Originally Posted by wogoga
I expressed no beliefs about how axon guidance works. Nor ddid I claim that the beliefs that I don't have were correct. Nor did the views that I didn't express have contradictions in them.
My point, let me restate it, is that lacking a complete explanation for something does not allow you to conclude that psychons are doing it, still less to take the absence
of a complete explanation as evidence for psychons.
This is not true.
Another sign of dogmatism is ignoring facts.
Look up, e.g.
Just as I challenged you to find an enzyme without a gene, now I'd like you to find a metabolic process without an enzyme of functional RNA.
I am not sure which of many facts well-known to biologists you're trying to refer to, but the mechanisms underlying these facts are well-known and do not involve psychons doing magic.
Now, let's make it simple. Find me a polypeptide without a gene
. It's a simple question. Don't waffle, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, fiind a polypeptide without a gene.
I know that; I have no idea why you mention it.
Every polypeptide is a polypeptide. Do you mean that most of them don't have a stable tertiary structure?
It would be even more unlikely if an unstable
structure could act as a catalyst.
Yes, biology is robust, isn't it?
I know that, too. This is just standard creationist fare. "It's complicated, so it can't have evolved".
But the fact (which you denied above) that computer programs and electronic circuits and so forth produced by variation and selection show similar complexity despite a similar apparent lack of robustness shows that your incredulity is misplaced.