evil things tu humans, in this case either they are possesed or are created by the "evil one®".
In the case of your wasp they would say well it's just nature god created them to take care of the pests so actually they are a blessing.
So no evil designer™ in my forum
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin