@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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 ?
@Unapologet26919@God_Questioner Projection ? That doesn't even make sense R.
If kids "naturally believe" as the studies show who's projecting ?
Nature ?
@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.
@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.
@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.
@briancolfer@DivinelyDesined As you can see:
"ExtRaINSIGHT focuses on rare variants only, in order to obtain a measure that reflects particularly large selective effectsβthat is, purifying selection sufficiently strong that new point mutations do not appear even as rare variants"
.not broad n/n mutations.