I agree. I first started thinking about how the whole naturalistic tale was like a fairy tale many years ago when reading about cosmology. The tale starts before the big bang and extends all the way to the present (including abiogenesis and several aspects of evolution). Despite the fact that we know that technology, meaningful specified codes/languages only arise from intelligent design, their tale invokes the mysterious forces of time, warm ponds, cold comets, singularities, dark matter, dark energy, more recently dark flow, multiverses, undetectable strings, and so on and so forth. The mental gyrations that they need to invoke just to make their just so tale seem even remotely possible are astounding.

It seems to me, if their theories don’t seem to work, they just invent some imaginary force, or imaginary sets of conditions, that can’t be detected and never falsified. If they are lucky enough to falsify something, they just invent something new that is unmeasurable to plug the holes in their theories.

I was reading a description of how life started, from non-life to life, the other day. I thought to myself: this sounds just like a fairy tale. They have all these detailed descriptions of how it happened yet they lack two things: any proof in the labs that it could happen, and any proof that it happened in the past.

Most evolutionists also conveniently forget the fact that ANY and ALL forms of meaningful, specified codes/languages arise from intelligence. We know of literally no other way of creating these codes/languages aside from intelligence Yet when we find it in organisms they still try to explain it through random processes or through repetitive laws of nature.

Naturalistic Fairy Tales

Thanks Patrick for illustrating how an common Designer would achieve the same end.

Ah yes, more mayhap and suggestion. We can ignore the facts now, ignore the data, and go on with the suggestion-to-assumption that evolution is responsible for this. Soon the sheer volume of opinionated papers will suffice as proof the suggestion is true.

Horizontal gene transfer with the animals is going to turn out to be more widespread than anybody believes now.

And if it doesn’t turn out to be true textbooks will be printed as if it were because [queue robotic brainwashed monotone] Evolution is true…is true…is true…WHACK Evolution is true because truth is Evolution and Evolution is true.

When that realization comes down, it will definitely change the way people think about evolution.”

No it won’t. When that realization comes down –as official dogma pounded hard from the university pulpits, it will be seen by those without Darwin’s wooly beard over the eyes as hemming & hawing and excuse making for something that was only suggested to have happened.

A stinger is DESIGNED for a purpose, for defense and/or paralyzation of prey. Blind-dead-dumb-mindless chance cannot account for it in any way.

But after that initial assertion it became increasingly clear they cannot tell if the bacterium received the gene from the jellyfish or the other way around (their preferred interpretation).

Or if all instances of the usage of this gene are front-loaded. While these people would be unlikely to consider that interpretation, what they may do is posit that the vast majority of genes were generated early in life’s history. Not very different from the ID scenario except for the source of the information.

It is not yet clear how the transfer might have occurred, or why this particular gene would be so well-travelled.

That’s one thing that’s always bugged me about HGT research. The focus always seems to be on “merely” a successful transfer. NOT on how the receiving organism/plant/animal/whatever will somehow transform this “new gene” into a constructively functional system or component that gives a survival advantage. One thing is clear, that information is in the regulation, not the gene itself, since the creatures using this gene are using it for a wide variety of functionality.

Rabet responds that since the PGA synthase gene is approximately 1000 bases long, it is statistically unlikely to be the product of multiple distinct genes converging on the same sequence

Heh. If these 1000 bases compose an IC core I’d say “statistically unlikely” is an understatement…that’s 2000 informational bits!

Scientists are finding that horizontal gene transfer, once thought to be the domain of single-celled critters, is not uncommon in the animal world, says Syvanen.

In that regard:

The Edge of HGT

Darwin’s Legacy

HGT from GMOs Does Happen

“Horizontal gene transfer with the animals is going to turn out to be more widespread than anybody believes now. When that realization comes down, it will definitely change the way people think about evolution.”

Now I’ve thought for years that a smart Designer–whether it be a Designer reuse or front-loading scenario–would incorporate transport mechanisms to share information in a network-like fashion. Why? So everything can respond relatively quickly to an environment that can change rapidly. This would be Directed HGT, in contrast to Darwinist’s preference for Undirected/Non-Foresighted HGT. The problem is, if such a system as Directed HGT were to deteriorate (genetic entropy), and the organisms responsible for transportation simplified until they were survival-oriented replicators, thus becoming Undirected, then such a system could cause chaos (cancers, toxic reactions, etc. as noted in research). My hope is that if such a purposeful system was intended it did not rely on serendipity and thus we might hope to discover functional remnants.

As I’m sure most are aware, a patch is a small piece of carefully designed software that can modify a computer program to include fixes and updates.
These patches are being applied surreptitiously.

He has now come up with a theory that random lateral transfer of code between different binary executables on his PC are resulting in his favourite program running faster and acquiring brand new functionality. Chance be praised !