Andrew wrote:
> "El Kabong" wrote in message news:813t9jt9u6ul2gvpddi9i5n35bg8e58dd0@4ax.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Science has no Darwinian accounts of the
> >> origin or evolution of any biological system.
> >>
> >> "We must concede that there are presently no
> >> detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
> >> of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
> >> variety of wishful speculations."
> >>
> >> ~ Harold, Franklin M.
> >> Molecular Biologist
> >
> > Are you telling us Dr. Harold didn't believe darwinian
> > evolution happened?
>
> No.
>
> > Was he an IDist or a creationist?
>
> No.
>
> Nevertheless he was honest enough to tell
> us the truth in that which he had expertise
> in.

The truth is that the science convinced him that "goo to
you" is very true.

He's your authority, so you need to accept evolution too.

"Evolution rocks, creationism sux."
~ Harold, Franklin M.
Molecular Biologist

"El Kabong" wrote in message news:rbbt9jdpldf7k20vvop9r4bmoirb7bugpq@4ax.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "El Kabong" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >
>> >> Science has no Darwinian accounts of the
>> >> origin or evolution of any biological system.
>> >>
>> >> "We must concede that there are presently no
>> >> detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
>> >> of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
>> >> variety of wishful speculations."
>> >>
>> >> ~ Harold, Franklin M.
>> >> Molecular Biologist
>> >
>> > Are you telling us Dr. Harold didn't believe darwinian
>> > evolution happened?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > Was he an IDist or a creationist?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Nevertheless he was honest enough to tell
>> us the truth in that which he had expertise
>> in.
>
> The truth is that the science convinced him that "goo to
> you" is very true.

The "goo to you" story has been one of the greatest
deceptions of all time. It appears that you obviously
fell for it.

> He's your authority, so you need to accept evolution too.
>
> "Evolution rocks, creationism sux."
> ~ Harold, Franklin M.
> Molecular Biologist

Irreducibly complex molecular bio-machines
that are in the cells of all living things speaks
of 'intelligent design' by an awesome Creator..

Andrew wrote:
> "El Kabong" wrote in message news:rbbt9jdpldf7k20vvop9r4bmoirb7bugpq@4ax.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "El Kabong" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Science has no Darwinian accounts of the
> >> >> origin or evolution of any biological system.
> >> >>
> >> >> "We must concede that there are presently no
> >> >> detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
> >> >> of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
> >> >> variety of wishful speculations."
> >> >>
> >> >> ~ Harold, Franklin M.
> >> >> Molecular Biologist
> >> >
> >> > Are you telling us Dr. Harold didn't believe darwinian
> >> > evolution happened?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> > Was he an IDist or a creationist?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless he was honest enough to tell
> >> us the truth in that which he had expertise
> >> in.
> >
> > The truth is that the science convinced him that "goo to
> > you" is very true.
>
> The "goo to you" story has been one of the greatest
> deceptions of all time. It appears that you obviously
> fell for it.

Yes, I believe G2Y because your authority Dr. Harold says
it's true.

> > He's your authority, so you need to accept evolution too.
> >
> > "Evolution rocks, creationism sux."
> > ~ Harold, Franklin M.
> > Molecular Biologist
>
> Irreducibly complex molecular bio-machines
> that are in the cells of all living things speaks
> of 'intelligent design' by an awesome Creator..

Dr. Harold said that's false and there's no such thing as
IC or ID, and YEC creationists are nutters.

And, remember Dr. Charles Carter, champion of RNA +
Peptide World? He agrees completely with Dr. Harold!

On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:59:53 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote:

>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:0ngq9j16fht5q77cbvbgvctrfssjsvndei@4ax.com...
>> In the Name of Jesus wrote:
>>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So do you have a rational answer to that last question ...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you expect others to answer all your questions when
>>>>>>> God has given you the ability and the responsibility to search
>>>>>>> things out for yourself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL! Oh, I've searched things out for myself and found...
>>>>>
>>>>> You say that you "found"..yet you still keep on asking.
>>>>>
>>>>>> that it appears that the Christian god does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then explain WHO did it.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody did. It evolved --
>>>
>>>No thing can evolve itself, Vincent. No thing can create itself.
>>
>> They don't create or evolve themselves -- something
>> else that came before them evolved into them.
>
>That is your unscientific origin myth based
>solely upon *your fantasy*..and not science.
>
>Science has no Darwinian accounts of the
>origin or evolution of any biological system.
>
>"We must concede that there are presently no
>detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution
>of any biochemical or cellular system, only a
>variety of wishful speculations."
>
> ~ Harold, Franklin M.
> Molecular Biologist
>
>Irreducibly complex molecular bio-machines
>that are in the cells of all living things speaks
>of 'intelligent design' by an awesome Creator..

From a review of one of his books:

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo18692281.html

"He also delves deeply into the evolution of cellular organization,
the origin of complex cells, and the incorporation of symbiotic
organelles, and considers the fossil evidence for the earliest life on
earth. In Search of Cell History shows us just how far we have come in
understanding cell evolution—and the evolution of life in general—and
how far we still have to go."

"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:soynO.614959$VBH2.88220@fx16.ams4:

>
>
> Irreducibly complex molecular bio-machines
> that are in the cells of all living things speaks
> of 'intelligent design' by an awesome Creator..

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained
April 6, 2006

The research was led by Joe Thornton, a
ssistant professor of biology at the
University of Oregon's Center for Ecology
and Evolutionary Biology, and will be
published in the April 7 issue of SCIENCE.

How natural selection can drive the evolution
of complex molecular systems -- those in which
the function of each part depends on its
interactions with the other parts--has been
an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology.
Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that
such systems are "irreducibly complex" and
thus incompatible with gradual evolution by
natural selection.

"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error
in the current challenges to Darwinism," said
Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see
how ancient genes and their functions evolved
hundreds of millions of years ago. We found
that complexity evolved piecemeal through a
process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes,
constrained by selection for entirely different
functions, have been recruited by evolution
to participate in new interactions and new
functions."

The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical
and molecular methods to unravel the evolution
of an elegant example of molecular complexity --
the specific partnership of the hormone
aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney
function, along with the receptor protein that
allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone.
They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene --
which existed more than 450 million years ago,
before the first animals with bones appeared on
Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions.
The experiments showed that the receptor had the
capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before
the hormone actually evolved.
https://tinyurl.com/nheams6k

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB1B7D0E77547D629555@185.151.15.190...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Irreducibly complex molecular bio-machines
>> that are in the cells of all living things speaks
>> of 'intelligent design' by an awesome Creator..
>
> There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

True if you believe in a fantasy-world.

Because anything can happen there. You
have given a good example of it for us
right here below!

But there is a big difference between
unscientific fantasized scenarios, as
in your cite, and real world science.
______________________________________

> Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained
> April 6, 2006
>
> The research was led by Joe Thornton, a
> ssistant professor of biology at the
> University of Oregon's Center for Ecology
> and Evolutionary Biology, and will be
> published in the April 7 issue of SCIENCE.
>
> How natural selection can drive the evolution
> of complex molecular systems -- those in which
> the function of each part depends on its
> interactions with the other parts--has been
> an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology.
> Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that
> such systems are "irreducibly complex" and
> thus incompatible with gradual evolution by
> natural selection.
>
> "Our work demonstrates a fundamental error
> in the current challenges to Darwinism," said
> Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see
> how ancient genes and their functions evolved
> hundreds of millions of years ago. We found
> that complexity evolved piecemeal through a
> process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes,
> constrained by selection for entirely different
> functions, have been recruited by evolution
> to participate in new interactions and new
> functions."
>
> The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical
> and molecular methods to unravel the evolution
> of an elegant example of molecular complexity --
> the specific partnership of the hormone
> aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney
> function, along with the receptor protein that
> allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone.
> They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene --
> which existed more than 450 million years ago,
> before the first animals with bones appeared on
> Earth -- and characterized its molecular functions.
> The experiments showed that the receptor had the
> capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before
> the hormone actually evolved.
> https://tinyurl.com/nheams6k