Originally Posted by Russ
Quote
There are literally hundreds of articles on the HOX gene complexes, their known functions and means of operation.


HOX complexities are not what we're concerned about. We're looking at the ability for HOX to produce symmetry.

I'm happy to read the articles you provided, but I suspect that I will find more of what I have been finding in much scientific literature supportive of evolution for many years:

A hypothesis based on huge assumptions and numerous "ifs", "mays", and "perhaps'"; Someone's ideas that are clearly designed to make evolution more emotionally acceptable through endless suggestive language and emotional appeals.

I don't believe HOX had anything to do with symmetry in mammals, and its features that suggest an explanation for segmentation in insects are not related because, again, they don't deal with real symmetry.

Furthermore, the HOX discovery unveils yet another layer of complexity to the design of life which furthermore adds to the credibility of intelligent design.

Just do the math.

Ironically, you wrote some Visual Basic psudocode to demonstrate your idea about this, but it is, again, a vast oversimplification of the actual expression of symmetry in the real world.

I realize it is simplified for demonstration purposes, but I also believe you mentally simplify it because you so want to believe that evolution can actually occur.

You covet, and for this, you are highly susceptible to these types of emotional appeals.

Of course, your first demonstration of this is found in your attempts to redefine evolution as "natural selection". A good debate tactic, but not very honest.

Nevertheless, I searched for about 20 minutes and was not able to get my hands on one of the articles you suggested. If you can provide me with text, I will read it.

But again, I have found so many articles in several areas of science that make such far-reaching, biased appeals to suggestive emotionalism that I have grown tired of them.

Not surprisingly, these types of appeals are usually targeted to impressionable college and high school students.

Why?

Again, because evolution is a political concept, not a scientific one.

Symmetry is hard; Very hard. It clearly requires intelligence.

Furthermore, the assembly of the HOX building blocks is mathematically absurd to begin with, so even here, we are starting off with huge, far-reaching assumptions—bad science, not to mention the process of applying sea anemone processes to mammalian symmetry. Huge jump there.

Again, more of the same I suspect.


Russ T, I wonder if rather than tell everyone else what is wrong with them and their motives, what you've studied for years, etc., you could actually summarize what exactly you DO believe concerning evolution and the creation??

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is." Albert Einstein