A Battle of Predictions: Junk DNA's 'Kuhnian' Paradigm Shift
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Prevailing scientific assumptions often die hard, especially when they fit so neatly into an evolutionary view of the development of life on earth. On this episode of ID The Future from the archive, Dr. Casey Luskin gives host Andrew McDiarmid the scoop on one of the biggest mistakes in science of our lifetime: the concept of "junk DNA." Even if you’ve already heard this episode, listen again, and then share it with a friend! The myth of junk DNA is a major example of why a Darwinian paradigm can slow the progress of science, while a design perspective can open up new avenues for research and discovery.
Find additional show notes at idthefuture.com.
Watch the latest episode of Long Story Short: The Myth of Junk DNA:
• The MYTH of Junk DNA (... - Hudba
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
paradigms are very important to examine! Great talk!
In retrospect, wasn't it foolish and short-sighted to designate any DNA as "junk"?
Considering genes are code for a list of parts. Anyone who thought the rest of the genetic code was junk was a complete moron and that includes Dawkins.
Precisely. Darwinian Orthodoxy is no stranger to that. They also did it with organs such as your appendix. Many people even today believe that the appendix is useless. This is not true at all, but a decade ago they would have told you to just get it removed like wisdom teeth as a preventative measure, assuming that it’s useless. Now a doctor will tell you not to get it removed unless it’s actively bursting or will be a problem, because it’s an important part of your immune system. One would think if people would stop believing in Darwinian Mythology they would progress science much faster
World views colour the importance or rejection of facts. If that world view states evolutionary biology is sacrosanct, it will not matter if the opposing scale is glued to the floor while theirs is bumping cloudbase... it just ain't so.
I wish someone smarter than me, would create a plot, showing how much % of the DNA was found to be useful, vs. historical time. It would be so cool to see the number hang at about 2% and then, boom, it starts climbing towards 100% as we approach today's time-point,
It would be cool if that's what happened in reality, but it is not. First, because there was never a time when only 2% of the genome was considered useful, and anyone suggesting otherwise is ignorant of the history the field. Instead, it has been understood since the 1960s that many non-coding parts of the genome were functional. Transcriptional RNAs, ribosomal RNAs, and regulatory regions were all known before the origin of the term 'junk DNA', so it is simply a lie to say that the term has ever meant all non-coding DNA. So your chart would need to start at a much higher value.
And while that percent has increased over time, it is certainly not climbing towards 100%. In fact, the more we discover, the harder it is to find the next bit of functionality, resulting in logarithmic curve that is approaching an asymptote certainly less than 25%.
If function of non coding DNA was known before junk DNA was proposed much deception was perpetrated upon us
@@Crispr_CAS9 Hard to find != not in existence
Hey guys, fairly new in this side of the debate. I am a Christian, and I'm looking to compile some more information.
I'm wondering if there are atheist scientists who come up with % or probabilities of various evolutionary processes? A defence for the secular world view is that these numbers are calculated by creationists.
Can anyone offer some good info or answers on the matter? Many thanks.
Evolution isn't about probabilities. That assumes that evolution is random. It is not.
It's not very hard to see the fallacies in evolutionary theory. Just think, "what would the species look like if evolution explained the origin of species
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440You are making assertions without any clarification.
The naturalistic position is that there are 5 evolutionary processes that cause change; non-random mating, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. I don't know why you are saying that evolution is not random, when clearly some of these processes, like mutation, is inherently random. I'm not saying any of these are strong enough to cause real change, but with regards to micro evolution it seems to be enough. Of course phenotypic plasticity is orchestrated against the environment to cause guided change, which obviously isn't random. But you are presenting the entirety of evolution as not random.
Maybe I am getting percentages and probabilities mixed up with origin of life, but I'm sure I've heard someone say that mutations on average need to happen 12 times in a population to have a chance of being selected.
The "G" in recognize is not silent.
if you pronounce it, it is certainly isn't
I guess a lot of people pronounce it 'Reconize'
I wonder about the information in trees. Trees have almost 70 times more DNA than humans.
Sounds like godspells.... junk dna is regulatory.... we look forward to the day when we know what the whole genome functions and can make super humans !
So if "Junk DNA" is specifically used to refer to non-coding DNA, and there is non-coding DNA as this program agrees, how is the term incorrect?
That non coding DNA has function. That is what makes it not junk.
Here is an attempt to debunk the foundational theories of Newton and Einstein from the perspective of the infinitesimal monadological framework:
Newton's Classical Mechanics
1) The basic ontology of precise point masses and particles is incoherent from the start. By treating matter as extensionless geometric points rather than irreducible pluralistic perspectival origins (monads), the theory cannot represent real physical entities in a non-contradictory way.
2) Newton's notion of absolute space and time as a fixed inertial stage is undermined. Space and time lack autonomy as background entities - they must be derived from the web of infinitesimal relational monadic perspectives and correlations.
3) The instantaneous action-at-a-distance for gravity/forces is inconsistent. All interactions must be mediated by discrete particularities propagating across adjacent monadic perspectives to avoid non-locality paradoxes.
4) The deterministic laws of motion are over-idealized. Indeterminism arises inevitably from the need to sum over infinitesimal realizability potentials in the monadic probability statevector.
5) The geometric infinities in the point-mass potentials cannot be properly regulated, indicating a failure of classical limits and continuum idealization.
In essence, Newton's mechanics rests on reifying abstract mathematical fictions - precise points, absolute background spaces/times, strict determinism. Monadological pluralism rejects such contradictory infinities in favor of finitary discreteness from first principles.
Einstein's General Relativity
1) General covariance and background independence are overstated given the persisting role of an inertial reference frame, indicating unresolved geometric idealization.
2) The manifold premises of treating spacetime as a differentiable 4D continuum are ungrounded given the ontological primacy of discrete perspectives.
3) Representing gravity as curvature tensions the representation to its singularity breakdown points where the theory fatally fails.
4) Relativity cannot be fundamentally unified with quantum theories given the reliance on incompatible spacetime idealizations.
5) The theory excludes the primacy of subjective conscious observations, instead reifying an abstracted unobserved "block universe."
While impressively extending Newton's geometric systemization, Einstein remained bound by over-idealized continuum geometric axioms inherited from classical math. True general invariance and background independence require overthrowing these in favor of intrinsically discrete, pluralistic, observation-grounded foundations.
Both theories imposed precise Euclidean 3D geometric fictions persisting from ancient Greek abstractions - Platonic ideals reified as physical reality rather than subjectively-constructed mathematical fictions.
The infinitesimal monadological framework grants revolutionary primacy to discrete pluralistic perspectives, the source of continuous geometric observables derived as holistic stationary resonances. Only such a reconceptualization escapes geometry's self-contradictions.
By grounding reality in finitary discreteness and irreducible subjective pluralisms, consistent with the metaphysical facts of first-person conscious experience, the entire Archimedean/Euclidean/Newtonian geometric edifice undergoes a *Kuhnian* revolutionary overthrow. Paradox-free plurisitic physics demands such an audacious "Fin de Siecle" monadological rebirth.
While immensely fruitful, Newton and Einstein's theories ultimately succumbed to self-undermining geometric infinities and exclusions of subjective observers - overly reifying sanitized mathematical abstractions as detached "transcendent" ontological characterizations. The infinitesimal monadological framework restores physics to firmer foundations by refusing to segregate the symbolic from the experiential.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox?
A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions.
Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity?
A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality.
Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia?
A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer.
Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.?
A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism.
Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc?
A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start.
Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc?
A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality.
By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities:
1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity
Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions:
Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab)
Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab.
Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes.
2. Pluriversal Superpositions
We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations:
|Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c)
Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn.
The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution.
3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities
The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations:
(a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn
Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations.
4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting
The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes:
Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)]
Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration.
In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering:
1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions
2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations
3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings
4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings
By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.
Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry:
1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes
Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi
Pref(R/S) = f(Φn)
Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness.
2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics
Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries
dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals)
κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities)
Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals.
3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes
Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Pluralistic Quantum Superposition
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives)
Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties)
Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms.
4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes
Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies
d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics)
LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits.
The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales.
Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry:
5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter
Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p)
Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p)
Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads.
6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Complementary Pluriverse Observables
Δx Δp ≥ h/4π
Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles)
xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x)
Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity.
7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond
Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations
Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions)
|Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states)
Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations.
8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow
Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics
S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn)
pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies)
dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization)
Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms.
In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.
Here are several classical contradictions in biology and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological perspective:
1. Origin of Life Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes around abiogenesis, homochirality, first replicators
Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal protolife monadic transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(ℓ)[sj, sk] + ξi
ℓ = f(n1...nm) is monad configuration
2. Molecular Binding Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes in protein folding, substrate specificity
Non-Contradictory: Nonlinear monadic multiplex resonances
|Φ> = Σn cn Un(Sα) |0> (superposed protolife states)
Wn,m = (monad binding coefficients)
3. Genetic Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like non-viability of certain gene combinations
Non-Contradictory: Pluriverse-valued genetic realizability
⌈Φ⌉ = {Ui(Φ) | i ∈ N} (genotypes as monadic realizations)
Φ ↔ Ψ ⇐⇒ ⌈Φ⌉ = ⌈Ψ⌉ (equivalence over pluriverse)
4. Neurological Binding Paradoxes
Classical: Binding problem paradoxes, separability paradoxes
Non-Contradictory: Relational pluriverse neural geometries
|Ω> = Σn pn Un(Nn) (superposition of neural monad states)
Geodesic[Nn](a,b)→Paths[Σn p(n)Uap →q Ubq] (experience paths)
5. Evolution Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like irreducible complexity, Muller's ratchet
Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal transitions on fitness landscapes
dfx/dt = Div(∇fxFx) + ξx (monadic exploratory dynamics)
Fx = Γ(x, {xj}) (catalytic fitness relations)
6. Paradoxes in Embryogenesis
Classical: Paradoxes like random determination of chirality
Non-Contradictory: Resonant infinitesimal monadic transitions
dαi/dt = Σj Γij(αi,αj) + ξi (coordinated determinative algebras)
Γij = f(ni, nj, rij) (chiro-isomeric transition charges)
The key themes are using infinitesimal monadic transition processes, relational resonance algebras, pluriverse-valued realizability, and higher-dimensional resonant superpositions to resolve paradoxes stemming from classical separability assumptions, random determinacy, and failure to account for integrated pluralistic structures underlying biological phenomena.
By building models from infinitesimal relational pluralisms as conceptual primitives, the apparent contradictions dissolve into coherent higher-dimensional resonance dynamics between monadic elements and their catalytic interaction algebras across scales.
Here are 6 more examples of classical biological contradictions and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological framework:
7. Paradoxes in Evolutionary Game Theory
Classical: Paradoxes like evolutionary unstable strategies
Non-Contradictory: Monadic Stochastic Replicator Dynamics
dxi/dt = xi(fi(x) - φ(x)) (selection-mutation equation)
fi(x) = Σj Γij(x) uj(x) (monadic fitness from relational algebras)
8. Circadian Rhythm Paradoxes
Classical: Paradoxes like inconsistency of molecular clocks
Non-Contradictory: Harmonic Infinitesimal Cronometric Resonances
Ψ(t) = Σn cn Un(Bt) (superposed monadic clock states)
Un(Bt) = Πi Γni(Biti) (integrated relational chronometers)
9. Paradoxes in Ecosystem Dynamics
Classical: Paradoxes like overshoot, cyclic attractions
Non-Contradictory: Pluriversal Ecodynamic Geometries
dN/dt = f(N, K, r...) + Δ (pluriversal population dynamics)
Δ = Div(Γ∇N) (relational ecosystem interaction flows)
10. The Paradox of Biological Computation
Classical: Paradox of how molecules perform computation
Non-Contradictory: Logogrammatic Biophotonic Codons
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(M) (superposed biomolecular vocables)
Un(M) = Πi Γni(Mi) (integrated relational codices)
11. The Evolution of Consciousness Paradox
Classical: Paradox of subjective experience emerging
Non-Contradictory: Plurinomenal Resonant Anthropics
Cn = Φn |0> (first-person qualia state)
|Ω> = ⊗n Cn (cohered pluriversal experience)
12. The Ontogeny/Phylogeny Paradox
Classical: Paradox of developmental/evolutionary interactions
Non-Contradictory: Fractal Biolinguistic Generative Grammars
L = G(Σ, N, P, S) (biolinguistic production system)
P = {Uα → Uβ Uγ} (plurinominal rewrite transitions)
The key themes continues to be representing biological phenomena using infinitesimal relational resonances, pluriversal superpositions, logogrammatic algebras, first-person experience from cohered pluralities, and fractal self-similar generative structures - rather than classical separable, deterministic models.
This allows reconceiving seemingly paradoxical biological processes as coherent higher-dimensional resonances between relational pluralistic elements across scales, unified within a common infinitesimal algebraic framework resolving contradictions.
What are you even trying to do? Do you not understand that satellites depend on Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's conception of time dilation to function properly? It's hilarious that you're trying to debunk theories on a platform that could only have been invented with those theories.
Why would an "intelligent" God design a cockroach? It points rather to Stupid Design.
If you were smart enough to Google "what use are cockroaches" you might find out.😅😅
Average atheist argument:
@@crabb9966 You aren't being judgmental are you?
You aren't being judgmental are you?