[[You have never accepted anything in any posts and I doubt you ever will.]]
Present hte cold hard facts, and there will be no dissagreement- it’s only when you or someone else extrapolates beyond hte evidencesthat we will have to dissagree because nature simpyl is incapable of hte supernatural events that folks claim it is.
[[You did not address the peer reviewed research I linked.]]
Yes I did- I pointed out how they IMEDIATELY a priori assumed nature ‘musta done it’- If you can refute that they did so, then be my guest.
[[You want evidence, there you go.]]
Evidence for what? DEsign? I saw NO evidence pointing to macroevolution- just the a priori assumptiuons that these ‘species’ must have evolved. Where’s the evidenece that they did infact Macroevolve?
[[You analyze that with your critical cognizance and let me know what you think.]]
Just did.
[[You will notice that not once in the article does anyone say “nature did it.”]]
Oh really? Hmmm- seems to me I poitned out exactly where they did infere just that
[[(Religion=Why: Science=How). ]]
Psssst- ID answers HOW- Science speculates about HOW. ID shows HOW an intelligent designer designed, constructed and assembled IC- Science poo poo’s that and goes BEYOND the actual evidences and the HOW and SPECULATES HOW IC ‘could have’ supposedly arisen naturally- although each and every tiem they do this speculating- their ‘examples’ are riddled with intelligently designed, carefully constructed, carefulyl controlled scenarios that onyl go to show just how much ID is NEEDED behind the IC they say is ‘naturally caused’
[[So, when your ready to interpret the articles I posted. Let me know.]]
There’s nothign to discuss- they simply show adaptation- Sorry- can’t help you ‘discuss’ somethign that isn’t present in the articles- We’re talkign about hte feasibility of naturalism- not about MICROEvolution here
“These results indicate that the C. merolae genome provides a model system with a simple gene composition for studying the origin, evolution and fundamental mechanisms of eukaryotic cells.”
That in no way indicate apriori assumption. How do you expect testing to occur if there are no models? Oh - you keep saying macroevolution - code words from the creationist dismissal sites. There has never been a publication that has ever said “...and here at this point in the fossil record (poof!) an amoeba becomes a seagull.”
Only creationist have that sort of expectation and anything short of that is instant proof that living creatures are transformed only by magic.
ID does not answer how about anything. But it makes reasonable people wonder how such empty headed approaches to reasoning were ever adopted by upright walking hominids. I believe similar world views kept the world flat and the earth the center of the solar system.
Try actually reading the articles and addressing their methods and results. Start with that - ignore the abstract and the conclusion sections. Let me know if you think their methods were unsound. You can’t dismiss what you don’t like simply because you assume a bias before you even read it.
This discussion was never about naturalism but evolution. Stop trying to duck and dodge your way out of the conversation.