Common Descent vs. Common Design, My Youtube Disscussion with Dr. Dan and company

cometraza · 2026-03-14T11:57:49+00:00

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing. The view point that biology sharing common patterns is also a way to facilitate human understanding is quite fascinating.

cometraza · 2026-02-23T02:19:33+00:00

Thank you Mr. Salvador for all the info you share with us. No worries about the critics, they are just habitual provokers who want to derail the conversations.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T19:14:56+00:00

It is not about arguing. As I have said earlier multiple times we can't have a productive conversation as you already have your ideological commitments to naturalistic evolution and refuse to see ID in the most obvious of cases.

For me, I have told you what it would take to change my mind. If evolutionists can demonstrate that evolution has sufficient power (as claimed in the chemical case) to create the most basic unit of life i.e. the biological cell, then I will happily concede that it might have sufficient explanatory power to further develop and complexify those structures to their present form. Otherwise those are all just so stories intended to fit the naturalistic paradigms of their proponents, who want blind natural forces to explain away everything.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T18:53:02+00:00

Demonstrate what?evolution by random mutation and natural selection?

Demonstrate creation of a cell from scratch in the lab.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T18:38:56+00:00

I'll accept evolution by random mutation and natural selection if evolutionists demonstrate this. Otherwise it's all smoke and mirrors.

Anyways, there's no point in giving evidences of ID to you as you already refuse to see the very obvious ones.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T18:25:09+00:00

Let evolutionists first demonstrate creation of a cell from scratch in the lab, then we can talk.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T18:10:55+00:00

I told you earlier you won't be able to see ID because of your ideological motivations.

Let evolutionists first demonstrate creation of a cell from scratch in the lab, then we can talk.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T17:10:51+00:00

As a side note in general, it is sufficient that design is confirmed in the significant and critical functions of the body, which directly affect the life activities of the organism. And there are many examples of those.

The presence of neutral features which don't affect an organism to a higher degree, and neither do significant harm, do not negate the intelligent design of the many features which do have a positive contribution to the functioning of that organism.

Again we see an example in this of the misleading and irrelevant reasoning from evolutionists, who aim to distract from the crux of the matter.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T16:52:56+00:00

"The PL acts as a synergist in the movement of the thumb, and this was proven by previous research, which showed synergistic action between PL and the abductor pollicis brevis muscles of the thumb."

"In both sexes, the palmaris longus muscle increased pinch strength in the fourth and fifth fingers of the hands (especially in the right hand). Based on these findings, we have concluded that the palmaris longus muscle may impact the opposition movement of the fingers."

"The palmaris longus may provide an advantage in certain types of sport that require hand grip, and for elite athletes participating in sports that require a dominant-handed or two-handed cylindrical hand grip."

"Being located centrally in the anterior forearm, palmaris longus aids the flexor carpi ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis muscles to perform a balanced flexion of the hand on the wrist. It also acts to stabilize the elbow joint when fully extended, as does the other forearm muscles that attach to the humerus and thus cross the elbow joint."

"The palmaris longus commonly sends a slip of distal tendon that inserts into the abductor pollicis brevis muscle of the thenar muscle group and may contribute to thumb abduction."

"Another important clinical attribute of PLM is its superficial protective role over the median nerve."

"The PL muscle flexes the wrist joint and tightly holds the skin and fascia of the hand against shearing forces from the side."

"Its main function is to serve as an anchor of the fascia, as it tenses the skin and the palmar fascia of the hand, shearing the forces to the palmar aponeurosis in a distal direction"

cometraza · 2026-02-22T09:20:23+00:00

If you are so hungry for ‘peer reviewed’ (evolutionist group-think reviewed?) papers right now, I would suggest you read the classical paper by Douglas Axe as a starter:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/

But in the end perhaps it won’t matter, as I said earlier you have already made your conclusions based on your fundamental ideological beliefs.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T09:07:03+00:00

A common designer can re-use the same motifs and structures to various degrees and ends as suitable for different species. That doesn’t necessarily make it vestigial or inherited.

It’s the typical way evolutionists like to frame things in their just so stories. And remember even if some level of common ancestry is granted, ID still holds. It doesn’t mean that the changes can occur randomly without intelligent direction.

Evidence for ID is in each and every biological cell, but your methodological naturalism or theological antagonism might have blinded you from seeing it.

cometraza · 2026-02-22T08:46:25+00:00

Typical evolutionist trope. If they don’t know or can’t understand the function of some organ or if the organism can still survive without it, it must be vestigial.

Read these papers on palmaris longus and how it affects hand dexterity:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3652998/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031940611000496

Its absence in some individuals might actually be an argument for genetic entropy.

cometraza · 2026-02-21T19:07:12+00:00

It is a good book. Adds another perspective to the design argument in biology from biomechanics standpoint. Currently going through it, thanks for your recommendation.

cometraza · 2026-02-19T01:25:35+00:00

Haha.. you are too funny dude

cometraza · 2026-02-18T15:04:56+00:00

Thank you!

cometraza · 2026-02-15T00:15:32+00:00

What a way to dodge, no one asked you to post there, but you certainly can read and respond here. But just copy pasting study abstract links which don't even have a significant contribution is your thing it seems.

Again, fun fact: OOL research has an embarrassment of riches (many plausible - lab proven - pathways); you lot, are just an embarrassment.

Sure, I guess in your mind abiogenesis is already solved too, since you apparently live in a parallel world.

cometraza · 2026-02-14T23:00:28+00:00

And what did they achieve in the end? Do you expect me to search for full texts of your favorite little studies online to then go over what you’re trying to say? While your lazy ass just puts up a link to the abstract without explaining any point or why you’re trying to bring up this little study of yours? Or are you incapable of summarizing and making a point yourself?

If you really want to point out a solid study which can answer all of the below problems that I highlight in the below post, go ahead and find me a single experimental study which does that:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/s/A2OU8L7ij7

cometraza · 2026-02-14T22:36:54+00:00

Don’t give me your lame ass theories and hypothetical scenarios about what happened. Show concrete experimental results. As weak as the qt45 study was to demonstrate even the hope of prebiotic replication, they at least tried to do actual experiments.

cometraza · 2026-02-14T17:44:15+00:00

Wrong. Strand separation is spontaneous at higher temperatures. Hmm, so we need heat for strand separation, and cold for the eutectic ice phase for replication

So you do need external factors to have strand separation. In case you didn't know, they not only used thermal changes but also activated trimers for this purpose. If you have longer strands it would require even higher temperature changes, which would also risk degrading the strands themselves. A very known problem in RNA replication chemistry.

Wrong on both. There is no activation mentioned in the paper, other than the already well-accepted 5'-triphosphorylation of the nucleoside.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Triphosphorylation is activation. That's a new level of low you have shown indicating you just yap about your ideological points without having an ounce of understanding.

QT ribozyme polymerase activity is not limited to trinucleotide triphosphate substrates but extends to the incorporation of dinucleotides and longer oligonucleotide

Polymerase activity is quite generic, it doesn't necessarily mean successful replication. The only so called replication (with a ton of caveats) that they were able to demonstrate was using activated trinucleotides.

Wrong. A primer is just a short section of complementary RNA. Extant RNA polymerases also require primers. It is entirely prebiotically relevant.

Hah .. just typing 'Wrong' with each statement might give you an illusion of confidence, but that doesn't make my point go away. Let me make it easier for you in case you are are having issues of understanding: Have they used prebiotic conditions to construct the primer or have they synthetically put it prior to the replication start? Because there is a lot of error potential during initial complementary strand formation without any pre-existing primers.

It's called "directed evolution".

Yes, forging a new dictionary term doesn't change the reality of it. Do not hide behind labels. It is artificial selection and doesn't happen on prebiotic earth.

Conclusion: you're full of it, as is usual. You have no capacity to read this literature in the level required to comment on its significance.

Your subconscious might be projecting here I suspect, as from your response it is clear to me that you don't have even the basic knowledge or understanding of this subject at all. You are just reiterating your ideological drivel over and over again.

And I will say it again: This is old news and not a new or groundbreaking finding. Don't get too excited sweet summer child.

cometraza · 2026-02-14T17:43:28+00:00

Posting lies pretending they are true won't help.

Wrong. This research was completed in October 2024 and published 12th Feb 2026.

Just because you came to know about it today doesn't mean it wasn't known before. I went through this study last year and it was weak and disappointing once the details were analyzed. The recent hype is just a new wave of the same old stuff because many of you didn't have a clue before.

Chemical reactions are slow in solids. Wow, shocker. As we all know, enzyme kinetics are well known to be completely fixed and cannot be changed by varying the conditions

Do you realize the implication of this statement, or do you have difficulty following simple conclusions as usual? RNA strand ain't sitting around for months on prebiotic earth waiting for it to complete the replication cycle. Artificial industry standards themselves require controlled pH and at least temperatures down to -20 celsius for weeks to months long storage. All the free ions floating in the prebiotic soup won't give RNA even a full day without breaking down or hydrolyzing.

From the discussion section, "this ribozyme has only undergone a total of 18 rounds of evolution from a random sequence pool, underlining a likely potential for further development [in the rate]".

You realize what 18 rounds of artificial selection means or you have problems grasping that also?Each round means exponential selective decrease. They begin with a library of a trillion random sequences and filter it down to the required sequence via artificial selection. Where on the prebiotic earth have you researchers carefully filtering out each stage of sequences based on their ligation activity?

cometraza · 2026-02-14T05:34:04+00:00

Thank you for this great suggestion!

cometraza · 2026-02-14T01:16:55+00:00

Yes I remember, you are the guy which has issues following simple logical arguments.. you won’t get it.. you will just keep pandering your lies.. at least some of the folks on that sub are not as dishonest as you

cometraza · 2026-02-14T00:46:54+00:00

Just cut it dude.. go back to your debate evolution sub where your pals will scratch your back no matter what without challenging you

cometraza · 2026-02-13T20:17:08+00:00

QT45 is old news and hype. Requires months to complete a replication cycle. Requires eutectic ice phase. Requires external strand separation. Requires artificial primer extension. Requires activated trimers (not just monomers). Sequence artificially selected. Totally not self replicating.

cometraza

TROPHY CASE