maurice tuchelt

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@kushika_twt When you look in the mirror, you are seeing an image of God.

The Devil sees the same, that's why.

Peace and love

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner I disagree, but you did answer..kudos.

Work to do, we'll chat again I'm sure.
Take care.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@briancolfer @DivinelyDesined I don't think I'm conflating anything Brian, the enzymatic repair system relies on the fidelity of it's genome coding and structure, but like all other systems can tolerate minor damage itself. All our systems are able to tolerate minor damage but only to a point.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@briancolfer @DivinelyDesined Now I admit ?
I never denied.

Both can be true and I contend both are.
Is the error correction system not part of our genome and subject to random genetic damage as well.

Our bodies undergo 6.5E19 genetic damage events daily and most are repaired... some aren't.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner Not going to answer ?

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@briancolfer @DivinelyDesined 1)You can't evolve a brand-new flagellum in days, Nobel made that eminently clear.
2) If ....the premise of universal genetic decay is totally falsified.

Not if those built-in systems are themselves subject to genetic damage, which of course they are.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@briancolfer @DivinelyDesined As you can read, Denis rebuked those who attempted to attribute the knockout experiment to evolution in days. These are complex programmed systems with lookahead capability protecting critical systems. Nothing to do with natural selection.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner Don't just skip on, Answer the question.

You wrote:
"Using the word 'indoctrinate' here is a massive projection."

Projection ? That doesn't even make sense R. If kids "naturally believe" as the studies show who's projecting ? Nature ?

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner Projection ? That doesn't even make sense R.
If kids "naturally believe" as the studies show who's projecting ?

Nature ?

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner Don't think that's much of a win my friend.
Peace

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner If only we weren't cheep skates and bought premium accounts... lol

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner "So yes, believing in an intentional designer is the intuitive, 'untrained' default of the human brain. But being the intuitive default doesn't make a belief factually true."

Nor does it make it false.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner https://t.co/rjdHi8oqL2

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner The natural is people believe in a creator and studies have proven that. You need to be trained not to believe, and it has nothing to do with science.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@Unapologet26919 @God_Questioner We are conflating two points, how things work (science) and why anything exists at all (not science).
Two competing hypothesis for existence, a creator or natural. Simply because attribution to lightning or bushes may have given way to superstition in no way blurs the line.

[maurice tuchelt @mtuchelt]

@briancolfer @DivinelyDesined As you can see:

"ExtRaINSIGHT focuses on rare variants only, in order to obtain a measure that reflects particularly large selective effects—that is, purifying selection sufficiently strong that new point mutations do not appear even as rare variants"

.not broad n/n mutations.