Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapagos
|
You guys are really fixated. I have said nothing about ID in my discourses. Moon offered Behe's nomenclature of "front loading" in a post a while back, and I used that for his convenience (instead of my "precoding" or "proscribed speciation". You might recall (or maybe not) that my core argument is statistical, in that the probability of an enzyme system of 6 enzymes occurring is still on the order of 1 in 10^1000. Every other enzyme system you add would incrementally increase the number. That is, if a life form needs the Kreb's cycle AND the urea cycle AND beta oxidation, the probabilistic assessment (even with a large number of favorable assumptions) come out to 1 in 10^3000. No one (not ever here) has offered a data-driven counterpoint, other than to say "oh, that old creationist argument".
This is NOT a creationist argument. It is a DATA problem!!!!!!
I am discussing data, not ideology. This thread's constant reversion to debunking irrelevant straw men is really distracting.
Bio
----------------
Few problems are so complex that they cannot be substantially clarified by one more cup of coffee
(or a nice cabernet if it is after 5:00)
Moderator in absentia. Return anticipated. Timing somewhat vague.
