Re: Viewing Chinese Lanterns in Pittsburgh

[Andrew]

"JWS" wrote in message news:55c93ab8-29c6-4d05...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "JWS" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> "JWS" wrote:
>> >> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> >> "JWS" wrote:
>> >> >> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> >> >> "JWS" wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "JWS" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Bob Duncan wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Viewing Chinese Lanterns in Pittsburgh
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> by Paul Nelson
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On the day after Thanksgiving, I was viewing Abutilon pictum --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> commonly known as the "Chinese lantern" plant -- at Phipps
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Conservatory and Botanical Gardens, Pittsburgh, PA. While being
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> charmed by its whimsical beauty, I also mused about the genetic coding
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> requirements for the changes in protein expression and timing (during
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> development) to give its precise floral morphology. Psalm 111:2.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Great are the works of the Lord;
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> they are pondered by all who delight in them."
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/viewing-chinese-lanterns-in-pittsbur
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Funny how the "ID is not religion" folks
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > defend it - by quoting religion.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ID is only an origins model.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > No it's not.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ID is not a model, and there is no model for it, as you
>> >> >> >> >> >> > know, having been asked for the model many times.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ID is not a theory, or even a hypothesis, it's only myth
>> >> >> >> >> >> > and speculation based on religious dogma.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > And it's not only an origins myth. It's a myth for
>> >> >> >> >> >> > speciation too.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > ID has never been observed, which is why it's only myth.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Unless you want to classify genetic engineering as
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "micro-ID". Heheh...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> What is the alternative? Can you
>> >> >> >> >> >> explain using empirical science?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > RNA evolution. The RNA world hypothesis is
>> >> >> >> >> > growing stronger each day. You could follow
>> >> >> >> >> > the actual science if you wanted to.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> That <has been debunked> decades ago.
>> >> >> >> >> However there may be some 'believers'
>> >> >> >> >> still out there.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Decades ago? This is cutting edge. RNA
>> >> >> >> > World suffered a setback last century, but
>> >> >> >> > research in the last decade has taken off
>> >> >> >> > and now it's almost indisputable that RNA
>> >> >> >> > came first. In fact, it was RNA that created
>> >> >> >> > DNA. The clincher will come when we
>> >> >> >> > discover the reason for the Uracil/Thymine
>> >> >> >> > substitution.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> In the real world...RNA comes only
>> >> >> >> from DNA, which itself comes only
>> >> >> >> from preexisting DNA.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> A lone RNA molecule would have
>> >> >> >> no function or purpose apart from
>> >> >> >> the code that it received from DNA.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's true for today. At the origin of
>> >> >> > life, RNA alone was in charge.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Would that be true according to science,
>> >> >> or according to ~~~>>>> your fantasy?
>> >>
>> >> > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0330
>> >>
>> >> From your site:
>> >>
>> >> "An interesting (although certainly
>> >> speculative) scenario assumes that.."
>> >>
>> >> So you got it from neither science, or
>> >> your fantasy, but rather, their fantasy.
>> >
>> > A short side note about an alternate idea that
>> > may or may not turn out to be true. It's not a
>> > comment on the entire article.
>
>> The basic premise of the article you cited
>> was supported by ~ fantasized scenarios.
>
>> >> Folks if you want the truth, you need
>> >> to go with the real world science, and
>> >> not fantacized scenarios as we see in
>> >> the above link.
>> >
>> > The article outlines the current scientific
>> > work ongoing in the field of enzyme
>> > evolution.
>
>> These are some PhDs who are given
>> grant monies to put out a paper like
>> this.
>>
>> Their thesis does not equate with the
>> TRUTH!
>
> These are results from lab experiments.
> This is a paper describing what nature
> can do.

'What nature can do" on its own, or
"what nature can do" when humans
manipulate it to do it?

> The paper "like this" reflects actual
> reality.

But it is a created "reality". Which
is more evidence for-->*Creation*

The bottom line here in all of this is
that, according to all of the evidence,
our origin did not occur without the
involvement of an intelligent agency.

~~~~~~~~~ Creation ~~~~~~~~~