grow something, watch the leaves turn. There is your first step.
To me the wing lacks the complexity I desire to truly challenge the complex machine paradigm of ID.
DNA and RNA polymerase. These things are freaking insane in their complexity. And yet they to are rather amenable to intermediate deconstruction.
It is what separates science from myth.
These things need to be falsifiable and testable.
Darwin all but required what we later discovered ... DNA, a highly heritable structure dependent on an enzyme with a low but steady error rate, with adequate fidelity to afford continued life, but with an error rate, a known error rate, and error rate that simply generates diversity ... most of which fails (we call it genetic disease).
It is imaginable that DNA polymerase could be perfect, but the likelihood is an organism with such would fail over time. We require error, we require (sadly) casualties. Our world is dynamic, I believe that DNA polymerase has been honed to the EXACT level of fidelity that best serves durability. Hence, we have the DNA molecular clock that we use for dating. Life settled on the optimum error rate a long long time ago. To me it is rather dramatic. To me it provides all of the awe and mystery that some seek in faith.
Darwin said well before what we know, that their must be a process to generate diversity. A sound scientific prediction requiring a scientific finding to substantiate his notions. THose findings, those predictions are fully extant. We know know all of these things, the molecular basis of heredity, the molecular basis for diversity generation, and the measurable basis for selection.
The dude nailed it. Good work Charlie.
| 