Evolution (“accident & luck”) vs. Careful Advanced Planning, according to whom?

A psychiatrist in Toronto, Canada, in defense of swamidass’ fellow secular methodological naturalist and atheist partner in provocation over at PS, Nathan Lents (Human Errors), just said something I find quite curious, in case he is serious in his claim. It had appeared to me that this person who said it promotes ideological evolutionism. Yet this claim establishes at least some kind of important knowledge ‘boundary’ or ‘limit’ that ‘evolutionary’ thinking does not and cannot cross by definition. Perhaps he will come here to try to explain his terms in an effort to help clarify this difficulty.

Dr. Faizal Ali says,

“The truth is that evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck, both good and bad, and rarely if ever arrives at a solution of the sort that would be found by careful advanced planning.” https://betterrightthanhappy.com/nathan-lents-on-our-imperfect-body/

Is Dr. Ali not either aware of or in any way familiar with the sub-fields of evolutionary economics, evolutionary political ‘science’, evolutionary sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and closer to his home field, evolutionary psychology? If not, does he seriously think scholars in those fields believe “evolution” differs substantially from “careful advanced planning”? Haven’t those sub-fields succeeded with subsuming ‘mind’ & ‘agency’ into ‘evolutionary’ approaches by now (much more than 3 generations after Darwin)? At the very least, the questions: “Which evolution?” and “Whose evolution?” should be addressed on the table to minimize misunderstanding, especially regarding this term that is drenched in ideological usage in the Literature.

Which kind of “evolution” largely proceeds by accident/luck, rather than purpose/goal/aim, or carefully advanced planning according to Dr. Ali? Just “evolution” as meant by (mostly) ideological naturalists, using methodological naturalism as a form of anti-supernaturalism in natural-physical sciences. That is the portion of scholarly thought he is referring to, right?

If he just intended that specifically “biological evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck”, then at least the door would be closed on ‘evolution’ being seen as a ‘generalist’ or ‘universalist’ theory acceptable in human-social sciences too. We know that some people exaggerate and misuse the term “evolution” in different ways (e.g. David S. Wilson, Bret Weinstein) outside of natural sciences, that might be best discarded due to the very confusion that Dr. Ali rightfully raises in the quote above, which seems as almost a blip in his otherwise broadly evolutionistic message.

There are indeed limits to usage of ‘evolution’ as a term of ‘knowledge’, obviously yes. Dr. Faizal Ali seems to be pointing to one of the limits here (implication: “careful advanced planning” differs from “evolving”). This could be helpfully clarified further, as part of an ongoing discussion constructively involving agency in science, philosophy, theology/worldview, even if that doesn’t happen here at TSZ.

0

152 thoughts on “Evolution (“accident & luck”) vs. Careful Advanced Planning, according to whom?

  1. The only reason to say evolution moves by accident and liuck is because its based on a ,mechanism based on mutations. these are all accidents and so only luck gets one selecte on to make new bodyplans and thus new populations. in fact it just shows its all invisable and one great line of reasoning. There is no actual observation/experiment evidence for biology complexity and diversity. There is literally no biological scientific evidence for this biological hypothesis of evolution. A great failure in science that only now is crashing.

    0
  2. “The truth is that evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck, both good and bad, and rarely if ever arrives at a solution of the sort that would be found by careful advanced planning.”

    I wonder if he thinks the human brain is the result of lucky mutations :-). No planning needed here 🙂

    0
  3. “The idea that much of our biology demonstrates what can only be considered “stupid design” not only serves as an effective counterargument to the claims of creationism.
    I have to agree with this statement.

    Stupid designs, no designer inference serves also as an effective counterargument against all logic, as clearly seen on the picture attached…

    Dr. Lents’ claim about the “stupid design” of the human eye, although human eye has been experimentally proven to detect one photon of light, ventures deeper into the oblivion…
    Now he got a psychiatrist on his side…Maybe both can design an equal, or better functioning eye, to capture a half of photon.

    I hope Dr. Ali Falzai, from a fine organization of CAMH, doesn’t use the same kind of inference in his professional career…

    0
  4. Which kind of “evolution” largely proceeds by accident/luck, rather than purpose/goal/aim, or carefully advanced planning according to Dr. Ali? Just “evolution” as meant by (mostly) ideological naturalists, using methodological naturalism as a form of anti-supernaturalism in natural-physical sciences. That is the portion of scholarly thought he is referring to, right?

    I think this is why Darwin disliked using the term “evolution” and preferred the phrase “descent with modification.” As the OP makes clear, the term “evolution” can be broadly applied to just anything that has changed or even CAN change over time, or the study of historical changes in any field.

    Biological evolution, the pattern of change from one generation to the next among organisms that reproduce, has produced some amazingly complex and clever things, and has also produced many systems Rube Goldberg could only wish he devised. But it’s important to bear in mind that the stupidest ideas (deleterious mutations) mean the unfortunate organism suffering them doesn’t survive. So an idea (mutation) can’t be quite that stupid, and if it survives, evolution can refine it quite highly, but never discard it. The result can be like that nerve in the giraffe that needs to get from point A to point B which are only inches apart, but evolution resulted in that nerve going all the way down the neck and back up. Clearly stupid design, but evolution cannot plan, it can only work with what it has.

    0
  5. If he just intended that specifically “biological evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck”….

    That is, indeed. the sense in which I intended my remark to be understood. I think that should have been obvious, but I’m glad to clarify it for you.

    3+
  6. Faizal Ali: That is, indeed. the sense in which I intended my remark to be understood. I think that should have been obvious, but I’m glad to clarify it for you.

    Any second we’ll be visited by the Ghost-of-incredulity (aka phoodoo) to tell us that it’s totally preposterous that anyone could believe this and if only biologists were honest in calling mutations “mindlessly catastrophic and unintended blind random accidentally chaotic errors” the sham would be revealed.

    Do you really believe in The random ancestral-monkey theory of blind-beast-chance-ism? Haha!

    2+
  7. Faizal Ali:
    Gregory wrote: “If he just intended that specifically “biological evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck”….

    That is, indeed. the sense in which I intended my remark to be understood.I think that should have been obvious, but I’m glad to clarify it for you.

    Excellent, so then do you accept the 2nd part of that sentence?

    “…then at least the door would be closed on ‘evolution’ being seen as a ‘generalist’ or ‘universalist’ theory acceptable in human-social sciences too.”

    A psychiatrist leaning towards some kind of biological reductionism, rather than human elevation and development, likely explains the error. “Evolution is *really* just largely about biology, wink, nudge, unless…”

    Ideological evolutionists who have not yet figured out how to responsibly limit their own linguistic usage of the term “evolution” are widespread sowers of confusion nowadays.

    “Evolutionary economics” would be a dastardly field if it only relied on “accident & chance”, trying to linguistically biologize itself. The sub-field of “evolutionary psychology,” which Dr. Ali might know something about, is a chronic, start-to-end mess of internal contradictions & tangled communication.

    0
  8. Faizal Ali:
    If he just intended that specifically “biological evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck”….

    That is, indeed. the sense in which I intended my remark to be understood.I think that should have been obvious, but I’m glad to clarify it for you.

    By stating largely you leave an open door to educated guesses, or misinterpretatins…Perhaps you should also clarify that piece.

    0
  9. Gregory: Ideological evolutionists who have not yet figured out how to responsibly limit their own linguistic usage of the term “evolution” are widespread sowers of confusion nowadays.

    When the term “evolution” is used in that context, it is almost invariably employed as an analogy to the naive, lay understanding of “natural selection”. It’s a misrepresentation of the biological theory of evolution. Which has no bearing on the validity on these non-biological ideas in and of themselves. That’s not a topic on which I have any particularly strong or informed views, so I think I will bow out of further discussion.

    3+
  10. Faizal Ali,

    “That context?” Excuse me, which “context”? Please clarify. Do you mean simply your blog?

    “It’s a misrepresentation of the biological theory of evolution.”

    Again, unclear what you are saying. “What” in particular is a misrepresentation of the biological theory of evolution? Do you mean, it’s a misrepresentation when the term ‘evolution’ is used in those above named sub-fields? That those fields are misrepresentations of evolutionary biology? Please unpack what you are suggesting.

    “That’s not a topic on which I have any particularly strong or informed views”

    Again, please connect your subjects. Which topic does “that” refer to specifically?

    As your blog indicates, you’re a psychiatrist, are you not? Surely you may then understand it comes as at least a bit of a surprise hearing that you take “no interest” in the sub-field of “evolutionary psychology”.

    And then there’s swamidass, once affiliated with BioLogos, who flirted with “Christian evolutionary psychology” for about as shortly as possible, whereas swamidass allies himself with cultural evolutionists against people who take a faithful stand against exaggerations of evolutionist ideology. This all happens, of course, beyond just the single field of biology.

    So, please excuse the seeking of communicative clarity since you’re new here. I’d like to know what doesn’t evolve and what does in your view, as expert in one or a few knowledge fields or not.

    It would sure be helpful if you would draw for people here some of the ways that you identify boundaries around the term ‘evolution’. Iow, can you help people stuck in this conversation with how to put a limit on the far too vast # of ways people are currently using the term ‘evolution’, so that it isn’t unwisely exaggerated or turned unexpectedly into ideology? Which kinds of things do you refuse to apply the term ‘evolution’ to?

    “a solution of the sort that would be found by careful advanced planning”

    These are your words. That “careful advanced planning” is not “in biology”, right? And “careful advanced planning” leading to a solution, in some way differs from “evolution” (now bringing in natural selection, which of course differs from other varieties of “selection”), is this what you are actually saying? If so, please elaborate, because what you are saying sounds interesting.

    0
  11. Whereas what you are saying sounds not at all interesting. So, sorry, I have no incentive to respond beyond this.

    4+
  12. Faizal Ali: When the term “evolution” is used in that context, it is almost invariably employed as an analogy to the naive, lay understanding of “natural selection”.It’s a misrepresentation of the biological theory of evolution.Which has no bearing on the validity on these non-biological ideas in and of themselves.That’s not a topic on which I have any particularly strong or informed views, so I think I will bow out of further discussion.

    The confusion is because some, like Dawkins, claim that natural selection is not a random process.

    Another, mutations are not necessarily random, as quantum processes have been identified to be clearly involved…

    0
  13. J-Mac: By stating largely you leave an open door to educated guesses, or misinterpretatins…Perhaps you should also clarify that piece.

    Typo alert misinterpretation

    0

  14. That’s ok Faizal, feelings are mutual in this case. You obviously cannot defend yourself if you cannot write a clear & understandable paragraph, in this case unpacking what you *actually meant* by “careful advanced planning” as smth like “non-evolutionary” or “rarely evolutionary”.

    Let’s face it, some professors simply aren’t good communicators outside of their narrow specializations & prefer instead myopia on questions of origins, meaning, morality & destiny. These are not ‘simply scientific’ issues, like a lot of things in life.

    Thankfully, there is a professor in the cognitive fields at the University of Toronto, who has demonstrated some courage and insight to face these larger more significant topics than what Dr. Ali addresses on his blog. That person is of course Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. No doubt this is a fond friend of Faizal Ali’s, the former a man who embraces the spiritual journey, rather than running & hiding from it! ; )

    Evolutionary biology may in some ways conflict with traditional theological views of the origins of humanity, while it is rather the cultural evolutionism people embrace as ideology that voluntarily destroys the human soul.

    1+
  15. J-Mac: The confusion is because some, like Dawkins, claim that natural selection is not a random process.

    Some? Selection is non-random.

    1+
  16. Gregory: That’s ok Faizal, feelings are mutual in this case. You obviously cannot defend yourself if you cannot write a clear & understandable paragraph, in this case unpacking what you *actually meant* by “careful advanced planning” as smth like “non-evolutionary” or “rarely evolutionary”.

    In this case, I have to agree regarding mutual feelings, because you suffer from the same problem of not being able to defend yourself.
    Instead, you chose long, and empty talk.
    Faizal, at least, is trying to stick to what evolutionary theory is more or less presented as… Whether that is true, is a subject of dispute even among top evolutionary biologists…

    0
  17. J-Mac,

    “you suffer from the same problem of not being able to defend yourself.”

    None of us is defensible in the end.

    “trying to stick to what evolutionary theory is more or less presented as…”

    Depends who’s asking & presenting, that’s kind of point very hard to accept for some here.

    Evolutionary theory is being presented as this too:
    https://evolution-institute.org/

    0
  18. J-Mac: [Evolutionary theory] is a subject of dispute even among top evolutionary biologists…

    And your basis for this claim is what?

    0
  19. J-Mac:
    The confusion is because some, like Dawkins, claim that natural selection is not a random process.

    It isn’t. Natural selection refers to the bias in survival towards the individuals better suited for an environment. Biased, by definition, is a departure from random.

    J-Mac:
    Another, mutations are not necessarily random, as quantum processes have been identified to be clearly involved…

    That’s a non sequitur. If quantum processes are involved it doesn’t mean that mutations are not random.

    0
  20. Gregory- Why is the Evolution Institute’s version of evolution so concerning to you? The impression I get is that they believe that certain basic “principles” of evolution can be useful in solving social problems. Basically try lots of different methods with varying versions of each, then expand the ones that are most successful. Creating a population of programs and reproducing the most effective ones. Makes a lot of sense to me.

    2+
  21. colewd:
    I wonder if he thinks the human brain is the result of lucky mutations :-). No planning needed here 🙂

    The word largely doesn’t mean exclusively. The human brain is the result of the historical accumulation of successful mutations by evolutionary phenomena. Not just “lucky” mutations, but the accumulation of successful ones.

    You fail to understand that it’s the historical accumulation of successful variants where the astounding results of evolutionary phenomena reside. It seems like you cannot escape some box of misunderstanding where you believe that evolution is abject randomness every step of the way. Seems like you imagine that, rather than evolving from already successful hominids, evolutionary biologists propose that humans evolved directly from a random soup of DNA.

    ETA: Of course no planning needed here. We are the ones who can make plans, and that;’s using those very brains. You’re thinking is backwards.

    1+
  22. colewd: I wonder if he thinks the human brain is the result of lucky mutations :-). No planning needed here

    I also wonder if the human brain is a lucky result of evolution. I don’t question that it is an evolutionary result, I don’t question that it is remarkable. But when I look at how that brain is being used, to systematically and by design wreck the planet it lives on for short-term gratification and reward, I wonder just how lucky this ability is. Current indications are that our species will be one of the shortest lasting before we go extinct largely because of that brain. Hopefully, whatever can survive our evolutionary “success” won’t be nearly so smart, and last much longer.

    0
  23. Flint,

    I also wonder if the human brain is a lucky result of evolution. I don’t question that it is an evolutionary result, I don’t question that it is remarkable.

    Why don’t you question it is an evolutionary result? We don’t yet know how it works.

    0
  24. Entropy,

    The word largely doesn’t mean exclusively. The human brain is the result of the historical accumulation of successful mutations by evolutionary phenomena. Not just “lucky” mutations, but the accumulation of successful ones.

    How would you test this hypothesis?

    0
  25. colewd: How would you test this hypothesis?

    We can use the Bill Cole test:

    “A human mind can produce information, therefore evolution is true”.

    Bill’s test never fails. 🙂

    0
  26. “the historical accumulation of successful variants”

    Yes, this kind of thing is what demolishes weak attempts at making parallels between biological change-over-time, and that which happens in another field of study, for example, political change-over-time, using the term ‘evolution’ as responsible core concept for study.

    The President or Head of State, who has just won an election on a cyclical system, does not mark an “evolution” of that nation-state’s politics. This is an example of a different type of human-oriented rather than merely naturalistic “change-over-time”, that doesn’t follow the ‘evolutionary’ pattern/paradigm/theory/model/method – it is called all of these things by different people.

    “Careful advanced planning” is what is partly involved in political campaigning. Distinguishing that from a weak analogy with biology, by intentionally not calling that change-over-time as an example of ‘evolution,’ simply makes sense. Take note, that this does not suggest “nothing evolves” (because most of biological evolution, a whole lot of evolving things, are indeed accepted), only that “some things don’t evolve” (however, that happens to be still a LOT of things!), which is clearly a moderate and responsible position in the conversation. Some people have enough of an imagination and common sense to either just use or come up with more accurate, appropriate and applicable terms than “evolution”, to really enable & advance their studies & research.

    0
  27. colewd:
    Entropy,
    How would you test this hypothesis?

    It’s not a hypothesis. It’s an obvious consequence of the way life reproduces and ancestors pass on their genetic material to their offspring. You do know that your parents did not pass you a randomized genome, right? Since we’re the result of a very long lineage, obviously, all our ancestors were successful. They lived and reproduced. Obviously as the lineage advanced it contained the accumulated successful mutations of their ancestors.

    We can still make such an obvious consequence into a hypothesis and test it. We can check parental DNA and offspring DNA, and check. If the offspring’s DNA is completely randomly shuffled then successful genetic material is not passed to the offspring. What do you think that the result would be?

    0
  28. Entropy,

    It’s not a hypothesis. It’s an obvious consequence of the way life reproduces and ancestors pass on their genetic material to their offspring.

    Then It’s not a scientific claim. Its a claim based on a 150 year old falsified inference.

    The rest of your statement shows how information was copied but the origin of the brain requires large amounts of new information.

    This is strong evidence that a mind was behind its origin.

    0
  29. colewd: Then It’s not a scientific claim. Its a claim based on a 150 year old falsified inference.

    Wow. So now the idea life reproduces with offspring having slightly modified genomes from their parents has been falsified? Where was that scientific discovery published?

    The rest of your statement shows how information was copied but the origin of the brain requires large amounts of new information.

    Which evolution does as you’ve been shown a few thousand times.

    This is strong evidence that a mind was behind its origin.

    Wouldn’t be a day without Bill vomiting up his usual stupidity.

    BillLogic: A human mind designed freezers which make ice. This is strong evidence a mind was behind the ice forming on the local pond during winter.

    Right Bill?

    2+
  30. Entropy: The human brain is the result of the historical accumulation of successful mutations by evolutionary phenomena. Not just “lucky” mutations, but the accumulation of successful ones.

    Exactly so. The problem here consists of understanding the biological function of brains in general (what are brains for?) together with understanding what is unique about human brains and what selective pressures led to the evolution of that uniqueness.

    0
  31. colewd: The rest of your statement shows how information was copied but the origin of the brain requires large amounts of new information.

    We’ve had this conversation before. You insisted that the programming language C was an example of the sudden arrival of large amounts of new information. Eventually you accepted that it’s precursor, B, provided large amounts of that information.

    Likewise, the origin of the brain? Why, it’s very similar to our immediate ancstor’s brain!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Homo_sapiens

    Every time you claim a large amount of new information is required it turns out a large amount of information is already present. Starting to see how this works yet?

    No, of course not. And you never will.

    1+
  32. OMagain,

    Every time you claim a large amount of new information is required it turns out a large amount of information is already present. Starting to see how this works yet?

    http://www.sciencemag.org
    Science 21 December 2012:
    Vol. 338 no. 6114 pp. 1587-1593 DOI: 10.1126/science.1230612

    The brain splicing activity is up regulated in humans. Where do think the altered splicing code comes from?

    0
  33. colewd:
    Entropy,
    Then It’s not a scientific claim. Its a claim based on a 150 year old falsified inference.

    So your parents gave you a randomized genome!!?? Really!!!??? When was genetic inheritance falsified!!!??? Nobody tells me these things!!!

    colewd:
    The rest of your statement shows how information was copied but the origin of the brain requires large amounts of new information.

    Which happened across eons of accumulation of successful variants. What’s so hard to understand here?

    colewd:
    This is strong evidence that a mind was behind its origin.

    Your lack of understanding that offspring inherit successful genomes from their parents is evidence that a mind was behind the origin of the human brain? That’s new.

    Minds are an activity of brains Bill. You’re thinking backwards.

    0
  34. colewd to OMagain,

    http://www.sciencemag.org
    Science 21 December 2012:
    Vol. 338 no. 6114 pp. 1587-1593 DOI: 10.1126/science.1230612

    The brain splicing activity is up regulated in humans. Where do think the altered splicing code comes from?

    Did you read the article? Given their analyses those scientists could trace where splicing variants present in humans originated across the vertebrate lineage. They even mention that variants present in humans are present in primates, thus showing that, as we get to closer and closer relatives, we share more of those variants. That’s evidence of the accumulation I’m talking about Bill. Are you even trying to understand this?

    0
  35. Entropy,

    Which happened across eons of accumulation of successful variants. What’s so hard to understand here?

    Total trials are 10^50 given time and populations. AA sequence space is orders of magnitude larger. Functional space ratio to sequence space base on sequence alignments is too small for random change to find function. There is also more complicated process such as alternative splicing that happens during embryo development that is not conducive to random change.

    Minds are an activity of brains Bill. You’re thinking backwards.

    How do you know that is the only type of mind that exists?

    0
  36. colewd: Functional space ratio to sequence space base on sequence alignments is too small for random change to find function.

    It’s not all explored every generation. Only nearby configurations. And nearby configurations are also likely to work.

    0
  37. Kantian Naturalist: Entropy: Are you even trying to understand this?

    Of course he isn’t.

    No one works harder at not understanding simple scientific concepts than Bill Cole. 🙂

    0
  38. OMagain,

    How do you know that it is not?

    DNA. A group of 4 nucleotides that have an almost infinite possible ways to arrange these chemicals are organized well enough to build the diverse set of animals we are observing. This level of sequence organization is something only a mind has been observed to generate.

    This group of organized chemicals existed prior to humans. I also think the evidence for the Judaeo Christian God is compelling so we have an answer to where the ability to create this level of organization comes from.

    0
  39. colewd: This group of organized chemicals existed prior to humans.

    Seems likely, humans are late to the scene. Strange the designer waited so long to get to the point.

    I also think the evidence for the Judaeo Christian God is compelling

    Jews do not believe Jesus is divine, which one has compelling evidence , the Christian God or the Jewish God? They are not interchangeable.

    so we have an answer to where the ability to create this level of organization comes from.

    Could come from, unless you assume your conclusion that nature is incapable.

    0
  40. colewd:
    Entropy,
    Total trials are 10^50 given time and populations.

    You keep ignoring what I’m saying. Try harder: accumulation of successful variants. the ancestral variants did something useful, but not the totality of what we see today. It’s not a one go and there! A human brain! It’s from things you’d never recognize as brains through many forms that were more and more like a brain, then brains of varying features and capacities, etc, etc, and now human brains. We can observe, today, a hell of a lot of variants in pseudoneuronal to neuronal systems. From tiny brains to ours. All of them useful to their possessors. Its not a one go deal Bill. It’s not “trials.” Again, you did not get a randomized genome from your parents. You got a set that allowed for your brain to develop, among other things.

    colewd:
    AA sequence space is orders of magnitude larger.

    I’d be worried if this was randomization after randomization with a human brain as a “target.” But that’s not how it works. read above and above and above and try to understand for a change.

    colewd:
    Functional space ratio to sequence space base on sequence alignments is too small for random change to find function.

    While it doesn’t look that way, it doesn’t matter, since this didn’t happen as random trials and trials. This is the result of accumulation of successful variants along lineages.

    colewd:
    There is also more complicated process such as alternative splicing that happens during embryo development that is not conducive to random change.

    Of course not Bill. If it conduced to random change we would not be here. Again. we inherited successful variants. Is this really that hard to grasp?

    colewd:
    How do you know that is the only type of mind that exists?

    It’s you who thinks that minds cannot but be designed. It’s you who ties yourself in that knot. If you think that there can be non-designed “minds,” then what’s the problem?

    0
  41. colewd: DNA. A group of 4 nucleotides that have an almost infinite possible ways to arrange these chemicals are organized well enough to build the diverse set of animals we are observing. This level of sequence organization is something only a mind has been observed to generate.

    Sigh. Bill never gets tired of repeating this lie. Naturally occurring evolutionary processes (random genetic variations and genetic drift filtered through selection) are empirically observed to create increasing information content and increasing complexity in biological life.

    Bill has been shown example after example after example, been provided with science paper after paper after paper but he just won’t get it. The urge to lie for Jesus is just too strong with this one.

    0
  42. Jews do not believe Jesus is divine, which one has compelling evidence , the Christian God or the Jewish God? They are not interchangeable.

    About 20% of young Jews do and it is a growing group especially in Israel called the Messianic Jewish movement. One of the most compelling cases for Jesus life as the Jewish Messiah is the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. Whats compelling is it is translated and supported by those who do not believe the Messiah has arrived. This testimony is both humorous and telling about the evidence for the coming of Jesus in the Tanakh. Isaiah 53 mentioned in the video is from the prophet Isaiah taken directly from the Tanakh.
    https://youtu.be/5sMEkGoojbg

    Could come from, unless you assume your conclusion that nature is incapable.

    You don’t have to assume your conclusion as the sequential nature of DNA and Proteins is compelling evidence against current theory.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.